Asking help for those that don't agree with Product Activation
pcgamer
Product Activation in Retail boxed PC Game titles I ask you
all to read and sign if you agree this petition I made.
http://www.petitiononline.com/NewHL2SE/
Yes it is specifically for a certain title, Half-Life 2 but
I will personally sign any petition made to ask to remove
product activation in any Retail PC Game.
Even if you don't like this specific game and you are not
interested in buying it at least think of this as a way to
show you are against Product Activation in a Retail PC Game
This has nothing to do with Steam online delivery system.
This is only about Product Activation present in a Retail
Boxed CD or DVD PC Game.
Thank You
eddys...@hotmail.com
pcgamer wrote:
> For those that don't want to see a future of PC Games with
> Product Activation in Retail boxed PC Game titles I ask you
> all to read and sign if you agree this petition I made.
Pfft - petitions are a waste of time - vote with your wallet : don't
buy StarForce, Activation required, <insert pet pieve> games
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Roderick
game if you don't agree with it, or find similar games that don't use
it. I wouldn't hold my breath for Valve budging off Steam any time
soon, they seem to be doing quite well with it. They are offering more
games on it as it ramps up, I saw and ad for Dangerous Waters and Space
Empires IV.
I've never had any bad luck with online activation, other than having
to tell the rep at Digital River that I didn't owe him and explanation
as to how I lost my key for Front Office Football back in the day. I
can see it becoming an issue if the company goes out of business, guess
I'll have to deal with that when it happens. Hopefully the company
would release an unlocked .exe.
Roderick
Darin Johnson
> guess I'll have to deal with that when it happens. Hopefully the
> company would release an unlocked .exe.
Don't count on it. If most game companies can't be bothered to come
out with patches while they're in business and the game is still on
the shelf, what are the chances they'll spend the money to create a
unlock patch as they go under?
--
Darin Johnson
htm...@gmail.com
Sheldon England
>
>
Indeed! Good post. Clear and concise. No misinformation. I like it.
- Sheldon
Dirk Gross
before XP and it refused to work at all with it, even in compatibility mode.
Talonsoft's response was that the game was only promised to work on '98 or
ME. Turns out the problem was Safedisk that prevented it from working; the
game otherwise worked fine. A no-cd crack fixed it. Talonsoft never even
bothered with a patch to an updated safedisk, instead just leaving
purchasers of their product who don't know about such things as no-cd cracks
high and dry after they updated their computers.
Dirk
"Darin Johnson" <da...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1138389232.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Lewis
Of course not, their creditors would not permit any expenditure
which resulted in further loss of money to the bottom line.
John Lewis
>--
>Darin Johnson
>
John Lewis
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Er, exactly what is wrong with Starforce, other than making
it difficult to pirate, run (er) "backup-copies" or run "no-CD" ?
There is a Starforce uninstaller readily available should it
be found to contend with legitimate DVD/CD authoring
software. Starforce is automatically reinstalled should a Starforce
-protected game be played again.
With a Starforce-protected ( or other form of on-disk-protection)
game, I get to properly feel that I "own" it ( regardless of EULA
weasel-words) and can dispose of it any way that I want, donate,
gift, trade, sell, with zero "activation" problems for the next owner.
Also, the game can be readily patched to any desired level from
a stand-alone patch archive.... unlike Steam.
John Lewis
Warewolf
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Understandably slim but that didn't stop QV/Enlight from distributing a
patch to *disable* to copy protection on X2. That, in my opinion, is (part
of) how things should be done.
Signed,
Warewolf
wrosecrans
few games that I was considering buying, but realised that they had
activation or similar measures, and I decided that I simply wouldn't
buy them. As far as it goes, this is good for me. I don't have to
worry that my game won't be playable several years down the road, and I
don't have to worry that it will interfere with some of the important
software I use on my machine for work. (I don't play games enough to
justify dedicating a second PC to gaming.) Since I tend to play a new
game a bit for a few weeks, put it on a shelf, and rediscover it a few
years later, activation is something I just won't put up with.
So, a few game companies have lost sales. What does it tell them?
Directly, nothing. They don't know if their art wasn't flashy enough,
or if their anti-piracy measures weren't draconian enough. But, when
customers go the extra step of vocally demonstrating *why* they didn't
buy the product, a company has a chance of hearing it.
No, an online petition alone won't change anything. But, if particular
games are obviously selling less than they otherwise would, for very
clear reasons, a developer/publisher can see that it is plainly in
their own financial interests to respond to the desires of their
customers. Maybe voicing your opinion will amount to nothing, but
keeping your opinion silent is guaranteed to amount to nothing.
That said, is there a good online database showing what games have what
sort of anti-piracy measures so that I can avoid them carefully?
Epi Watkins
wrose...@gmail.com says...
I try to keep important software off of my computer. I worry about that
more than any copy-protection scheme.
--
Epi
----
The boy done good this time.
What an album.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
Warewolf
news:1138346741.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Then I guess the PS3 will fail miserably since Sony announced that it will
use/require a product activation scheme on all PS3 games.
Every game for the system will come with a unique ID code that will
automatically be registered to a particular console - this is intended to
prevent rentals, re-sales and, of course, 'rampant amounts of piracy'.
Then again, after that DRM-debacle, I'm left wondering if they've
considered the possibility of lost sales due to the heavy costs of
replacing disks registered with defective PS3s. }:^)
Although I think that companies like Capcom, SNK and Taito/Millions should
earn an honest profit, I think that Sony and any other company that tries
to cheat its customers (especially with bad games and destructive 'copy
protection schemes') should burn in Hell.
Signed,
Warewolf
who won't be supporting supporting Namco until they improve their PC
'Museum'.
rlsuth
"John Lewis" <john...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:43dbc438...@news.verizon.net...
>
> Er, exactly what is wrong with Starforce, other than making
> it difficult to pirate, run (er) "backup-copies" or run "no-CD" ?
>
Maybe you should do some research into a subject you embrace:
http://www.joystiq.com/2004/12/29/steves-picks-the-stories-of-2004-4/
http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/index.php?fn=view_thread&t=526623
More alarmingly, Starforce hooks into two Microsoft drivers:
1= classpnp.sys: all Read/Write operation <-- This means it see's
everything written or read from your drives
2= netbt.sys; all operation (except load/unload) <-- and this allows it to
send any information it likes back to Starforce without you knowing it and
without you being able to block it, short of disconnecting from the
internet......for good (unless you uninstall Starforce).
More, if you have any sort of writtable DVD/CD-RW on your system, once you
install Starforce, you have a better than average chance of not being able
to use it again, unless you reflash it.
This goes on and on. Do some research if you really want to know (and look
into how exposing ring 0 to all ring 3 applications really opens a huge
security hole on your PC).
Terry
"pcgamer" <pcgame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138342291.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Petition signed
Brad Wardell
"Terry" <te...@tbean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:drhv20$co6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
consumer?
Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>
Briarroot
>
> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
> simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
> consumer?
I've never had any objections to CD checks, but then I'm not a laptop
owner. As far as Product Activation goes, if it's properly done, it's
the best system save that of no form of copy protection at all.
If it were easy for individuals to reinstall software they have
previously purchased on new or upgraded PCs, no one would have ever
formed a dislike for Product Activation. Objections have arisen because
many publishers have made the process so difficult that it becomes a
royal PITA. That's the big problem, you see. Some publishers who use
Product Activation have made it so exceedingly difficult to reinstall
their software that petitions like the above begin to circulate. We've
been burned before and we are now leery of the whole scheme.
IMNSHO, properly done Product Activation involves receiving a key code;
usually a file which is placed in the game's main directory and is
readily identifiable and therefore easily reusable. Admittedly, this
can be (and certainly will be) abused, but it's far more desirable for
us consumers than software that must "phone home" before it can be used,
and cannot be installed more than once. I won't buy software like that
if I can avoid it.
However, I did not have a problem with GalCiv (other than trying to
obtain patches without using Stardock!), but I never tried to reinstall
it on a new system either. If I had, what would have been the result?
What would I have had to go through to reinstall GalCiv using the same
product activation code that I had originally used?
REH
"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
news:WdadnZsgZ-XcHUHe...@comcast.com...
> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with
> a simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
> consumer?
>
> Brad
> --
> Brad Wardell
> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>
"good for the consumer"? I detest activation systems. Usually when someone
says that they are derided at a pirate. I'm not. I've been purchasing
games and other types of software for almost thirty years now. Activation
systems making me feel like I'm being treated like a criminal by the very
company that took my money. These schemes will never stop pirates anyways.
Software can be look at and modified, even in its object form. The only
person activation schemes are not good for it the consumer. I don't want to
have to use the internet to ask permission to use software I own (err, I
mean "license." The EULA good for us too, huh?). I don't like pirates
either, and I find all the arguments people use to justify it utter crap.
But do not punish me when you go after them. I probably spend a few grand a
year on software, the majority being games. I do not purchase ones with
Orwellian protection schemes on them, or ones that make me ask mommy before
I can play them. Of course, I'd be less upset if they weren't all
bug-ridden or sequels.
Giftzwerg
bwar...@stardock.com says...
> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
> simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
> consumer?
Nice try, but there's nothing either "simple" or "one-time" about an
activation scheme that's going to (a) accuse me of being a criminal the
moment I change my computing setup, and (b) force me to phone up and beg
some English-as-third-language drone that some of us *do* replace our
hardware from time to time.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"While we have an incredibly long fuse, at the end of the day it's
connected to an incredibly big bomb."
- Dennis Miller
Quaestor
>Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
>
That's good.
>But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
>simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>consumer?
>
>
Sounds about like shrub saying that wiretapping Americans without a
warrant is good for his war.
Better is to simply sell the thing, just as has been done for thousands
of years. All your pitiful efforts to screw around with copying will
not stop those who are determined to copy, you only inconvenience
legitimate buyers with that crap.
--
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html
Dirk Gross
you swap that motherboard or buy a new computer.
By the way, is this quote from Warewolf factual?
>Then I guess the PS3 will fail miserably since Sony announced that it will
use/require a product activation scheme on all PS3 games.
Every game for the system will come with a unique ID code that will
automatically be registered to a particular console - this is intended to
prevent rentals, re-sales and, of course, 'rampant amounts of piracy'.
Then again, after that DRM-debacle, I'm left wondering if they've
considered the possibility of lost sales due to the heavy costs of
replacing disks registered with defective PS3s.<
I don't have a newer game system; I got my girls a Gamecube several years
ago which they use sparingly. If this is true, who would buy one? It's a
complete change in the way kids play their games from what I see. No taking
a game to a friends house. Replacement of your system invalidates all your
games. When you're done with a game throw it away because you can't trade
or sell it. How can Sony compete with Xbox with that policy? Up with MS,
down with Sony!
Dirk
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e46964fe...@news-east.giganews.com...
Bent C Dalager
Brad Wardell <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote:
>
>Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
>But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
>simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>consumer?
Leaving aside the issue that Internet-based activation itself can
easily be too much of a burden to make the system acceptable to the
customer:
The problem with your question is that the system you propose is one
of two things; it is either
1) impossible to implement, or it is
2) unacceptable to the publisher.
This is because if the activation is one-time-only, then you have to
trust your customer with a code that is not directly tied to any of
his hardware. After all, the customer might wish to upgrade his
computer at some time, and if he actually liked your game, he is going
to want to play it on his new machine. The one-time requirement means
that he should be able to do so with the code he received the first
time he activated.
The same feature that lets him do this also necessarily lets him give
this code away to his friends, so that they can also play the
game. The scheme doesn't therefore prevent casual piracy and so it is
unacceptable to the publisher.
It is not clear how a system could be implemented so as to prevent
anyone but the legitimate owner from playing the game while at the
same time guaranteeing one-time-only activation.
- - -
Well, you could presumably do it if everyone had a personal,
government-issued, guard-it-with-your-life private/public key pair
that gets used for everything private in one's life. You could encrypt
the activation file with his public key and only the holder of the
private key - the purchaser - could decrypt it in order to play the
game. The owner of the key wouldn't want to give his private key to
other people (even if physically possible) because if he did, they
could use it to withdraw all of his money, take up insane debts in his
name and sign him up for a tour of duty in Iraq. We're not quite there
yet though so this isn't a viable option at present.
You could also presumably do it if you required everyone to be always
online while playing the game. You could then constantly monitor which
keys are playing the game and refuse requests to start the game if the
same key is already being used elsewhere. This is the scheme
affectionately known as license servers today and is most common on
LANs. I still haven't heard of a license server solution that doesn't
occassionally get licenses stuck though. While a managable problem on
a LAN, I'm not so sure this technology is ready for mass consumption
over the Internet.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Xocyll
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
>news:WdadnZsgZ-XcHUHe...@comcast.com...
>> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>>
>> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with
>> a simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>> consumer?
>>
>> Brad
>> --
>> Brad Wardell
>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>>
>Why do companies always try to pitch things that protect their interests as
>"good for the consumer"?
Because saying "We're doing this to protect our profit margins and don't
care how much hassle it causes you" doesn't go over well with the
public.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
REH
"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:sttpt19get4olap9n...@4ax.com...
> "REH" <m...@you.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
> spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>
>>>
>>as
>>"good for the consumer"?
>
> Because saying "We're doing this to protect our profit margins and don't
> care how much hassle it causes you" doesn't go over well with the
> public.
>
> Xocyll
Ha, ha, ha, well said! Although, the question was rhetorical.
REH
Brad Wardell
"Bent C Dalager" <b...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:drippu$2rv$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <WdadnZsgZ-XcHUHe...@comcast.com>,
> Brad Wardell <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote:
>>
>>Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>>
>>But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>>checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with
>>a
>>simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>>consumer?
>
> Leaving aside the issue that Internet-based activation itself can
> easily be too much of a burden to make the system acceptable to the
> customer:
>
> The problem with your question is that the system you propose is one
> of two things; it is either
> 1) impossible to implement, or it is
> 2) unacceptable to the publisher.
>
> This is because if the activation is one-time-only, then you have to
> trust your customer with a code that is not directly tied to any of
> his hardware. After all, the customer might wish to upgrade his
> computer at some time, and if he actually liked your game, he is going
> to want to play it on his new machine. The one-time requirement means
> that he should be able to do so with the code he received the first
> time he activated.
I think you're making too many assumptions. WindowBlinds
(www.windowblinds.net) uses activation. It works fine and most customers
don't even realize it's there.
You are assuming that activation forces users to tie it to a single
computer. I won't go into too many details about how our activation works
on our non-games but it essentially is designed to prevent mass piracy
rather than small instances of it. So it would raise a flag if a dozen
people from different locations (i.e. physically) tried to install it in a
single day but not care if you installed it onto your laptop or a new
computer the next day or week or whatever.
The problem I have with nearly all copy protection schemes is that they're
draconian. I mean, WHO are they trying to target? I get tired of hearing
game publishers complain about # of unauthorized users playing their game
when the real issue should be the # of lost SALES.
>
> The same feature that lets him do this also necessarily lets him give
> this code away to his friends, so that they can also play the
> game. The scheme doesn't therefore prevent casual piracy and so it is
> unacceptable to the publisher.
That's not necessarily true about unacceptable to the publisher. Galactic
Civilizations II has no copy protection at all at retail. Having activation
would obviously be more so than that. It totally depends on the demographic
of the user and the ease of distribution (i.e. we put activation on
WindowBlinds and Object Desktop programs, we don't (currently) on our games
except during beta).
But even fairly strict activation could be quite effective, even against
casual piracy. You have their hardware ID AND you have their IP address.
If either of them is the same, the activation could give them a pass. If
both are different, then you can raise a flag.
A less strict but still fairly effective activation strategy coudl involve
this: You have their hardware ID and their IP address. You can get a
general location of the user from the IP address. If ID is different AND
the location quite a bit different, and the time since last activation
attempt < 1 week then you could raise a flag.
Will this eliminate piracy? Not a chance. But I think it's more effective
than CD checks and other things of that nature. If you don't inconvenience
the customer, you don't create an incentive to go out and find CD cracks and
such.
Because once you force users into searching the net for CD cracks or
Starforce cracks or whatever, you turn that user into a potential lost sale
for future products because once they've found all these places to get this
stuff, it becomes mighty tempting to simply get the warez directly rather
than buying the game.
>
> It is not clear how a system could be implemented so as to prevent
> anyone but the legitimate owner from playing the game while at the
> same time guaranteeing one-time-only activation.
Perfect is the enemy of good. No solution will be perfect. It's about
reducing lost sales. I think activation, of all the mechanisms, when used
responsbily is one of the best solutions for PC gamers.
There should be a law (not a real law but a design law) on activation:
1) I won't prevent the user from installing it onto other machines they own.
2) It won't prevent the user from installing it later on onto a new machine
in the future.
3) It will continue to function even if the game developer/publisher goes
out of business.
Cheers!
Brad Wardell
> spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>
>>"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
>>news:WdadnZsgZ-XcHUHe...@comcast.com...
>>> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>>>
>>> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of
>>> CD
>>> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it
>>> with
>>> a simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>>> consumer?
>>>
>>> Brad
>>> --
>>> Brad Wardell
>>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
>>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>>>
>>Why do companies always try to pitch things that protect their interests
>>as
>>"good for the consumer"?
>
> Because saying "We're doing this to protect our profit margins and don't
> care how much hassle it causes you" doesn't go over well with the
> public.
>
Right... because you know, the if you can convince publishers not to use
product activation, which is a lot less annoying (to me anyway) than CD
checks or Starforce they'll just sing Kumbaya and put no copy protection on?
In case you didn't notice -- WE don't put any copy protection on our retail
games presently so don't paint me out as some greedy corproate interest. I
just think that if you don't like activation then you should bloody have an
alternative in mind because it is a real problem. We have the luxury of not
putting copy protection on our games becuase of our demographic (turn based
strategy game ). But if I were making a first person shooter or RTS, I'd be
very concerned about how to keep reduce piracy.
`
Brad Wardell
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e46964fe...@news-east.giganews.com...
> bwar...@stardock.com says...
>
>> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>>
>> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it
>> with a
>> simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>> consumer?
>
> Nice try, but there's nothing either "simple" or "one-time" about an
> activation scheme that's going to (a) accuse me of being a criminal the
> moment I change my computing setup, and (b) force me to phone up and beg
> some English-as-third-language drone that some of us *do* replace our
> hardware from time to time.
You may not be aware of this but most activation out there is not one
install, one hardware config.
There are plenty of activation systems that let you install to multiple
machines and over tiem so that the issues you describe don't come up.
Epi Watkins
says...
They can come up sometimes. Like when you get a new computer. I've had
to call Microsoft twice about XP. They were good about it though.
Epi Watkins
bwar...@stardock.com says...
If you're used to using nocd's, activation is more of a problem.
Especially if there's no way to activate it anymore, because the company
went bust. Or maybe your internet connection is temporarily down.
Brad Wardell
"Epi Watkins" <epica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e4707331...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Yes! This is why activation has a bad name. Because Microsoft popularized
the concept with a draconian system.
IF activation was a 1 install to 1 hardware system only system then I would
be lined up to sign a petition because that's ridiculous.
But it doesn't have to be that way and most activations don't work that way.
It's just that people who encounter it most of the time are using
Microsoft's products.
I upgrade my PCs more often than..well more than I should and I get pretty
aggravated that I can't just easily take my Office 2003 CD and put it on the
new machine without hassle when I haven't installed it in over a year.
The way I look at activation is as a mechanism to REDUCE piracy because
eliminating it isn't possible. On WindowBlinds (www.windowblinds.net) , we
have activation and it has worked very well, sales have trippled since we
started using it. It DOES work. And our system is not like Microsoft's. It
lets users install it to multiple machines and new machines. It's just
sensitive to the scenarios such as a dozen differnet machines in different
geographic locations try to install it the same day.
There has to be a happy middle ground.
Dirk Gross
> There should be a law (not a real law but a design law) on activation:
>
> 1) I won't prevent the user from installing it onto other machines they
> own.
> 2) It won't prevent the user from installing it later on onto a new
> machine in the future.
> 3) It will continue to function even if the game developer/publisher goes
> out of business.
>
That sounds like a reasonable philosophy. I still like the convenience of a
no-cd crack because I hate swapping disks all the time. I'd also like to go
further and say that games that have multi-player capability should let you
install and play a game over a local lan, even if they have to provide two
CDs to do it. I shouldn't have to buy two copies of BF 1942 to play my kid
through my home's network.
Dirk
Bent C Dalager
Brad Wardell <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote:
>
>You are assuming that activation forces users to tie it to a single
>computer. I won't go into too many details about how our activation works
>on our non-games but it essentially is designed to prevent mass piracy
>rather than small instances of it. So it would raise a flag if a dozen
>people from different locations (i.e. physically) tried to install it in a
>single day but not care if you installed it onto your laptop or a new
>computer the next day or week or whatever.
As I understand it, much of the appeal of current copy protection
systems (for the publisher) lies in their ability to deter casual
piracy. That is, your neighbour pops by, sees your software and says
"hey, where can I get one of those". Being a nice, helpful neighbour,
you lend him your CD and your activation code and he goes and installs
it at home. This is the sort of threat I had in mind.
From what you write, this isn't the threat you are trying to
fight. You may be trying to prevent entire companies or departments
from installing the stuff on 100+ computers after one employee brought
it to work? If so, then this is an area I have never given much
thought. I doubt it applies much to games - perhaps if you sell fun
little puzzlers that people can kill time with in the office :-)
The third option is to prevent professional piracy. For shelf-ware,
this is only possible with a massive amount of effort, and even then
only for a limited time. Alternatively, it is possible if your product
is sufficiently obscure no one has ever heard of it anyway. Many
non-game products are "sufficiently obscure" simply because cracking
one isn't considered very cool.
The only really good solution I can see to forcing people to pay is to
have a sort of subscription system, or by providing a service related
to the software that people really want. Running updates, new
features, etc., can provide such an avenue, but it's not a viable
route for many games.
>The problem I have with nearly all copy protection schemes is that they're
>draconian. I mean, WHO are they trying to target? I get tired of hearing
>game publishers complain about # of unauthorized users playing their game
>when the real issue should be the # of lost SALES.
I expect they are targeting little Billy who borrowed his friend
Johnny's CD to install it at home.
>> The same feature that lets him do this also necessarily lets him give
>> this code away to his friends, so that they can also play the
>> game. The scheme doesn't therefore prevent casual piracy and so it is
>> unacceptable to the publisher.
>
>That's not necessarily true about unacceptable to the publisher. Galactic
>Civilizations II has no copy protection at all at retail. Having activation
>would obviously be more so than that. It totally depends on the demographic
>of the user and the ease of distribution (i.e. we put activation on
>WindowBlinds and Object Desktop programs, we don't (currently) on our games
>except during beta).
I was referring to the other publishers. You know, the ones whose
games I no longer buy :-)
Now, I'm not going to pretend to know how much pressure publishers put
on game developers to put in copy protection. Apparantly, you managed
to get yours to drop it for GC1. I don't know how difficult that was
or if it was even an issue, or how other publishers feel about it. But
they obviously _do_ think it necessary most of the time, as witnessed
by all the other games out there that have it.
>But even fairly strict activation could be quite effective, even against
>casual piracy. You have their hardware ID AND you have their IP address.
>If either of them is the same, the activation could give them a pass. If
>both are different, then you can raise a flag.
I am not sure what you mean. "even fairly strict activation could be
quite effective"? I think it's quite obvious that it is, but it can
create a lot of inconvenience for the customer. The question is
rather: can we have an activation scheme that is convenient for the
customer _and_ effective at combatting the type of piracty that is
feared?
>A less strict but still fairly effective activation strategy coudl involve
>this: You have their hardware ID and their IP address. You can get a
>general location of the user from the IP address. If ID is different AND
>the location quite a bit different, and the time since last activation
>attempt < 1 week then you could raise a flag.
That doesn't address casual piracy, which is what I think they are
trying to do. Professional pirates are going to remove your checks
anyway, so it doesn't really matter what you're checking for in that
case.
>
>There should be a law (not a real law but a design law) on activation:
It wouldn't surprise me too much if consumer protection laws along
these lines start popping up within a few years.
>
>1) I won't prevent the user from installing it onto other machines they own.
>2) It won't prevent the user from installing it later on onto a new machine
>in the future.
>3) It will continue to function even if the game developer/publisher goes
>out of business.
I left this in there just so I could "me 2" it :-)
Roderick
around long enought to support activating my product. In your case,
what would happen if Stardock ceased to exist and I wanted to reinstall
GalCiv on a new PC?
Roderick
Brad Wardell
"Roderick" <rpom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138580990....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's one of the reasons why we haven't done that. I don't know of a good
solution.
Over at GameDaily a couple weeks ago I was asked about copy protection:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/interview/?id=11666&rp=1
Here's the relevant quote:
BIZ: On TotalGaming.net (www.totalgaming.net) the games don't come with any
Digital Rights Management and the upcoming Galactic Civilizations II retail
version won't include any type of copy protection. What went into this
decision?
BW: Software piracy is something that tends to be overblown. The question
for us boils down to the number of sales lost due to piracy versus the
number of sales lost due to people not wanting to be inconvenienced.
In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to digital distribution of major titles
is digital rights management (DRM). Gamers-and I consider myself one of
them-do not want to pay $40 for a game and then have to be connected to the
Internet to play the game or be hassled when they try to install it on a new
computer or install to their laptop to play on a trip. Moreover, game
companies go out of business all the time; I don't want a favorite game to
be unplayable because XYZ game publisher has gone under. This creates a real
resistance to buying major games electronically.
BIZ: Aren't you concerned that the lack of copy protection will lead to
further piracy?
BW: TotalGaming.net has its own system that we've developed over the years.
We've been selling software electronically for a decade now, so we've spent
a lot of time finding different ways to protect our software in different
cases. What we've developed is called Secure Software Delivery. On
electronic sales, what it means is that when the software is delivered, we
are very certain that only the buyer has access to it.
But we believe that most sales lost to piracy are due to convenience. Our
goal is to make it very convenient to purchase our software and somewhat
inconvenient to pirate it.
--
In short, the "company X goes under" issue is the one thing about activation
that I'm not comfortable with -- even if the other issues are ironed out.
Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>
> Roderick
>
CJ
"Dirk Gross" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:7M4Df.70625$Q11....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> As you pointed out before, assuming the company is still in business when
> you swap that motherboard or buy a new computer.
>
> By the way, is this quote from Warewolf factual?
>
>>Then I guess the PS3 will fail miserably since Sony announced that it will
> use/require a product activation scheme on all PS3 games.
>
> Every game for the system will come with a unique ID code that will
> automatically be registered to a particular console - this is intended to
> prevent rentals, re-sales and, of course, 'rampant amounts of piracy'.
>
> Then again, after that DRM-debacle, I'm left wondering if they've
> considered the possibility of lost sales due to the heavy costs of
> replacing disks registered with defective PS3s.<
This is off topic for these forums, but relent to this topic. Sony and
3rd Party publishers never had to "reconsider" using this technology because
they were never going to use it in the first place for the PS3. Sony NEVER
made this "announcement" either. This is something that was blown totally
out of proportion because of a story, that IIRC originally appeared at
Gamespot.com, that said this technology had been registered by a Sony
employee with the USPTO. The story then got picked up by other web sites
that got it absolutely totally wrong and blew it up into something it isn't.
Sony then went on record saying the technology was never going to be
included with the PS3. It may never be included with anything! There are
millions of patents out there that never get included with anything because
they never get beyond the drawing board stage for a variety of reasons.
What occurred is this. A Sony employee registered a patent with the
USPTO for software that would register a game to a particular console.
However, as the Gamespot articles on this issue pointed out, this technology
has NEVER been proven to exist in a working form yet. It is only
theoretically possible. The guy who developed the technology inside of Sony
did not have to produce a working model of the technology in order to get a
patent, only specs, drawings and other documents.
Everybody got their panties in a knot after this story got blown totally
out of proportion by a bunch of web sites looking for traffic. Ironically,
this is being discussed, and debunked, on the Gamespot PS3 forums right now
because somebody posted a story from a site that got it entirely wrong.
rlsuth
>
> But why is product activation so bad?
Brad, my biggest gripe about "product activation" is that it means that if
the company providing the activation goes bust, I can just throw the game
away. That is completely unacceptable to me. I still play old DOS games for
instance and don't throw any of my games away. As for "the company will
release a patch to remove activation if they go out of business", rubbish.
What incentive would they have if they were going down?
Yeah, I hate having to put the CD in and I wont buy Starforce protected
games, but product activation is even worse.
Terry
Have you considered that a very high percentage of people
pirating software will never actuually buy the produict. ?
Regards
Jan Potocki
>But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of CD
>checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with a
>simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
>consumer?
>
>Brad
First: You can't resell the game.
Second: I don't like to companies decide what is good for us players.
Third: Half-Life is cracked and working so why you pple bother to
spend money on server, development time or any other antipiracy thing?
If your game is OK i'll buy it. It is as simple as that.
eddys...@hotmail.com
John Lewis wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2006 23:25:41 -0800, "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >pcgamer wrote:
> >> For those that don't want to see a future of PC Games with
> >> Product Activation in Retail boxed PC Game titles I ask you
> >> all to read and sign if you agree this petition I made.
> >
> >buy StarForce, Activation required, <insert pet pieve> games
> >
> >Greetz,
> >
> >Eddy Sterckx
> >
>
> Er, exactly what is wrong with Starforce, other than making
> it difficult to pirate, run (er) "backup-copies" or run "no-CD" ?
Any software that secretly tries to install itself and interferes with
the inner workings of my pc and/or other installed software is malware
by definition. A lawsuit waiting to happen. If publishers believe the
additional sales (to pirates ???) will outnumber the sales lost due to
potential customers not buying their product because of this issue then
that's fine - it's their business. But I'll be spending my gaming $
elsewhere.
> There is a Starforce uninstaller readily available should it
> be found to contend with legitimate DVD/CD authoring
> software. Starforce is automatically reinstalled should a Starforce
> -protected game be played again.
ROTFL - yeah, *very* convenient ...
> With a Starforce-protected ( or other form of on-disk-protection)
> game, I get to properly feel that I "own" it ( regardless of EULA
> weasel-words) and can dispose of it any way that I want, donate,
> gift, trade, sell, with zero "activation" problems for the next owner.
> Also, the game can be readily patched to any desired level from
> a stand-alone patch archive.... unlike Steam.
Funnily enough the only gaming software I own contains none of the
dimwitted schemes outlined above - including Starforce. As I said : I
vote with my wallet.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
> > Nice try, but there's nothing either "simple" or "one-time" about an
> > activation scheme that's going to (a) accuse me of being a criminal the
> > moment I change my computing setup, and (b) force me to phone up and beg
> > some English-as-third-language drone that some of us *do* replace our
> > hardware from time to time.
>
> You may not be aware of this but most activation out there is not one
> install, one hardware config.
>
> There are plenty of activation systems that let you install to multiple
> machines and over tiem so that the issues you describe don't come up.
You're dancing past the problem, which is that even given an activation
scheme that allows X activations, I'm one of those guys who will change
out his setups X+1 times, and have to call "Juglesh" and plead with him
to allow me to install the software I fucking well paid for.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Drew [Barrymore] couldn't get into college unless it was in Oklahoma or
Montana and she claimed to be 140 percent Navajo Indian. And even then
she would have to show up in handmade moccasins and leather dress and
dance with a rattle until it rained."
- wwtdd.com
Giftzwerg
bwar...@stardock.com says...
> >I don't mind product activation. I just worry if the company will be
> > around long enought to support activating my product. In your case,
> > what would happen if Stardock ceased to exist and I wanted to reinstall
> > GalCiv on a new PC?
>
> That's one of the reasons why we haven't done that. I don't know of a good
> solution.
Ah. So your customers won't get screwed when Stardock ceases to exist;
they'll get screwed when *you* cease to exist?
Something tells me the distinction is going to be lost on them.
Kevin O'Donovan
>
>
> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
>
> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it with
> a simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
> consumer?
It gets my vote
Roderick
Office Football. The game is almost 7yrs old, but I paid for it and
wanted to play it. I didn't unlicense my game from years back and ran
out of activations. The rep and Digital River asked me why I didn't
uninstall the license, and of course when I purchased it i was at
Mindspring and had changed ISPs at least a dozen times in that time
span, I'm in the military.
That was a crappy experience, it took me a couple of days to get
reactivated. I will never purchase a game with that type of
restrictions again.
Roderick
Xocyll
I wasn't replying to you.
>In case you didn't notice -- WE don't put any copy protection on our retail
>games presently so don't paint me out as some greedy corproate interest.
I wasn't painting you in any way, I wasn't even really aware you
existed.
>I
>just think that if you don't like activation then you should bloody have an
>alternative in mind because it is a real problem. We have the luxury of not
>putting copy protection on our games becuase of our demographic (turn based
>strategy game ). But if I were making a first person shooter or RTS, I'd be
>very concerned about how to keep reduce piracy.
Activations are better than the likes of securerom, but not one company
has expired an activation yet.
When companies put into practice an activation that will cease to exist
after a number of years, then it will be a good system.
As it is if the company folds, the game I bought becomes so much plastic
since it can no longer activate.
For all it's other faults, cd-in-drive schemes keep working long after
the company is dead/borged/doesn't care about old games - at least until
the cd breaks.
It's heartening to see the likes of Egosoft _removing_ the cd-check
protection on X2 once X3 hit the stores.
It's disheartening that it's one smallish German game company doing this
while all the biggies leave it in place long after they even sell the
game.
Giftzwerg
> > Because saying "We're doing this to protect our profit margins and don't
> > care how much hassle it causes you" doesn't go over well with the
> > public.
> >
>
> Right... because you know, the if you can convince publishers not to use
> product activation, which is a lot less annoying (to me anyway) than CD
> checks or Starforce they'll just sing Kumbaya and put no copy protection on?
No. It's because most people disagree completely with you, and consider
activation the most massively intrusive and horribly annoying form of
copy protection.
Until the inevitable crack appears, that is. Then it's no problem. The
issue for you developers is that a good number of folks out here -
myself included - have started to wait for an activation crack to appear
before they purchase the activation-required software. I did that just
recently with the upgrade to Photoshop CS2.
The worse issue for you guys is that every fucking time I have to find
an activation crack for software *I legally bought*, the same thought
runs through my mind:
"Maybe next time I'll just skip buying the software, since I'm going to
have to crack the friggin' thing anyhow."
klg...@mailinator.com
> "Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
> >
> >"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
> >news:sttpt19get4olap9n...@4ax.com...
> >> "REH" <m...@you.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
> >> spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Brad Wardell" <bwar...@stardock.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:WdadnZsgZ-XcHUHe...@comcast.com...
> >>>> Our retail games don't use any copy protection presently.
> >>>>
> >>>> But why is product activation so bad? That is, if you could get rid of
> >>>> CD
> >>>> checks and starforce and other copy protection schemes and replace it
> >>>> with
> >>>> a simple one-time? Internet activation system, isn't this good for the
> >>>> consumer?
> >>>>
> >>>> Brad
> >>>> --
> >>>> Brad Wardell
> >>>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
> >>>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
> >>>>
>
> It's heartening to see the likes of Egosoft _removing_ the cd-check
> protection on X2 once X3 hit the stores.
> It's disheartening that it's one smallish German game company doing this
> while all the biggies leave it in place long after they even sell the
> game.
Sorry to pick a nit here but id and ut people do it, and I think highly
of them for it. UT2003 and 2004 both no longer have cd checks
after patches released by the developers. Also, I got quake 4 for
christmas (with other games), didn't play it at first and a recent
patch for that removed the copy protection (before I'd ever really
played the game). I value and play these games more because
of it (especially ut. Fire and go for that little burst of distractive
mayhem).
Brad, I'm a little confused about your stance on activation (quick
aside--it's great to have your post and I've enjoyed reading your
views on protection issues and strategy programming). In
the discussion, you acknowledge not having a good answer to
the company-going-under issue. Even if you don't agree with
the point of view, you must understand that that single point
is a sufficient condition to strongly avoid activiation for some and
to have a similar viewpoint about it. Why ask why people are so
against it when you already know the answer?
Kirk
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> But even fairly strict activation could be quite effective, even against
> casual piracy. You have their hardware ID AND you have their IP address.
> If either of them is the same, the activation could give them a pass. If
> both are different, then you can raise a flag.
Hmm. The problem with this approach is that, AIUI, many dialup ISPs
assign your IP address dynamically on connection, so it'll never be the
same. I may be wrong, I'm not really up on networking.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Kevin O'Donovan
news:1138717599.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Maybe there's a gap in the market here for some sort of escrow company?
Games companies could upload copies of their activation required games to
the escrow server, with the activation requirement removed. If the games
company goes under then the escrow company make the unprotected game
available on their web site. The unprotected games could be tagged in some
way that meant that if they were ever released before they should be it
would be immediately apparent that the escrow company had violated the
position of trust they were placed in, which would pretty much put them out
of business there and then - a good incentive to keep the escrow copies
secure.
Another option might be to release two copies of the game. One on CD/DVD
with whatever copy protection the publisher deems appropriate, and one for
download which requires activation but is otherwise unprotected.
Kev
Bent C Dalager
Kevin O'Donovan <not....@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe there's a gap in the market here for some sort of escrow company?
>Games companies could upload copies of their activation required games to
>the escrow server, with the activation requirement removed. If the games
>company goes under then the escrow company make the unprotected game
>available on their web site. The unprotected games could be tagged in some
>way that meant that if they were ever released before they should be it
>would be immediately apparent that the escrow company had violated the
>position of trust they were placed in, which would pretty much put them out
>of business there and then - a good incentive to keep the escrow copies
>secure.
When a company goes under, its assets are usually sold to the highest
bidder. The rights for the game will therefore still be owned by
_someone_ and that someone is unlikely to want an escrow company to be
releasing free copies of it. Even if they have no intention of selling
it or otherwise supporting it themselves.
Kevin O'Donovan
Presumably that could be resolved though? If it was stipulated in the EULA
for the games in question that this service would be provided, then anyone
buying the company's assets would be buying them with this in place??
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Presumably that could be resolved though? If it was stipulated in the EULA
> for the games in question that this service would be provided, then anyone
> buying the company's assets would be buying them with this in place??
ROTFL - whoever came up with the EULA concept deserves a statue. And 2
statues for the guy who made gullible people believe the legal
mumbo-jumbo was worth more than the electrons used to store it. In most
civilized countries it's simply illegal to only inform the customer of
the contents of the "contract" after it has been "signed" (i.e. the
purchase has been made). Short a EULA is null and void where I live,
and this works both ways as the lawyers of the buying company would be
*very* quick to point out.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bent C Dalager
I seriously doubt that would be enforcable. As far as I am aware, when
you buy the assets of a bankrupt company, you don't also inherit their
promises and other liabilities. The EULA may put restrictions on the
buyer, and it may put restrictions on the publisher, but I doubt it
puts the same restrictions on all future rights holders.
Epi Watkins
not....@nowhere.com says...
I was thinking the same thing (similar at least), but the only thing (or
more) is, what's the incentive of the original publisher to pay the
escrow company for the service (I love run-on sentences).
--
Epi
----
Do you speak, or think out sentences with proper
punctuation? If you don't, do you post with proper
4th grade punctuation?
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
Kevin O'Donovan
I guess it would depend if online activation was attractive enough to the
publisher, and there was enough resistance to it from the public. Resistance
is certainly strong in here, but since when has usenet ever been
particularly representative of the real world :-)
Epi Watkins
not....@nowhere.com says...
I sort of agree, but only sort of... It might work if it was really
cheap. I don't know how the numbers crunch on this.
What I was thinking of was a company to continue the activation.
djin
>
> "John Lewis" <john...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:43dbc438...@news.verizon.net...
>>
>> Er, exactly what is wrong with Starforce, other than making it difficult
>> to pirate, run (er) "backup-copies" or run "no-CD" ?
>>
>>
>
>
> Maybe you should do some research into a subject you embrace:
>
> http://www.joystiq.com/2004/12/29/steves-picks-the-stories-of-2004-4/
> http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/index.php?fn=view_thread&t=526623
>
> More alarmingly, Starforce hooks into two Microsoft drivers: 1=
> classpnp.sys: all Read/Write operation <-- This means it see's everything
> written or read from your drives 2= netbt.sys; all operation (except
> load/unload) <-- and this allows it to send any information it likes back
> to Starforce without you knowing it and without you being able to block
> it, short of disconnecting from the internet......for good (unless you
> uninstall Starforce).
>
> More, if you have any sort of writtable DVD/CD-RW on your system, once you
> install Starforce, you have a better than average chance of not being able
> to use it again, unless you reflash it.
>
> This goes on and on. Do some research if you really want to know (and look
> into how exposing ring 0 to all ring 3 applications really opens a huge
> security hole on your PC).
Another reason not to buy S%$!force infected games -
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7267.cfm
and don't miss the link at the bottom of the article
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/anticopying_malware_.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/starforce_threatens_.html
TheSmokingGnu
following comes from pure anecdote.
I have several Starforce applications on this computer at the moment
(all UK imports; curious how only the UK versions seem to get
Starforce'd, while US versions are typically SecuROM, SafeDisc, etc.),
and have no problems at all using any of my optical drives. None of my
burning applications have been negatively affected by it's presence, nor
have I seen any kind of security threat (the benefits of a fully-locked
down, NAT'ed, random static IP router network, I suppose).
I also, for one, welcome the new realm of digital distribution / content
delivery systems. Things like Steam are a revolutionary step towards
allowing game developers to keep more of their profits for themselves.
It means they won't have issues with stocking, with dealing for shelf
space, or with finding a company to publish them. I'll bet there's a ton
of little one-person developers out there, looking for a way to put
their next cool idea out for sale, and online systems are a great way to
do it without selling their soul to another company. I see online
activation as nothing more than an evolved form of those little
registration cards you would send back into the developer when you
bought your game (back in the good ol' days) to get extras or be entered
for contests or the like.
In the growing world of Internet access, I think such things become less
and less a nuisance and more and more an accepted part of being a gamer.
Game developers are understandably concerned with protecting their
intellectual property, and traditional methods of copy protection are
little concern to most dedicated individuals (the lone exception being,
of course, Starforce. For all it's fallacies, it's still a darn
effective copy protection method). But online distribution holds a key
which may be the real answer; not only does it keep track of who
actually has access to a program (through a common login), it can also
keep track of when and where that person downloaded the program. Plus,
if unique identifiers are used (like an embedded code or even a CD-key),
piracy is reduced even further, because offending accounts can be closed.
In short, online activation is a far cry better solution than is using
progressively invasive end-user techniques which are quickly becoming
useless bits of code, unable to protect anything.
TheSmokingGnu
Terry
"TheSmokingGnu" <notarea...@vapor.com> wrote in message
news:GkeFf.3664$2h3....@fe06.lga...
And what happens when the game company goes out of business ??
How do I activate the game - I have paid for.??
The short sighted people who but games from the likes of Steam will
soon learn.
Regards
TheSmokingGnu
> And what happens when the game company goes out of business ??
>
> How do I activate the game - I have paid for.??
>
> The short sighted people who but games from the likes of Steam will
> soon learn.
>
> Regards
>
>
I think the millions of units in sales has quite secured Valve's
solidarity for quite some time.
Besides, your use of the program is dictated by the terms of the EULA.
If the EULA says that the program must be activated by contacting one of
the company servers, and you for some reason cannot, guess what? You
don't get to play.
This next bit you can ignore, it's not directed at you. It's amazing to
me how many people just seem to skip merrily through that second or
third step in the install, and never bother to read that little legal
document you sign every time you hit the "next" button. That's the EULA,
and it governs how, where, when, and why you can use the program. So
many assume that because they've paid money for something, they suddenly
own it and they're free to do with it as they wish. You are not. The
terms under which you can use the program are very clearly laid out in
said EULA. You only "own" the right to use the program under the terms
set out in it. If they want you only to play a game standing upside
while screaming the preamble of the Declaration of Independence at the
top of your lungs, by god you had better have perfect handstand stance.
It's a bit like buying a movie ticket, and then expecting to own the
movie. You only bought a viewing of the show, and only by the good
graces of the copyright owner, not the show itself.
TheSmokingGnu
eddys...@hotmail.com
> This next bit you can ignore, it's not directed at you. It's amazing to
> me how many people just seem to skip merrily through that second or
> third step in the install, and never bother to read that little legal
> document you sign every time you hit the "next" button. That's the EULA,
> and it governs how, where, when, and why you can use the program.
No, it does not - EULA's aren't worth the electrons used to store them
- I've explained the why somewhere in this thread already.
> So
> many assume that because they've paid money for something, they suddenly
> own it and they're free to do with it as they wish.
Yeah, what fool would believe they actually owned something after
paying for it ...
> You are not. The
> terms under which you can use the program are very clearly laid out in
> said EULA. You only "own" the right to use the program under the terms
> set out in it. If they want you only to play a game standing upside
> while screaming the preamble of the Declaration of Independence at the
> top of your lungs, by god you had better have perfect handstand stance.
Oh, boy, you're beyond saving.
> It's a bit like buying a movie ticket, and then expecting to own the
> movie. You only bought a viewing of the show, and only by the good
> graces of the copyright owner, not the show itself.
No, it's like buying the dvd of the movie and then expecting to be able
to watch it a zillion times if you want to, lend the dvd to your
brother, sell it on ebay and all other "fair use" uses. In Mr. T's
words "I pity the fool who believes in the power of EULA's"
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Terry
"TheSmokingGnu" <anonymity...@1111011010011.com> wrote in message
news:VyjFf.248$Hr4...@fe03.lga...
> Terry wrote:
>> And what happens when the game company goes out of business ??
>>
>> How do I activate the game - I have paid for.??
>>
>> The short sighted people who but games from the likes of Steam will
>> soon learn.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>
> I think the millions of units in sales has quite secured Valve's
> solidarity for quite some time.
They did it by deliberately misleading the public.
Try running half-life2 on a dialup as promised on the box.
>
> Besides, your use of the program is dictated by the terms of the EULA. If
> the EULA says that the program must be activated by contacting one of the
> company servers, and you for some reason cannot, guess what? You don't get
> to play.
>
And this was printed on the box ???
Sooo - If I dont like the EULA - I can take it back to the shops ????.
Interesting to see what the retailers say about this.
A lot of people were bitten by Steam and will not do it again.
Regards
Briarroot
>
> Terry wrote:
>> And what happens when the game company goes out of business ??
>>
>> How do I activate the game - I have paid for.??
>>
>> The short sighted people who but games from the likes of Steam will
>> soon learn.
>>
>
> solidarity for quite some time.
>
> Besides, your use of the program is dictated by the terms of the EULA.
> If the EULA says that the program must be activated by contacting one of
> the company servers, and you for some reason cannot, guess what? You
> don't get to play.
Valve may not go out of business any time soon, but there
are at least a dozen games on my hard drive, which I still
enjoy playing, made by companies that *have* gone out of
business. So guess what? I will never *willingly* buy a
game that requires product activation.
> This next bit you can ignore, it's not directed at you. It's amazing to
> me how many people just seem to skip merrily through that second or
> third step in the install, and never bother to read that little legal
> document you sign every time you hit the "next" button. That's the EULA,
> and it governs how, where, when, and why you can use the program. So
> many assume that because they've paid money for something, they suddenly
> own it and they're free to do with it as they wish. You are not. The
> terms under which you can use the program are very clearly laid out in
> said EULA. You only "own" the right to use the program under the terms
> set out in it. If they want you only to play a game standing upside
> while screaming the preamble of the Declaration of Independence at the
> top of your lungs, by god you had better have perfect handstand stance.
> It's a bit like buying a movie ticket, and then expecting to own the
> movie. You only bought a viewing of the show, and only by the good
> graces of the copyright owner, not the show itself.
The problem stems from the fact that consumers cannot read
the EULA until *after* they've purchased the right to use
the software. Now IANAL, but it seems to me that any such
'agreement' is of questionable legal value. I respect IP
owners' wish to maintain the integrity of their work and
protect themselves from piracy, but I will not accept any
demands on their part to tell me how and when I can use
their software after I've purchased it, as long as I make no
attempt to illegally share or sell the program. If the EULA
were printed on the box with a large-type disclaimer
stipulating the terms to which the prospective buyer must
agree *before* purchase, then that would be a different
story. Guess what? It doesn't work like that. The average
consumer (who doesn't read online forums) only learns
*after* he's plunked down his cash what sort of hoops the
developers intend for him to jump through before he can
begin using the software.
PC gamers change hardware configurations or purchase
entirely new systems much more often than the general
public, and it is eminently reasonable for them to expect to
be able to re-install game software with each new upgrade,
even if such takes place several years after the initial
purchase and even if the original company has long been out
of business. The question is a serious one and should not
to be so blithely blown off by merely saying: "read the EULA."
John Secker
<anonymity...@1111011010011.com> writes
>Terry wrote:
>> And what happens when the game company goes out of business ??
>> How do I activate the game - I have paid for.??
>> The short sighted people who but games from the likes of Steam will
>> soon learn.
>> Regards
>>
>
>I think the millions of units in sales has quite secured Valve's
>solidarity for quite some time.
>
>Besides, your use of the program is dictated by the terms of the EULA.
>If the EULA says that the program must be activated by contacting one
>of the company servers, and you for some reason cannot, guess what? You
>don't get to play.
>
defunct) company's servers. And guess what? - it says the same thing in
the EULA. Oh, well that's all right then.
Focus on the basic issue. The company can publish software which forces
me to connect to their servers every time I want to play, or install, or
whatever. They can even write this into some legal guff of dubious value
(I'll leave Eddy to follow that thought). But equally I am entitled to
say that I am not handing over my cash for such a crippled offering.
That's a simple commercial decision - do I want to pay my money for
something which is inherently more difficult to use than other software
I own, and which will die entirely if the publisher does? And my answer
is no. Waving the EULA at us just indicates that you have missed the
point by a country mile. I don't care if the constraint on my use of the
software is technical, legal or both. I'm not buying it.
--
John Secker
Andrew
wrote:
>Valve may not go out of business any time soon, but there
>are at least a dozen games on my hard drive, which I still
>enjoy playing, made by companies that *have* gone out of
>business. So guess what? I will never *willingly* buy a
>game that requires product activation.
It is a slightly difference prospect with Valve though. They are not
just selling their own game via Steam, they are also publishing an
increasing number of other companies games on it too and making a tidy
profit in the process. Steam is the best online publishing model I
have used and if it continues as it is, there is no reason to expect
Valve to go under anytime in the lifetime of PC's as we know them.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
CJ
"djin" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.05....@nospam.com...
I don't think I've ever seen a review mention a PC game that had Starforce
on it. Has anyone else actually seen a mainstream gaming mag (or site)
mention if a game has Starforce on it? For instance, after I read the post
about Silent Hunter III, I went to the Gamespot page for it and nowhere in
the review does it mention the game ships with Starforce and may cause
problems with your PC. This is a huge problem for people who need to know
this information. After all, who wants to get stuck bringing home a $50
game, getting all geeked up to play and then finding out it doesn't work
with your PC and is going to cause you major headaches?
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I don't think I've ever seen a review mention a PC game that had Starforce
> on it.
Me neither
>Has anyone else actually seen a mainstream gaming mag (or site)
> mention if a game has Starforce on it?
Nope - but that's easily solved by reading about the game on UseNet :)
It's even better if you're a pure wargamer : apart from the upcoming
Distant Guns there's *zero* games on the horizon with either product
activation or starforce. Vote with your wallet.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
John Secker wrote:
>They can even write this into some legal guff of dubious value
> (I'll leave Eddy to follow that thought).
Nah, I've posted the basics - if anyone wants the legalese version of
"EULA's are worthless" they better contact my wife - she's the lawyer -
though she does tend to overcharge, so beware :)
> But equally I am entitled to
> say that I am not handing over my cash for such a crippled offering.
> That's a simple commercial decision
Bingo !
> I don't care if the constraint on my use of the
> software is technical, legal or both. I'm not buying it.
Same here - and I'm not worried that suddenly I'm going to find myself
without a great choice of wargames to play as most wargame publishers
know their target audience isn't a bunch of cash-strapped 14-year olds
but a demographic with more money than time and experienced enough to
know when something stinks.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Terry
"Briarroot" <woo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:11ubn28...@corp.supernews.com...
Thank you - I agree.
Regards
TheSmokingGnu
> Yeah, what fool would believe they actually owned something after
> paying for it ...
>
You, apparently. :P
What you purchase with a game is the license to use a virtual product, a
SERVICE, and it is governed by the terms of the EULA. It just is.
Violation of the EULA is grounds for terminating the contract under
which you can play your games.
> No, it's like buying the dvd of the movie and then expecting to be able
> to watch it a zillion times if you want to, lend the dvd to your
> brother, sell it on ebay and all other "fair use" uses. In Mr. T's
> words "I pity the fool who believes in the power of EULA's"
>
That's a different situation. In that case, you've bought a physical
product, which IS free for you to do with as you see fit. You could, for
example, play frisbee with it, or use it for Christmas decoration.
Whatever you see fit to do with the physical product. However, you
cannot do such things as copy the movie (the service, the virtual
product) to give to your friends and relatives. That's the key difference.
When you buy a game, you get physical media. That media is the actual
product with which you are free to do with as you please. However, the
virtual product of the game itself is a limited-use service, provided to
you under terms by the developer of the game. It's not provided to you
so that you can do whatever you like. You cannot, for example, hack the
game code, steal functions, and use them in your own program. You cannot
take the intellectual ideas presented in the game and use them as basis
for your own works. Those things are services to you. Not your physical
property.
For a further example, let's look at books. When you buy a book, what do
you get? A book, of course. You get paper, and ink, and maybe if you're
lucky, some glue. You hold your complete dominion over the physical
manifestation of that book; burn it, tear it, shred it, eat it. Whatever
your desire. But what you cannot do is steal the ideas of the book, you
cannot take from the service provided to you by the author. It is, in
point of fact, another form of contract; that you are allowed to read,
interpret, discuss, and otherwise absorb the information and ideas
presented in the book, but not to use them as your own, to derive from them.
That's the difference.
TheSmokingGnu
Warewolf
news:dauFf.223$ug1...@fe04.lga:
> You cannot, for example,
> hack the game code, steal functions, and use them in your own program.
Understandable...unless the appropriate editor/SDK and other materials are
provided by the programmers.
> You cannot take the intellectual ideas presented in the game and use
> them as basis for your own works. Those things are services to you.
> Not your physical property.
Which explains the number of copycats and remakes plus the various 'game
universe' novels that appeared a while back. (Or did the authors of those
stories get permission from the programmers/publishers?)
> For a further example, let's look at books. When you buy a book, what
> do you get? A book, of course. You get paper, and ink, and maybe if
> you're lucky, some glue. You hold your complete dominion over the
> physical manifestation of that book; burn it, tear it, shred it, eat
> it. Whatever your desire. But what you cannot do is steal the ideas of
> the book, you cannot take from the service provided to you by the
> author. It is, in point of fact, another form of contract; that you
> are allowed to read, interpret, discuss, and otherwise absorb the
> information and ideas presented in the book, but not to use them as
> your own, to derive from them.
------
Boris Badenoff: Hey, moose, you like book?
Bullwinkle: Sure as shootin'! It was great!
Boris: You learn anything?
Bullwinkle: Why, sure.
[Boris shoots Bullwinkle in the head so that he won't 'plagiarize the
writer']
------
But seriously, that last arguement you posted holds about as much water as
a sieve.
Some authors (ie Scott McCloud, Bill Blitz) have written books to better
educate their target audiance, if not the general public. To indicate that
building a shed based on the plans presented in a book on carpentry is
cause for arrest, trial and prison time/execution is ludicrous. (Not to
mention the number of history books, math texts and other materials
provided to schools to make their students 'less stupid')
You *cannot* copyright an **idea** in any way, shape or form, but the
product that is derived from it. In other words, if someone were to make a
photocopy of the aforementioned carpentry book (or print out a piece of art
they found on the internet) and try to sell those pages _as their own
works_, *then* I could see some grounds for a wrist slapping or
interogation...but to prosecute someone over the use of a word (like Ewok),
a sound sample (*Grah-wee-blah-glip-zeep-ninny-bong*) or the _idea_ of a
humanoid race with the heads of birds and create something from it (like a
song, novel, portrait or semi-original game), *especially* if this newer
product wasn't made for profit, is pursuant to a baloney sandwich.
(Or would you prefer that Volition sue Vivendi Universal over their
supposed use of 'GeoMod technology' in their 'HULK' game or that
Technos/Millions sue SNK over their use of certain 'Double Dragon' sound
effects in 'Prisoner of War'? That may have worked with games like 'KC
Munchkin but the courts have some a long way since then. Take a look at
the various cases involving Data East.)
People have been deriving ideas and products from various sources for
centuries and will continue to do so for centuries to come. If the law
were to follow your example of prosecuting every 'illegitmate use' of any
spoken or printed idea, there would be rioting from the populace if not an
all-out war. There has already been a lot of heat raised over the
activities of organizations like the RIAA, MPAA and Sony to protect what
they consider their intellectual property so I would suggest that you take
another hard look at your last paragraph before you post anything akin to
the Holocaust as your response.
Signed,
Warewolf
who is willing to die before being prosecuted for writing a piece of fan
fiction or learning to draw from the right side of his brain.
------
'You realize this mission won't be easy'
'Nothing worth doing is'
'You make your choices and you face the consequences'
'When the only limit is your imagination, the ocean is but a foot path and
the sky a tree waiting to be climbed'
Briarroot
You're completely missing the point! When we buy a DVD or a
book, we are not *prevented* from using that product without
first checking in with the publisher. We may also continue
use it long after the publisher goes belly up. There are
*no* restrictions on our usage of the item so long as we do
not violate applicable laws governing copyright and
distribution. Program Activation is an entirely different
matter.
CJ
"Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44opl3F...@individual.net...
> "Briarroot" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-02-06, commmitted
> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
> built into DVDs then? (Locale).
Unless you've got some very strange setup with your DVD player and are
buying some new type of DVDs, since when does a regional copy protection
require activation??? Regional copy protection (which will likely be dropped
with new blu-ray technology from Sony that will get mass distribution with
the release of the PS3 either this spring or this fall in the US) doesn't
require you to get on the 'net and activate your DVD. It simply requires
that you purchase the appropriate DVD for your region. Most DVDs are
released in multiple regions, so I really don't see how this is a problem
akin to product activation.
Briarroot
> "Briarroot" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-02-06, commmitted
> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>
>> book, we are not *prevented* from using that product without
>> first checking in with the publisher. We may also continue
>> use it long after the publisher goes belly up. There are
>> *no* restrictions on our usage of the item so long as we do
>> not violate applicable laws governing copyright and
>> distribution. Program Activation is an entirely different
>> matter.
>
>
> built into DVDs then? (Locale).
Since I don't flit around the globe attempting to play my
DVDs on various and sundry local machines, I've never
encountered any difficulties; but the central point is that
I've never needed to *activate* a DVD before I could play it.
Simple, no?
Avilan
CJ skrev:
> I don't think I've ever seen a review mention a PC game that had Starforce
> on it. Has anyone else actually seen a mainstream gaming mag (or site)
> mention if a game has Starforce on it? For instance, after I read the post
> about Silent Hunter III, I went to the Gamespot page for it and nowhere in
> the review does it mention the game ships with Starforce and may cause
> problems with your PC. This is a huge problem for people who need to know
> this information. After all, who wants to get stuck bringing home a $50
> game, getting all geeked up to play and then finding out it doesn't work
> with your PC and is going to cause you major headaches?
I have not seen them mention Starforce by name, but the Swedish
incarnation of PC Gamer (which I consider the best!) here in Sweden
(duh ;) ) has several times lovered their total scores on games that
has "annoying copy protection".
/A
Jerry Steiger
news:1139153782....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>she's the lawyer - though she does tend to overcharge, so beware :)
Bit of redundancy there.
Jerry Steiger
eddys...@hotmail.com
Yeah, but you've been warned up-front - it's in big bold letters on the
box - unlike EULA's :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx