Speculating on UT3 hardware - Page 2

ChemicalWarrior · 09-05-2007, 03:18 PM

Angry guy on the internet is privileged to selective hearing, or in this case reading. Sony on the other hand is not.

I don't see the majority of complaints spawning from the installation of anything though from SecuRom instead it was the install limit. If you honestly want to go along with the idea of avoiding all games because of protection then I welcome you to a world of no games and getting rid of nearly any modern ones you have now. Even demos these days come with it, while I do believe its ridiculous, I simply don't see anyone doing anything real to prevent it. Therefore until someone does I find the arguments against a single one simply a waste of time. They're all bad, not just a single one.

{DvT}JonahHex · 09-05-2007, 08:00 PM

It is probably true that the majority of complaints have been about the installation limit rather than the SecuRom rootkit. This is the aspect of the situation which is most obvious to the n00b who doesn't know a rootkit from a codpiece.

Regardless of whether Angry Guy on the Internet is angry about the installation limit or the rootkit or just copy protection in general, or all three, Sapient6 is right.

So far I have done something to "prevent it:" I have not purchased Bioshock. In my ignorance at the time, I did install the Bioshock Demo, which made me a victim. Despite SecuRom's protestations to the contrary, the rootkit is indeed a rootkit and malware. It deserves both designation due to the fact that it was installed w/o my knowledge or permission and there are parts of it which, using everyday methods, that I cannot remove from my system. It matters not whether any of it is malicious or not - removing my ability to do exactly what I want to do with my system, when I want to do it qualifies as malicious malware. It is not a question of whether I want to remove it; the only question is: can I?

{DvT}Sapient6 · 09-05-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

I don't see the majority of complaints spawning from the installation of anything though from SecuRom instead it was the install limit.

Fair enough. I don't bother complaining about that aspect of copy protection simply because when it gets to that point I'm already using a copy that doesn't have copy protection. I'm much more bothered by the unannounced changes to the functionality of windows even when the game isn't running. Root kits, driver overwriting, explorer shell extensions: companies that pull these stunts deserve violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

If you honestly want to go along with the idea of avoiding all games because of protection...

No, I'll avoid games like BioShock simply because my PC hardware can't handle it (though I'll probably be getting it for my 360 sooner or later).

My solution to copy protection has been the same for almost 10 years now: buy retail, install cracked. Since the thieves are the ones least inconvenienced by copy protection I'll be damned if my purchased right to play a game is going to be more of a pain in the poop hole than the stolen "rights" to the same game are.

So I've got stolen games on my computer--even though for all of them I've paid for a legal copy first--and I donate money to software crackers when the opportunity arises because they, too, provide me with a valuable service. I encourage everyone to do likewise. As long as games have copy protection, game cracking should be profitable.

At any rate, I never said I'd avoid games because of copy protection, although I certainly won't allow certain copy protection systems on my computer anymore. Changing the way my CD Burner responds to errors during the write process even though the media being written is media I OWN the copyright to (thank you, Starforce!) is criminal. That is, quite literally, malware I didn't agree to have installed on my computer. Not all copy protection schemes are so damaging(!) to legitimate customers.

Ultimately, copy protection boils down to this, though: Sony (et al) believe you, ChemicalWarrior, are a dirty thief. They believe you steal at every opportunity that arises, and if they could get the cops to come confiscate your computer right now, they would. They believe this about you, me, and everyone who has ever been within a mile of a computer that has a game installed on it. That may not bother you, but it irritates me... which is why it is my firm belief that no complaint about copy protection is "blown out of proportion". I don't care if the complaints are hysterical, copy protection is morally corrupt and therefore indefensible. The complaints are always valid simply by virtue of the complaints' target.

ChemicalWarrior · 09-05-2007, 08:37 PM

Only a few copy protection schemes are that intrusive, Starforce and now this version of SecuRom. Oddly enough both are miserable failures, the first aspect of Bioshock to be cracked was the SecuRom, it was the required activation that took awhile (though that's cracked now as well). Frankly copy protection's biggest issue to me is that its useless to a developer. I support required activation though, fully support. If you want to believe it or not, most gamers are thieves actually, most computer users are for that matter. The majority of Internet traffic is P2P and I'm going to go out on a branch that people are not sharing their own created content that much.

You buy Windows, you pay for television service, you buy music, you buy games, you use your computer. You're directly supporting the introduction of DRM and similar schemes. The only way it's going to stop is a massive refusal to use such services. That's not going to happen, and the vast majority of the media future is one of proprietary codecs and copy protection. Saying you download and donate to a cracker is really but a dip in the bucket, especially since you still pay for the product anyway. You can't give to both causes and expect one to lose.

{DvT}Sapient6 · 09-06-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

Only a few copy protection schemes are that intrusive, Starforce and now this version of SecuRom. Oddly enough both are miserable failures, the first aspect of Bioshock to be cracked was the SecuRom, it was the required activation that took awhile (though that's cracked now as well).

There's nothing Odd about this at all.

Copy protection schemes are usually either simple barriers to entry developed by the same house that made the software itself or they're products that are purchased and tacked on. The first of these never ever fail: they aren't made to be uncrackable, just to be barriers that will stop casual copy infringement. The second never fail either. SecuRom hasn't failed. It's a list of Features that 2k games purchased from Sony. Sony got paid, the purchaser at 2k games got to check a task off his list because he got to show a nervous exec an impressive powerpoint about how perfectly SecuRom allays his fears, and the exec got to go to sleep at night believing his fabulous product was safe.

The bottom line, though, is that neither is really made to be uncrackable. Either they're simple or they're a list of features. No one has honestly made stopping the crackers their priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

If you want to believe it or not, most gamers are thieves actually, most computer users are for that matter. The majority of Internet traffic is P2P and I'm going to go out on a branch that people are not sharing their own created content that much.

Of course we are. It's only natural when content providers analyze our behavior, target behaviors that if changed will increase revenue, and then label those behaviors as criminal.

For instance, my home stereo system is a great big mp3 player that spans the entire house (speakers in several rooms which can play independent playlists or the same playlist in unison). I don't download mp3s ever, but when I buy a CD I rip it so I can listen to it on my stereo and then I put the CD in my car's player so I can listen to it while I drive.

Now the RIAA, in their ultimate benevolence, have decided that I may make 1 mp3 from each track on a CD I purchase for listening to in my stereo. But if I do this I must never have the CD playing in one place while the mp3 plays in another. Allowing that to happen makes me a thief. So I'm a thief.

Of course I'm also a thief because on the rare occasion I end up with a DRM-enabled CD I rip it in a way that circumvents the DRM.

Likewise, removing copy protection from games makes me a thief according to the EULA (the moment I do so I nolonger have a right to play the game, therefore even owning the CD is a criminal act).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

Saying you download and donate to a cracker is really but a dip in the bucket, especially since you still pay for the product anyway. You can't give to both causes and expect one to lose.

Who says I expect one to lose? That's a rather narrow view. I support crackers, and believe others should as well, exactly because I believe we're going to continue needing their services.

{DvT}Sapient6 · 09-06-2007, 08:55 AM

I'd like to add this as a footnote to my previous post:

Working in a software company it has never been my objective that the developers of games I enjoy fail to make money. In fact one aspect of my job is to deal with the customer-facing side of our products' licensing (copy protection) scheme.

I remember well the day that our CEO entered my cube with my boss, and my boss's boss, in tow and with panic on his face said, "I just found a license generator for our product on Google!"

The lesson I learned that day was the practical application of "we fear what we don't understand". It took several hours, and some heated words, to get the CEO to the point where he understood that people who aren't going to pay for software aren't going to pay. That no matter how draconian we get with our licensing scheme, those people are still going to use our product without paying.

Finally we got to the point where the question becomes "So why do we have licensing?" And the answer is very, very clear: so that customers understand without doubt what circumstances warrant them handing over more piles of cash to us. So that no one steals out of ignorance and everyone who is inclined to pay will pay.

Of course we have an entirely different sort of customer base which is only remotely comparable to a game's customer base. I still believe in the end this becomes universal: the only achievable objective of copy protection is to ensure people who are inclined to pay will pay.

ChemicalWarrior · 09-06-2007, 04:00 PM

Except "circumventing" protection is very casual. I don't know what can be more easier than googling "Game X crack" and in seconds having it working. Nothing has ever got beyond that level except for the people on the front line working to actually crack the game, not the people downloading the crack. There in is the problem, piracy is such a massive issue (and it is massive) because it is so incredibly simple to do. Download a precracked copy, simply follow the readme, nothing is beyond this when it comes to anything I've ever seen.

Because of the extreme simplicity of the action it is very easy for someone who would normally pay for a game to download it. I'm brave enough to estimate that around 80% (probably more) of gamers have at least one entirely stolen game on their computer. That doesn't mean the EULA said you couldn't rip it to your drive, that means someone posted a ISO of it, you downloaded it, and then you applied the included crack. Pure theft.

I'm not surprised at all when you release a PC game that you want the best protection possible, because I do believe there are a lot of potential gamers who would at least wait for a lower price to purchase the game instead of just downloading it now. I don't support the decision but I clearly see the thought process behind it. The best defense is no defense in this case, IMO. But telling that someone who sees 25,000 leechers in a matter of hours on their brand new game might be hard to do.

{DvT}Sapient6 · 09-06-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

Except "circumventing" protection is very casual.

Lest this turn into a discussion of semantics, let me just explain that by "casual copying" I was referring to something far less active: "Here, borrow the disk to install it and bring it back over tomorrow", or "We're going to play (insert game here) at the LAN party today, so I just installed my one copy of the game on all six computers".

To clarify further: without any copy protection at all, and discounting media coverage of the issue, it is entirely possible for a customer to believe it's okay to install his one copy on every computer he owns. Very simple non-malware copy protection also serves to inform customers of what the publisher thinks the customer's rights are.

And I was trying to shorthand all of that into "casual copying" because I'm painfully aware of how overlong my posts are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

piracy is such a massive issue (and it is massive)

I kind of disagree here. If you create a venn diagram of people who would consider purchasing the game and people who would download the game without buying a copy, I'm not so sure the overlap there is "massive". In other words: putting the ultimate uncrackable copy protection on your game isn't likely to improve your revenue because the freeloaders are going to play something else instead.

Good thing? Maybe, maybe not. But if you just expended a giant mint to ensure that no one steals your game and that doesn't result in increased profits, then you just pissed that money away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

I'm brave enough to estimate that around 80% (probably more) of gamers have at least one entirely stolen game on their computer.

You may be right. In this I am, as always, proud to be a Deviant.