Question About Copy Protection (PC version)

[genci88]

As usual for me, online activation = no buy.

 

I was having my doubts to begin with due to lack of save anywhere, but this sealed the deal. Plenty of other games out there...

[Magister Lajciak]

As usual for me, online activation = no buy.

 

Same here, though I probably wouldn't have bought the game anyway, because I prefer fantasy or sci-fi CRPGs, so I am most likely not a lost sale.

 

This DRM is doubtlessly far better than Ubisoft's, but it doesn't solve game longevity being tied to server dependence issue, which is the crucial distinguishing factor for me as to whether I find the DRM acceptable or not. I find it increasingly frustrating to follow PC games due to DRM. As a result, I think the time is approaching very fast when I will quit PC gaming (apart from playing old games I already own from time to time). The next bellwethers for me will be Civilization V and Starcraft 2. If these two have server-based DRM, I will no longer follow games apart from those from Obsidian and BioWare, since BioWare seems to have secured an expemtion from EA's online DRM policies. Should BioWare also get on board with the server-based DRM trend, than I will no longer follow or buy new PC games at all (unless Obsidian somehow found a publisher that doesn't use it).

[Zoraptor]

Uniloc Softanchor. Oddly enough they have changed the description since last time I linked to it which was not long ago.

 

Since other titles using Uniloc have a, er, no activation required version available I see no reason not to buy.

 

Bah. I'll have to see if the Steam version will have any extra DRM, if not then I'll likely cancel my pre-order for the physical copy and pick it up there (even though I dislike Steam it's still better than this).

If it's like FM 2010 then the retail will have either a Steam(works) or a Uniloc installation option so there's probably no need to cancel a physical copy if you're OK with SW.

 

Caveat: I don't own FM 2010 so cannot myself confirm this to be true.

[Syraxis]

So far the steam page says nothing about uniloc. Unless this changes, I'm going with that version.

 

[sent from phone]

[Humodour]

I'm not buying the retail copy. No way I'm putting up with online activation bull**** like that.

 

I'll buy the Steam version I think (assuming no 3rd party DRM). And maybe I'll buy it straight away at the ridiculously inflated price of $70, or maybe I'll wait for the price to fall below $50. Depends how good you guys say the game is.

[Tigranes]

Except we get it 4 days earlier, remember? We'll be the ones needing to get the word out.

 

I'll probably cave in and just get the retail version on the day. I don't like online activation but I don't think it's bad enough to deserve a boycott, it's fairly reasonable compared to most other DRM, and I definitely prefer it to the bloat/lagfest that is Steam (for me, anyway).

 

Just so I can give you people first impressions...

[Zoraptor]

I'm not buying the retail copy. No way I'm putting up with online activation bull**** like that.

 

I'll buy the Steam version

...

 

See, this is why I have trouble taking Steam fans seriously.

 

What, exactly do you think Steam is other than online activation? You still get exactly as many activations as a 3rd party allows you too just in this case it's Sega and Valve rather than Sega and Uniloc (don't believe me? actually read the SSA then). And it's a persistent monitoring system rather than a one off.

 

You're free to pay extra just to buy it off Steam, of course, or in any other way you want, but you need to look at your justification for doing so because frankly it's rubbish.

 

Plus, as I pointed out, the retail may well have the Steamworks option in any case. Just don't import a copy if so because Steam bricks imported serials.

[Tigranes]

Just don't import a copy if so because Steam bricks imported serials.

 

Another way of saying "please pay our stupid local prices and wait for localisation", I guess?

[kirottu]

Sounds good to me.

 

Online activation -=> fair.

 

Requiring online connection for a single player game -=> nasty! (ps. not the case with AP)

 

Same for me. It

[Kissamies]

Online activation: dislike.

Online activation with limited installations: very dislike.

Requiring online connection to play the game: intolerable.

 

If it's a good game, online activation even with limited installs is not a showstopper, but I don't like it. I'd rather have DRM that requires a disk in drive. I guess it would be all right if they eventually, when the game is old, released a patch that removes the activation, but what are the chances of that happening? I guess we'll just have to hope that when the time comes they no longer feel like keeping the activation servers up, there'll be a hack available.

 

Hmm, maybe I should get the Steam version. Seems like the lesser of two evils in this case because it's the evil I already have installed.

[kreese12]

Ya, I don't know. I'm anti-DRM, as it does nothing but make the pirated game a better version of the program than the retail version (in most cases), but this DRM isn't that bad as DRM goes.

 

5 activations sounds pretty reasonable to me. Ideally the final patch for the game would remove the install limit.

 

I ran out of installs with Bioshock, the other year ago. That was a hassle; fortunately a crack was available.

 

The effectiveness of DRM is pretty low, but having the 5 activation limit does at least prevent the many thousands of pirated versions just using all the same serial for install (not that the game won't be cracked or anything though)...

 

I don't know why developers don't seem to have a rationale approach to DRM. It's amazing. I guess how it works is that developers focus on making the game, and then for the DRM, they naturally out-source this to DRM companies , which over-sell them on the effectiveness of the DRM.

 

Here is a far better solution Obsidian: have a decent patch team for the game. Make a new patch, every three weeks or so, for 3 months or so. Each new patch ****s up the crack that has been released. I guarantee you the pirates will only keep up with this for the first 3 or 4 releases. Through a couple of carrots in, like Bioware did with ME2 for example. After that, then the people who bought the game will enjoy improved versions of the game, while those who pirated, will be stuck with not having the updated , improved version.

 

I don't know why the majority of companies insist on DRM methods that reduce the quality of their product and have little effect. I find it really baffling. To me, the situation seems very clear.

 

It boils down to simple business: when the illegal version of the product is easier to get a hold of, and runs better than, the legitimate version of the game, then you have a problem with your business model. The people who buy the game should have the better product. And you can not, no way, stop pirating through sticks. That did not work during the days of the C64 or Amiga, and does not work these days either.

 

Like take WoW for example. It is possible to play for free on hacked servers. But hardly anyone does: because paying the 15$ a month or whatever gives them a better, more hassle free experience from Blizzard.

Edited April 15, 2010 by kreese12

[Tigranes]

Actually, if a game is popular enough, then pirates will continue to crack improved versions. Supply & Demand (even though it's free, I know).

 

I like the Paradox method where you just play, but if you register the key to their website to your login, you can download patches.

[Kissamies]

Yeah, the updates may get cracked, but most of the big pirate groups just care about the prestige of being the first one to crack a new game. Updates to an older game are much less interesting. Some of the players also downloaded it just because it was free and don't care about the game enough to look for updates, so they get circulated much less.

 

Still, that Paradox method is pretty good. I've encountered it once or twice and it's not bad.

[Daracus]

Online activation: dislike.

Online activation with limited installations: very dislike.

Requiring online connection to play the game: intolerable.

 

If it's a good game, online activation even with limited installs is not a showstopper, but I don't like it. I'd rather have DRM that requires a disk in drive. I guess it would be all right if they eventually, when the game is old, released a patch that removes the activation, but what are the chances of that happening? I guess we'll just have to hope that when the time comes they no longer feel like keeping the activation servers up, there'll be a hack available.

 

Hmm, maybe I should get the Steam version. Seems like the lesser of two evils in this case because it's the evil I already have installed.

 

This is exactly how I feel. I can deal with DRM up to a certain point... once it goes the way of Splinter Cell Conviction, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock 2 and Command and Conquer 4. I just pretty much skip those titles, don't play them, don't touch them at all (pretty much pretend they don't exist). And yes traditionally if a company does not remove its installation limits like say 2k eventually did with Bioshock 1, then some1 will come along and crack it (lets be reasonable those cracks are usually out be4 the game is .....)

 

DRM issue wont go away anytime soon... but I am really hoping Ubisoft's servers go down for a long period of time so that ppl are willing to file a class action against them... Hopefully that would force lawmakers in their perspective countries to finally put down some legislation on DRM, hoping that the side with the consumer on the issue of DRM*.

 

Note *: I am aware when purchasing a title you are purchasing a license and not the actual rights to products.

[Daracus]

I'm not buying the retail copy. No way I'm putting up with online activation bull**** like that.

 

I'll buy the Steam version

...

 

See, this is why I have trouble taking Steam fans seriously.

 

What, exactly do you think Steam is other than online activation? You still get exactly as many activations as a 3rd party allows you too just in this case it's Sega and Valve rather than Sega and Uniloc (don't believe me? actually read the SSA then). And it's a persistent monitoring system rather than a one off.

You're free to pay extra just to buy it off Steam, of course, or in any other way you want, but you need to look at your justification for doing so because frankly it's rubbish.

 

Plus, as I pointed out, the retail may well have the Steamworks option in any case. Just don't import a copy if so because Steam bricks imported serials.

 

Are you saying Steam's copy protection (steamworks and no other 3rd party copy protection) is exactly like Ubisoft's persistent online model? Because if that is the case, Steam's "offline" mode would negate that argument. Yes one has to login* but in comparison to Ubisoft's DRM, once your connection goes down or steam's servers go down you will still be able to play your games.

 

Note*: its possible to login to steam while its completely offline.

[Zoraptor]

Oh no, Steam is far better than Ubisoft's effort. And they have at least made an effort to get offline mode working properly even if it doesn't work quite as advertised- iirc the current set up still requires going online periodically (once a month?) even in offline mode though it's certainly better than the old "you must be online to activate offline mode" situation.

 

It's the "online activations I hateses them... I'll get it from Steam" reaction I find incomprehensible since Steam definitively is online activation.

[Tigranes]

Steam takes 3 years to load even offline, longer if you have bad internet, it has problems with multiple instances, it takes 2 years to quit, it forces you to install games inside its own folders.

 

It's not as bad as ubisoft, but only marginally.

[Zoraptor]

That isn't a problem unique to Steam, to be fair- a lot of disk check systems add considerable start up time and make it sound like your drive is shaking itself apart as well- and I remember well StalkerCS running 20% faster and losing almost all its crashes and save game corruptions once Tages was removed.

 

I don't particularly dislike Steam per se, I just think there are generally better and less intrusive alternatives both retail and DD. Steamworks on the other hand is an automatic no buy as its tendency to go berserk and do a download install even if you have a retail disk is potentially very expensive.

[Humodour]

Steam takes 3 years to load even offline, longer if you have bad internet, it has problems with multiple instances, it takes 2 years to quit, it forces you to install games inside its own folders.

 

I don't have any speed problems. Unless you have a super-****ty computer, I'd say it's your connection speed (dial-up?), so Steam clearly isn't for you. That simple. And the last one about choosing where to install games is downright incorrect.

 

Steam let's you play it on ANY computer. All you do is log into it. It's essentially in the cloud, so the fairly streamlined process of "online activation" as Zoraptor calls it is hassle-free (like logging into MSN) and for tangible gain. Even Steam savegames are being sent to their cloud servers now so you can continue progress on any computer. There's certainly no activation limit as somebody incorrectly claimed earlier in the thread.

 

The ****ty DRM most publishers use, and which is being used here for AP does not come with any upside (but certainly comes with downsides - limited activations) - it's simply there to make life hard for legit customers and 2nd-hand games sales whilst not having any impact on illegal download rates.

 

Edit: And furthermore, I log into my Steam profile and play Steam games with no net connection all the time. You don't even have to go into offline mode while online first.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Krezack

[Spider]

And the last one about choosing where to install games is downright incorrect.

 

How do I specify where to install Steam games? Specifically, with Steam on drive c, how do I get it to install games on drive d? I was under the impresison this oculdn't be done.

[Tigranes]

I'd say it's your connection speed (dial-up?), so Steam clearly isn't for you. That simple.

 

I have **** internet indeed, but not dial-up, it can handle other stuff fine. So questions arise:

1) Why does a matchmaker / game starter service need so much more bandwidth than, say, a flash website? Why is it, in fact, even slower than or about as slow as loading youtube?

2) Why does it take the same time on a good computer even when in offline mode (and, soemtimes, tries to connect anyway?)

3) Why does it freeze and take ages to toggle between online/offline?

 

On folders, maybe I'm wrong, but it didn't let me choose where to install ETW. Maybe a one-off. In fact, maybe all of my Steam problems are a one-off. It's certainly hard to believe that it could be so popular yet so crap.

[Daracus]

Oh no, Steam is far better than Ubisoft's effort. And they have at least made an effort to get offline mode working properly even if it doesn't work quite as advertised- iirc the current set up still requires going online periodically (once a month?) even in offline mode though it's certainly better than the old "you must be online to activate offline mode" situation.

 

It's the "online activations I hateses them... I'll get it from Steam" reaction I find incomprehensible since Steam definitively is online activation.

 

Cool. Yeah I'll agree with you. Steam is essential an online activation service but I just like the fact that its doesn't limited how many times you can activate your product. I must have downloaded HL2 at least 15 times. I always tell ppl, its the "lesser of evils."

 

 

Steam takes 3 years to load even offline, longer if you have bad internet, it has problems with multiple instances, it takes 2 years to quit, it forces you to install games inside its own folders.

 

It's not as bad as ubisoft, but only marginally.

 

I must disagree with you Tigranes, Steam does not take as long as your stating... currently it takes maybe 2 or 3 seconds to login in "offline mode" and shuts off just as fast (takes maybe 7 seconds in online mode). Also the fact you can play your SP games offline is a far cry from Ubisoft's persistent online model (no pun intended).

[Zoraptor]

Said it before, but I bet those who have quick start up times for Steam have it loading at startup/ don't shut it down after a launch rather than having it start on game launch every time- that does make a large difference.

 

There's certainly no activation limit as somebody incorrectly claimed earlier in the thread.

Sure there is, you have as much access as Valve (or its partners) decide you have and they can cut it off at any time without legal recourse. To whit:

 

Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time

 

[..]

 

..YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE STEAM SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT..

 

Not that it means they will cut off access, just that they can and there's nothing you can do about it if they do.

 

(Yes, I did not sell my soul to Gamestop or whoever it was)

[Spider]

For me, steam launches in about 15 seconds. It does not start with the computer or anything like that. I don't think that's too bad.

[Humodour]

I'd say it's your connection speed (dial-up?), so Steam clearly isn't for you. That simple.

 

I have **** internet indeed, but not dial-up, it can handle other stuff fine. So questions arise:

1) Why does a matchmaker / game starter service need so much more bandwidth than, say, a flash website? Why is it, in fact, even slower than or about as slow as loading youtube?

2) Why does it take the same time on a good computer even when in offline mode (and, soemtimes, tries to connect anyway?)

3) Why does it freeze and take ages to toggle between online/offline?

 

I have to say it's your computer because it doesn't do that on mine. I have run into some of those problems some of the time but not regularly.

 

As to the bandwidth requirements: I don't know why. 512 kbps up is fast. I THINK 256kbps was fine, from memory.

 

On folders, maybe I'm wrong, but it didn't let me choose where to install ETW. Maybe a one-off. In fact, maybe all of my Steam problems are a one-off. It's certainly hard to believe that it could be so popular yet so crap.

 

And the last one about choosing where to install games is downright incorrect.

 

How do I specify where to install Steam games? Specifically, with Steam on drive c, how do I get it to install games on drive d? I was under the impresison this oculdn't be done.

 

It's annoying, but it's more the way the programme is designed rather than a deliberate move. You have to uninstall Steam and then reinstall it I believe, specifying the download directory during install. I've certainly got Steam installed to C drive but downloading/installing games to my external drive F. I can't remember the uninstall process so backup Steamapps just in case.