Relicnews: the definitive source for all things Relic

Posted by Forhekset at April 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am

Why would they increase copy protection if they’re not going to sell it to them anyway?

Posted by xyrtrax at April 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Or maybe offer it in China at a cheaper rate than the pirates? Chances are, the people playing CoH in China didn’t download it and bought it off the sidewalk instead.

Posted by Smak at April 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Please keep paying people to come up with new copy protection technology that is broken in a matter of hours and at little cost while increasing the cost of development and manufacturing that is passed on to the consumer. This will help new companies that come out with creative new ideas release their title far below the costs of the established publishers more worried about market trends, curving piracy, and restricting end user rights, than producing high quality art.

DRM is dead, be proud of it!

Posted by Chaingun at April 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm

“Just more reason to invest in new copy-protection methods.”

Bullshit. I wonder what the availability of legal units of the game was in China for sale. My guess is “extremely few or none”. If the publisher didn’t even attempt to sell it they can’t count that piracy as losses - except the bandwidth costs of providing patch downloads to pirates.

I’m not defending piracy here, but I am saying copy protection schemes are a huge pain in the ass to people who actually purchased the game legally AND hardly increases any revenues in China as long as the distribution model is failed.

Posted by Bob at April 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I’d say that is 800,000 reasons why not to bother anymore with Copy Protection: it doesn’t work! But hey, if a publisher want to keep throwing more money away have at it. In the mean time, all you are doing is treating the paying customers like criminals, since clearly the pirates don’t have to worry about copy protection.

Investing money into copy protection… lol I have a bridge I can sell ya!

Posted by ceejayoz at April 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Like others, I’m not seeing why this is a vote for copy protection. As you say, it was never sold in China.

I’d say it’s a vote for selling the game in China.

Posted by Robsoie at April 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Uberjumper wrote :
“Just more reason to invest in new copy-protection methods.”

Actually you have a very bad argument,China pirating COH only proves that this market has a huge piracy problem and that they just download games instead of buying them.

How adding even more copy protection will push those people pirating games so easily to actually buy them ?
The argument of “copy protection meaning more sales” is indeed flawed as you can understand.
Even by creating an impossible to bypass copy protection (something that does not exist currently), the result will be that instead of downloading your software, they will just download another software.
In the end you make no more sales anyways.

I strongly suggest anyone to read this interesting article from one of the Sin of a Solar Empire developers, especially the part about spending tons of founds to develop games specifically for a market in which piracy is how things work.

And strongly think again about the argument of “copy protection = more sales in market full of piracy”.

Posted by Robsoie at April 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm

I forgot the link for the article, sorry
http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 am

Let me first say that I hate having to deal with copy protection. It causes more problems supporting and developing software for legitimate users than it does for crackers.

However, if you develop a product that people are going to pay for, do you want people getting to use it for free when others are paying for it? No. That’s at the core of my dislike for people that think piracy is ok to do.

That’s the problem I have with casual piracy and why I don’t hold it against developers and publishers for attempting to prevent people from using a product they didn’t pay to use.

There’s a couple kinds of piracy. Casual piracy (the “let me install my copy on your system for you”) and piracy which requires more extensive efforts to deliver to people using it without buying it. Most casual piracy, IMO, is more of a case of people just not getting that it takes a lot of money to develop software. The more complex anti-piracy methods (such as those used for Bioshock) give that extra cushion to prevent the product from being cracked on release. You don’t lose as many sales to illegal downloads off the bat. I’ve seen anecdotes on other forums where people waiting for the hot new release of Bioshock resorted to shock buying it when they couldn’t find a zero day crack.

CoH 1.0 (up until the release of Opposing Fronts and the change in protection methods) was so casually pirated precisely because IT HAD NO COPY PROTECTION AT ALL. None.

We saw that evidence on the Relic forums immediately after the release that changed the copy protection method. People immediately began complaining because they couldn’t play their multiple installed copies of the game on their LAN networks anymore. People just didn’t seem to “get” that if you’re using a product someone’s spent money developing, that those people that develop that product should be compensated. And by compensated, I don’t mean “download 1.3 PETABYTES of patch at an additional cost to the developer/publisher”. Those people were not paying cusotmers, but essentially, THQ’s paying to have them play the game.

Now, when I say “new forms of copy protection”, refer back to my earlier statement. I dislike copy protection as much as the next legitimate purchaser. I’m a big fan of Steam and Stardock (I’ve bought products from each service). I like not having to worry about what something like Starforce is going to do to my system.

But the developer/publishers have every right to try and protect their product from people using it that haven’t paid for it. Some novel ideas ARE being tried in China with CoHO. Chinese gamers will pay a fee to play the game as I understand it. If they don’t pay, they can’t play. That’s more along the lines of the MMO model, but it works. The investment is protected.

They can of course try other methods. Selling CoH in China for full (US/Canadian/Euro) value would have gone over like a lead balloon in China. I’d be ok with a reduced cost, as long as the purchaser in China’s paying a proportionally equal fee for the product. Problem is, why would someone in China do that if they can get it for free?

Need something like Vancouver’s four pillars approach to reducing drug related harm in the city. Something like… 1. Educate users that using software without compensating the developer/publisher is wrong. 2. Enforce laws preventing distribution of pirated product. 3. Provide new services that replace existing models of software deployment. 4. Reduce consumption of pirated product

Again, for me, protecting your business investment by preventing people from using your product without paying for it simply makes sense. While I dislike dealing with copy protection, I think it’s neccesary and I encourage publishers to find new and novel ways to protect their investment (while hopefully not inflicting more harm on legitimate consumers).

Posted by wallace321 at April 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Can you buy it digitally in china? As for people who crying about people who install multiple copies to play over a LAN, cry me a river. People who buy Halo can play with 4 people without needing a 2nd copy of the game. 4 buddies want to play CoH, that’s $160. Maybe Halo should have cost $160? They’re selling themselves short! Bungie could have made a killing! Oh? You don’t think people would pay $160 for a game? Do it. Make a game and sell it for $160 and blame the lack of sales on piracy.

PS. Blizzard used to let you install “clone” copies of their games, no single player, it was good only for joining multiplayer games with the “full” install user. Only 3 full installs were needed to play with 8 players.

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Wallace:

I don’t believe you can buy it digitally in China according to what I’ve heard. The 800,000 downloads mentioned would not have been from Steam sales, as steam patches the product and they’d not need to download it.

As for the LAN gaming thing, I agree, it sucks to have to sell multiple copies for LAN gaming. The problem with that is you can play LAN games across the Internet with services like Hamachi. It’d be nice to allow cloned installs so that the cloned installs can be multi-played with the original product owner. However, since THQ and Relic have choosen not to do that (in fact I don’t think any game has done it since Starcraft), it’s WRONG to play it without paying for it.

As you note, with Starcraft and Warcraft II, you could install cloned copies, but those clones couldn’t play single player, only multiplayer. With casually pirated versions of CoH, the entire game would be available for both parties to play.

The comparison between split screen console games and PC games isn’t a fair comparison (apples to oranges). Halo for 4 players split screen is from the same hardware, with one DVD. It also requires 2-4 controllers for Split Screen Multiplayer. The experience is also reduced as you’re dividing the screen up between multiple players. You’re also stuck in the same physical location. You can’t split screen play on PC RTS games.

Now comparing single player Co-op/multiplayer Console games like Halo to multiplayer PC games like CoH would be fair. One person with one copy of a console game playing at home against other players across Xbox Live is the most fair comparison as that situation’s the same as a multiplayer PC game. Every player requires a legitimate copy of the game to play over Xbox Live, and a console and controller to play. Every player of a PC multiplayer game should require a copy of the game, a PC and a keyboard and mouse to play.

As such, your suggestion that Halo 3 should have cost $160 (more like $240 really, plus the cost of additional controllers) as that’s what it costs to play CoH multiplayer (4 player game), is a really really poor analogy.

I suspect that CoHO (Company of Heroes Online) will answer this. If you want to play the game multiplayer, you’ll pay a fee to access and play against others, and that will be the only way you can play it. No more LAN gaming sessions (or LAN through Hamachi). Relic could also sell a cheaper, multiplayer only version of the game as well perhaps. Multiplayer only versions of games that contain both single and multiplayer games would be a wise idea.

The initial problem still remains, people like yourself think it’s OK to use a product and not pay for it. Until people like you realize that developers don’t like to give away products (that cost millions of dollars to develop) without being compensated, or people only buy products and stop playing pirated games, Developers will have to come up with new ways to try to ensure people can’t use their product without compensating the developer for bringing their product to market.

As an aside, I often hear the comment “If the game was better, more people would buy it and not pirate it”. For CoH, that’s obviously not the case. It was Game of the Year when it was released. If people don’t think that the PC game of the year should be paid for, there’s a serious societal problem there.

Posted by wallace321 at April 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I wasn’t suggesting those were steam downloads, i’m just saying, if they can’t even buy it from steam, then there is zero chance of them ever having bought it. It’s disgusting to claim those sales were lost to piracy. Copy protection wouldn’t have stopped that. Piracy sucks, but screwing legitmate customers over a few pennies isn’t going to win you the popularity contest. In the long run, you’ll lose more sales. I think i’m going to go buy a copy of Sins of a Solar Empire. I hear its a great game and I know they won’t treat me like a criminal after they have my money.

Posted by wallace321 at April 5th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Oh it’s on, motherf**er. I don’t take kindly to insults. People like ME think it’s ok to use a product and not pay for it?? You sir, can go straight to hell. I have no fewer than 3 copies of CoH: the Collector’s Edition, the regular edition, and CoH + OF Gold Edition from Steam. I’m arguing the side I’ve chosen to argue because I’m intelligent and argue FACTS not ideologies.

YES in a perfect world, game companies would get their hard-earned money for their games and people would be more proud of having earned the money to pay for a game than for getting around something preventing them from having it for free. And when you arrive on that perfect world (and i say ‘on’ because it ain’t THIS planet), be sure and send us a card.

The FACTS in this debate are that piracy has not been stopped with any copy protection yet devised by man. Every copy protected game has been copied and redistributed over the internet to people who didn’t pay for it. Even Steam has been circumvented, though I would hesitate to call it copy protection. Its a new distribution method that has a side effect of being difficult to copy and it’s quite fair to the consumer, despite not allowing you to give your finsished games to a friend or re-sell them.

The only people who have to put up with this so called “protection”, are the people who bought the game in the first place. Those, moron, are legitimate consumers like me.

You argue that you need additional controllers to play Halo 3. DUH! But those controllers aren’t limited to only playing Halo with, are they? Nor did Bungie even profit from the sale of those controlers. Those same controllers can also play gears of war or burnout or any number of other games. Any game at all that supports split screen can make use those same controllers. It’s not a purchase required to play Halo 3 specifically, just as the other 2 computers I play CoH on are not exclusivly for CoH. I had them before Relic saw fit to bless us with CoH and Relic did not get a dime for a single component in thm.

“The experience is also reduced” - that is as subjective as it is irrelevant, that is, completely. What does it matter if the screen is smaller? Get a bigger TV! 4 people are enjoying the same copy of the game simultaneously. I would argue the experience is heightened by involving 4 people (assuming everybody has an amount of fun equal to the single player experience. That must be so because if they had less fun in multiplayer, why would they be playing multiplayer?). People who only play single player didn’t pay more for the ability to play split screen, they paid the same amount. Seems like that would be an arguement to allow multiplayer over the LAN somehow. Some people make use of it, others don’t. 4 People are playing a single physical copy of a game, they didn’t pay any more for the game, and its currently impossible in CoH for no reason other than what? Greed, maybe? Laziness to implement a “clone” install feature such as Blizzard used?

On that note, you also point out to me that you couldn’t play single player with a cloned copy. Yeah dude, I beat you to the punch on that one. I pointed that out when I brought it up. It’s only for multiplayer. In fact in this case, implementing a “clone copy” feature would help if youre hung up on not wanting to allow people to play the single player component. People with the orignal disc have more rights, in this case. I would prefer if the disc wasn’t needed in the drive, but it’s a very small inconvienance, though entirely unnecessary since people who want to copy the disc, will. Meanwhile my original is getting scratched through normal use and I’m unable to back it up. Legit consumer is screwed again.

The reason you need an original disc to play on X-Box live (if you forget the fact that the game isn’t installed and run entirely off the hard disk anyway)is because it’s the same disc that gives you access to the entire single player expierience. There’s nothing stopping a developer from implementing a “Clone” install mode on a console now that they have hard disks. Yea, let console gamers f**k around with CD-Keys like PC Gamers have had to put up with for years. But I dont see it happening any time soon because piracy isn’t as big of a concern on consoles as it is on PC anyway. I was ok with CD-Keys for a while because they were also supposed to stop cheaters but that certainly hasn’t happened.

Honestly, think a little outside the box. Copy protection isn’t stopping copying and it has that tiny little side effect of punishing the actual consumers. The activation process in Flight Simulator X has me more than a little peeved. Two installs, and that’s all i get? F**k that. I have 3 computers. I can’t even move the orignal disc from one machine to the other to play because it can only be installed twice! No way in hell i’m doing a “clean” upgrade of vista now (as recommended by microsoft), I would lose one of my FSX installs! If you can’t see that being a concern for the people actually buying games you are totally blinded by illusions of right & wrong. Consumers are always wrong and developers are always right? When do game developers go too far? I personally feel FSX-like activation has crossed a line. Go ahead; add more copy protection. Add product actiavtion allowing only a single installation. I gurantee that long before we get to the point where they’ve developed the technology to require a DNA sample from the registered owner of a game just to start it, consumers will have stopped buying games all together because they’re just not worth the effort or the money and just the pirates will be playing. Still for free.

Posted by Moe at April 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

“I’m arguing the side I’ve chosen to argue because I’m intelligent and argue FACTS not ideologies.”

Clearly the mark of an intelligent person who argues FACTS is to start their post with “it’s on, motherfucker”. Calm the hell down, would you?

Posted by wallace321 at April 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I posted 2 replies, the first was a rational rebuttal to a few of the more obvious misstatements that were made. The 2nd was after I noticed he had called me a thief.

If you understood that I was angry about being called a pirate, then I do not apologize for my choice of words. They did their job. It’s not the choice of words that indicate intelligence, it’s their use. It may have been immature but it’s not a sign of intelligence. Though, after being called (without provocation) a pirate, a thief, and ignorant about basic economics, a certain amount of anger is more than justified.

I may have used a little sarcasm previously to make a point because I thought the comment I took issue with was ridiculous. (the comment about muliplayer halo and multiplayer CoH being apples & oranges) I don’t think that warranted the personal attack I got in response. You get what you give.

Posted by Moe at April 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am

I see, so when Uber suggested that you agreed with pirates (which you did by the way) you called him a motherfucker. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Stop being a self-righteous prick getting worked up over perceived personal attacks. And while you’re at it, stop referring to your intelligence in every post. It makes you look like an ass.

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 6th, 2008 at 1:27 am

Wallace:

I did not call you a thief. In reply to you saying this…

“As for people who crying about people who install multiple copies to play over a LAN, cry me a river.”

Your comment implies that you think it’s ok for people to install multiple copies of the product so more than just the original purchaser can use the product.

Open your CoH manual, and inside the front cover read point number 2 (say what you want about EULA’s and what not, but that pretty clearly expresses the publisher’s intent for how the program should be used).

In reply to your comment, I said the following…

“…people like yourself think it’s OK to use a product and not pay for it.”

All I’m doing is acknowledging your stated beliefs. Note that there’s a big difference between believing something and actually doing it. For example (bit of an apples to oranges comparison), I believe that pot should be legalized, but I have absolutely no desire to smoke pot. Just because you think that it’s ok to install a copy for a friend to play, doesn’t mean you’re a pirate. I believe, like you do, that developers could (and even should) allow people to install LAN only copies of PC RTS games, or copies that will only play over LAN with the original owner of the product. But they don’t, and they indicate that it’s one copy required per PC that the product would be installed on. I’m on the same page as you here. I’d love to be able to install multiple copies on my network to play when friends drop in.

Moving on…

You seem to think I’m pointing out something that you didn’t about Blizzard’s cloned game design for Starcraft and Warcraft. I think if you read that paragraph again, you’ll note I’m entirely agreeing with you and using your point (including the single player comment) to compare how Blizzard did it compared to people who copy CoH.

Comparing split screen Halo 3 to copying CoH to play on a LAN, no matter how you spin it, is an apples to oranges comparison. Halo 3 is designed to allow it. CoH is not intended to be installed as a copy for more than the original purchaser. End of discusssion. Halo 3’s designed to do that, PC RTS games aren’t (I think we both agree that PC games technically could and should be allowed to be installed to allow for LAN multiplayer use when the orignal owner’s involved). Until THQ changes their licensing agreement to say “One copy per household’s PCs” (or some other similar legalese), we’re stuck having to purchase multiple copies for LAN play.

You’ll also note that no where do I actually say that that’s 800,000 sales that were lost. My man problem with piracy (that I’ve reiterated a couple of times now) is that I don’t believe people should get to use a product if they don’t pay the fee for using it. You, on the other hand, have indicated that you feel it’s ok for people to install copies of a game even though they’re not intended to be used that way.

You’ll also note, if you take another look, that no where do I claim that copy protection is perfect and no where do I claim that copy-protection will ever fully stop crackers. I’m well aware it’s effectively impossible to currently stop crackers from breaking the protection. The best that developers have been able to do (as in the Bioshock example) is to prevent zero day cracks.

I think we’re essentially saying the same thing, and you’ve gotten hung up on thinking I’m calling you a pirate. Read my posts again, and I think you’ll see that I’ve said pretty well the same things you’re saying “Copy protection sucks for the legitimate purchaser” and “It’d be nice if things were better for PC gamers”. I’m also saying though “If you don’t pay for it, you shouldn’t get to use it”.

A few years from now, I think we’ll end up with PC games (or game services) that are subscription only, which will be a sad sad day.

Posted by wallace321 at April 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Moe

You misread. I didn’t refer to MY intelligence in the second post. I was refuting your sarcasm when you stated the use of a profanity was “clearly the mark of an intelligent person”. I merely defended myself, and here I am doing it again. Hey, I can be a jerk (as I’m sure you can tell), but in this case, if I were being a self righteous prick (thanks, by the way), I would be saying I’m better than others or asking for something I’m not entitled to. All I’m really asking for is to be treated better than a software pirate. Is that unreasonable?

Uber

I totally admit I was upset, it was wrong to lower myself to personal attacks and I apologize.

You’re right however that I wasn’t actually called a pirate, but saying simply that I AGREE with pirates reduces the issue to a point being almost equally insulting. I do NOT believe it’s ok to use a product without paying for it. In fact why should I belive that? Why should people get something for free that the rest of us have to pay for. The issue of being able to play multiplayer with a single disc is another matter entirely. I still think it’s a good idea, give the customer something that others are stealing, but it was far more relevant 5 years ago when games didn’t require a $400 top of the line videocard.

Where we differ is in the terms described in the EULA. I think when it comes down to a product’s usability and a technicality in some arbitrary EULA, something that only the paying customer has to held accountable for in the first place, maybe concessions should be made in the name of customer satisfaction? If you really want to put a dent in piracy, why be so restrictive with the people who actually buy your product? Technically, i’m not sure how EULAs can be enforced against people under 18 anyway, but that’s beside the point.

So I guess all that remains is why bother with it at all? CoH actually came up as being a game with no copy protection, which is what got me to buy it initially! I mean, it can’t be cheap to license securom. Yay for stopping zero day piracy! But why implement it now? I only realized in Feb that I didn’t need to put the disc in to play, so I hardly got to make use of it. The only thing thats changed is that people who do own the game now have to play with the disc in the drive! Unless of course they download the no-cd crack, at which point, they cease to be customers and become EULA-violating software pirates.

We really are pretty much on the same side here. Like I said, I was mad before and I hope you accept my apology. That was when I thought I was being called a pirate after having bought so much of Relic’s software in particular! I like relic! I have Dawn of War Gold on disc, Dawn of War Platinum on Steam, HomeWorld Game of the Year Edition on disc, CoH Collector’s Edition, CoH, CoH Gold on Steam. I love the PC as a gaming platform! I dont’ think that entitles me to special treatment but I just don’t want the hobby ruined. It must be frustrating to put a lot of time, money, and effort into making a game only to know that people out there are stealing it. But please, don’t punish the people who actually buy it with draconian copy protection like starforce or FSX style activation. (Bioshock’s activation turned out fine, 5 is fair, you can revoke activations, still requires the disc, no problem) Fine, require the disc in the drive, that isn’t too much to ask. But as there are no-cd cracks available, I’m not sure what good that does. Just keeping the honest people honest, eh?

(on a side note, it seems most copy protection is at least less annoying but as equally ineffective as those Anti Piracy PSAs that play at the beginning of legit DVDs. Again, keeping the honest people honest)

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Wallace:

Apology accepted.

Just FYI, all I had to go on was your comment about LAN gaming multiple installs where you seem to support people isntalling multiple copies. If that wasn’t what you actually mean then consider my comments edited accordingly :-)

Oh… about CoH being without copy protection… I heard somewhere that it was slated to have copy protection, but they couldn’t get it working for some reason so yanked it at the last minute. That probably got them a lot of new sales from folks like yourself, but then it lost them sales opportunities (not actual sales, as obviously not all of those people would have purchased it) when folks figured they could install it and not need the DVD in the drive.

Posted by Darren Stewart at April 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am

Dear Relic, Publishers, Coder, people involved, fellow customers:-

Copy protection both sucks, and meddles with PC internals. Its got a stinking bad reputation. I am sad to say that if developers put bad DRM on games, I simply don’t buy them. Period.

I bought company of heroes, AND opposing fronts, and bought a GFX card that has Company of heroes. As a paying customer, please BOG off with the DRM. The argument you suffer from 800k of sales in China is busted as soon as you say you never sold it there. You can’t claim piracy of your product when the product does not officially exist. You are not losing sales there, because YOU never sold it there.

Now go block China from the download sites, IF it costs you bandwidth.

PC gaming is in a hole, but its not merely from piracy, its from bad products, high prices, and technical problems the users face. I bought CoE, and OF, but all the DRM and limitation on LAN gaming and the rest just makes me like a great number of other people pissed off. Instead of worrying about the people who are NOT customers, try looking at it another way, QUIT pissing off those people who are.

DRM repeatedly punishes people like me, not the pirates, and I am sick of it.

By the way, GREAT Game in both cases, I was glad to pay for such a good product, and so were others. Focus on that first. Not the latent piracy in far flung corners of the world where you are not selling your product anyway.

Posted by TM at April 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Amen to what Darren Stewart just said!
And my own opinion about piracy is that it is ok most of the time (games, movies, music etc), considering all the crap that is released. But when I find a gem (like all Relic titles, from Homeworld and onward) I gladly pay the price.
If only Steam would let me download theese games without being punished with a higher price than in my avarage game store (incredible stupid!). There is something wrong with the distribution of media theese days, probably too many men in the middle that want a cut. Publishers, distributors an God knows what, I just want to buy the game and pay the developers (all the fine people that actually CREATE something), not the greedy bunch in between.

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Darren:

I think you need to read the article again.

Relic’s not claiming they lost 800,000 sales in China, just that 800,000 people from China downloaded a patch for the game. That shows interest in the product in China, but it also shows the Piracy problem in China. They won’t pay for the product if they can get access to it without paying for it.

Hence the need for new ways of copy protection (poorly worded perhaps) that prevents people from using a product without paying for it. Relic’s going the online only route to make their sales debut in mainland China. That’s a means of copy protection, making it so you have to pay access to an online service to gain access to the title.

TM:

Piracy’s never ok. If you use a product without paying for it, and the product’s only intended to be used after the creators/publishers have been compensated, you shouldn’t be using it unless you’ve forked over the requested fee. The answer to the product being crap and not worth the fee is not “Pirate it” it’s “Don’t use it” or “Wait until it’s in the bargin bin for 5 bucks and buy it then”

Posted by wallace321 at April 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am

I also agree with Darren. Since every piece of software ever made is available on the internet, why anger the people actually buying software with copy protection that isn’t stopping anything?

I agree “piracy” is never ok. I don’t get the argument that poor quality justifies downloading anything instead of paying for it. Ummm, TM, just curious, why do you have even need a downloaded copy of it if you think it’s crap? That argument makes us all look stupid.

The real problem is defining what qualifies as “piracy”. In an ideal world, after you buy the game you should be able to USE it without being called a pirate.

Example 1: No-cd cracks. On games that I have bought, I have absolutely no problem using these when they’re available despite the fact that I’m most likely violating the EULA. But how would I know? I didn’t read it… (in that ideal world that doesn’t exist, people would also take 30 minutes and read the EULA for each of their games. And we’d all be lawyers so we could understand them.) My using them doesn’t cost developers anything.

Example 2: I play a downloaded copy of Silent Hunter III while my DVD copy sits on the shelf. Why? The UK version never included StarForce so that’s the one I play. I don’t see a problem with this either. I bought the game, I play the game. My using this instead of my Disc copy doesn’t cost developers anything.

Example 3: I also played a downloaded copy of Civ IV for quite a while after several attempts to buy the game failed. The game is fantastic, got great reviews, and I WANTED to buy it! When I did though I got an error during install after inserting the 2nd disc. I had read on the internet that there were production problems with disc 2 (the error says “disc read error”, after all)so I actually returned the game twice before taking my laptop with me to Circuit City and attempted to install it with their remaining 2 copies of the game right there at the support counter! As it turns out, the game’s safedisc copy protection detected Daemon tools (legitimate disc mounting software I use for work) on my system and “crashed” the installer on purpose. Wow. Is that what copy protection is for? To this day, 2K Games’s Civ IV support page does not mention the copy protection as being a possible cause of installation issues.

I’d really like to hear your opinion about these particular examples. I guess I’m really just daring you to call me a pirate. So please, suprise me. But I have a feeling I know what’s coming. In the Civ IV example, I probably didn’t do the right thing. I shouldn’t have downloaded a game I didn’t own, but you must admit, the situation was caused by the copy protection not stopped by it. If the copies I tried to buy had told me why they weren’t allowing me to install, I would have had my working copy and wouldn’t have needed to download it.

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am

Wallace:

I’ll just refer back to my comment from April 3rd.

“Let me first say that I hate having to deal with copy protection. It causes more problems supporting and developing software [and] for legitimate users than it does for crackers.”

We’re on the same page when it comes to your examples, although I get to call you a pirate for pirating CivIV :-D

I still want people to stop using products they haven’t paid for. If that ever happened, we’d not need copy protection, but because it won’t, I want new methods of copy protection that are un-obtrusive, and still prevent users from using software they haven’t paid for.

Posted by wallace321 at April 17th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Ouch dude. My feelings. As a PC gamer, the Civ 4 thing really hurt. That was a sad day. I was so excited about that game and to be put through that and to be left unable to install it was wrong, on so many levels. What’s become of our beloved hobby? The pirated copy worked, the store bought copy didn’t. A person who bought the game couldn’t install it because of copy protection. I hope that’s not the kind of copy protection you want to invest in.

Posted by ÃœberJumper at April 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Well, There was a software conflict preventing your install. So you could have installed it by uninstalling Daemon tools right? You choose not to however, because you deemed work more important than play.

I’m not saying it’s right that the game not install if you have other software installed, and no, that’s not the type of copy protection I’d want (un-obtrusive means something that doesn’t get in your way).

I avoid games that have copy protection that causes conflict. More than once I’ve said “shucks, guess I won’t be buying that game”. Turns out there’s lots of other games that can take up my time though :-D

Posted by wallace321 at April 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Well, it didn’t TELL me there was a software conflict. And neither did 2k Game’s website. I found out, but not until well after the fact, and then I was able to install the game. Apparently, it’s a secret 2k Games doesn’t want to get out, because if you have dameon tools, you’re automatically a pirate, even if you BUY the game, so why should they help you? (PS about that story, even after removing Daemon Tools, the game will only run once without rebooting. Exit and relaunch the game and it will not “authenticate” your disc. Don’t you love “happy” endings?)

And I have to tell you, I’m not too excited about the new CoH copy protection. For the copy of CoH I bought from steam, I now have to log in with two different user names and passwords to play the game? (1 for steam, 1 for relic) Even single player and LAN play?? Wow!

More fun though: having 3 copies of the game, it seems I have to register each copy’s CD-key with a different Relic ID! I suppose I also have to remember which CD-KEY goes with which Relic ID or the key will be banned, preventing me from even playing single player or over a LAN.

It’s easy to talk tough about never buying from Relic again, but I probably will buy them because I like the games Relic makes. I like Relic though now as it’s become an abusive relationship. Count me as a disappointed customer who will probably continue to buy Relic’s products, but will always be wary of them like I am with Ubisoft’s products. You’ve sunk to almost the level of Ubisoft. Bravo. At least I can still rely on Blizzard.