Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) Starforce - Good protection?

HO HO HO!

and what does Lynn have to say about all this?

I really thought that the Larians would have put their 2 cents worth into this topic, although I agree with Kiya in that I don't believe in hacks etc. and Lynn would have to thread very carefully because of these comments, however I think an "Official" reply in regards to the whole starforce drama would be a + for the company.

Mea: I am sure Larian never knew that. I think that the protection is added by the publisher, not the developer. I doubt Larian can do anything about it.

I have the same feeling as Death.

(Uh, how this sounds ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" /> )

Excuse me, but haven't you all been raving about how you all love these proections in another thread?

Persoanlly, I think you should all say "Sorry xAcesx" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

But seriously, apart form the illegal action of protecting the disc, the outright installation of system monitoring device drivers, and the inability to remove them when the software is uninstalled is a joke.

Any game with this protection is no different than a trojan. No wonder people buy pirate stuff.

I'm afraid you're already supporting an illegal industry by buying the original games, with disc protections on (depending where you live, of course). There are people in the UK with your attitude, and while I respect it/them, they're unaware of what is legal and what isn't.

So really, it just a question of which illgal industries you support. And let it never be said that I have no ethics, as I use a couple of them (original games with crack files). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

@ deathatthedoor -> dude, if u can recall one of the Peek-Of-The-Week, larians themselves installed the protection into the game. lar mentioned that they ran into problems with the protection which the cd manufacturers suspected larians of making pirated cd's.

go figure. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

still, xacesx, larians will have to stick to the protection to protect their work.

by the way, can u elaborate on the legality of the protection? i don't seem to get it.

Good Ethics???

what's legal here, aint legal there and vice versa, it's OK there, but not here...
so once again, we refer back to an age old saying....(i enjoy very much),...

Rule Number #1
"the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few(or one)" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/alien.gif" alt="" />
meaning....well... do i really need to explain ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

now if this certain circumstance, (copy protection),just happened to be illegal everywhere,
then we would have a case,
but that is not the case,
so...
need i say
we have no case!

Majority rules once again....
sometimes it's sad....but often times true! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

what is really the big deal anyway?? Get a new CD drive......

One of the conditions of the EULA is that you make make one backup copy of the media. What's the point of a backup that doesn't work? By adding CD-based copy protection, you take away that legally given right.

does this apply to ALL media or just certain (multi-million dollar, money grubbing ones..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

No problem.

When you purchase software (a game for example), you purchase runtime code and the licence to run it. This is what you pay for. The law says, you can back up this runtime code, as a precaution to the software houses being liquidated, and being unable to replace your runtime code.

The law says they can protect their software, providing they don't violate the user rights (which is the statement above <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />). They could use a manual based protection (page 4, line 2, word 2) as this does not interfere with the back up. Sadly, most houses have decided not to bother with the user rights, and have opted to "cripple" the disc instead.

This type of proection doesn't wash with businesses (who insist on back ups), as most of them become heavily dependant on custom written software. If a business goes bust, and you're using some accounting software they've written, how will you reinstall it if your disc goes down? Theres no one to return it to, and no one gets piad in your business while your accounts are down, and you're wondering what to do about it.

Lets have CD keys, Manual protections or whatever, but nothing that interferes with the disc itself.

Look, the developers/publishers don't put these kind of protections on their disks just to break the law. They do it because of every known cure against illegal distribution of their software, it's considered the most effective one. What, you think they like it? You think they'd do it if they didn't feel they don't have a choice?

As someone said before, the disadvantages of such protections for the users by far don't outweigh the disadvantages for the developers/publisher when not using them.

I'm not gonna complain because I think it's too easy to tell everybody how bad a solution it is without offering any better ideas. What is this, politics? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
And yeah, some people will argue that they don't get paid for coming up with better solutions, but that's just low.

So maybe they place a driver or two on your disk, is that really worth the fuzz? If all the big companies in their turn made that kind of noise every time you entered the *grey zone* of the law, we'd probably all be deaf by now, and don't you deny that! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

I'm not saying those protections aren't illegal, or that I love them, it's just a matter of priorities.

This isn't a choice, I think that's the point.



This is highly immoral. This one factor will send shockwaves of rage throughout the entire gaming community. This will also encourage the "fixes" your all so opposed to. By accepting this, you must also accept the ethics of trojans and spyware, as they all do the same thing.



Ah, I see you think it's ok for the software houses (perhaps mainly the publishers) to break the law, and violate consumer rights. This is not a view I take personally, however, if they can break the law, why can't everyone else?

Like I said before, you can't rant about people breaking the law (pirates, no_CD cracks) and then look the other way when the software houses do it. That's just being an Hypocrite.

Let them protect their software by all means... Just not the disc it's on! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

So what if you lose the manual or it's damaged in a fire/flood? What if they use a dongle for protection and it becomes damaged? (A dongle plugs into a port and sends an authentication signal, like an electronic key.) Any physical means of protection is effective, including CD based protetion, but then they can all become damamged or lost after the company has been liqudated.

as for the fire or flood, i think God will be facing a libel suit. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

as for the dongle, well, i guess we have a choice of not buying the product to show that we don't like the technology. buyers must be strict in their principles & standings. if u hate the protection, don't buy the game that has such thing. if u hate the lack of it, don't buy the games that don't have any protection. but what u shouldn't do is to buy it then rant. but then most of the time we don't know what kind of protection will be included until we buy the game. in view of this, review sites should play a more vital role to advise potential buyers. not just 'this game sucks' or 'this game rocks' but of the way developers, publishers handle the game package.

we as consumers must be strict & insistent & have our voices heard. not to bitch after we give in to our game gluttony & find disappointment though duly warned. the money's ours so make that $$$ count. don't spend them on the developer/publisher that u feel is irresponsible/unethical.

the choice is ultimately yours.

Turn that around, and answer the same question; afterall, if so many customers weren't breaking the law, the publishers wouldn't *have to* do it in the first place.



My point is that they're doing it for different reasons; their intention is not to harm you in any way or to gain any profit from it. Spyware and trojan horses on themselves aren't a problem, the problem is what they were designed for.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????
Of course they don't utilize your system resources slowing your computer down or even crashing it. Of course there is nothing wrong in principle with programs that you don't want being placed on your computer without your knowledge.
Kejero, you have made some valid points, but not this one.

??????!!!!!!????!!!????
(another dodged argument! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> )



Of course, when they do that, they are a problem, but aren't they designed mostly to run in the background unnoticed?

Anyway, point taken. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I just mean to say that I don't care if they (publishers) put some stuff on my disk without warning me. Obviously when it messes up my system, I will care, but if I never notice anything, why would I complain. I just consider it part of the product. Maybe I shouldn't, but considering the reason for why they do it, I'm just fine with it.

Everytime I read EULA I must think of this :

If you change the last letter from EULA into EULE , you've got the German word for "Owl" ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

Actually Trojans, Worms and RATs are made to crash your computer, possibly allow easy access to your machine and/or use up your system resources.
Not spyware, though.


Alrik:

Harry Potter goes to computer camp.
Teacher: Okay, students, read your OWL
Harry: Ehhhhhh? Mam?
Teacher: Yes?
Harry: Are you a pervert, mam?