Uncrackable activation schemes ...

Bloodstar wrote:
>> I look at a serial number the same way I view the key to my car; yeah, I
>> need to have a key to make my car run. But that's a feature, not a bug.
>
> Hehe... no it cannot pass just like that.
>
> Hearts of Iron 2 doesn't have any copy protection at all, not even CD KEY.
>
> CD KEY is a copy protection but of course it is not intruisive as other.
>
> I see that Matrix Games put's CD KEY's that were leaked to pirates of TOAW 3
> for example on black list and includes it in patch. So that is also viable
> and effective way of dealing with piracy - pirate get's 1.0 version but
> cannot patch it unless patch is cracked as well.
>
>
Aren't you arguing against your own position here?

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

> Aren't you arguing against your own position here?

Erm... in fact no
There are different levels of copy protection we will see what future will
brings, Star Trek etc...
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

> decided not to buy SC2 due to DRM protection. Isn't it?
>
> That is not very altruistic toward Hubert Cater who also must eat, pay the
> bills etc...

THE FAR SIDE

And, all of sudden, a way for Hubert to pay bills appeared at the horizon...
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

>> That is not very altruistic toward Hubert Cater who also must eat, pay
>> the bills etc...
>
> THE FAR SIDE
>
> And, all of sudden, a way for Hubert to pay bills appeared at the
> horizon...

Is that Italian submarine on distant horizon? )))
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:56:31 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999 RemoveThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>"The IAAF ruled Monday that double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius is
>ineligible to compete in the Beijing Olympics because his prosthetic
>racing legs give him a clear competitive advantage."

who ever thought you'd see the day where if you wanted to run faster
you should cut off your legs? when are the first cyborg olympics?

do you think ben johnson would cut off his legs to run faster? marion
jones?
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

>> You on the other hand was supporter of lone wolf programmer Hubert Cater
>> and
>> owned SC1 but decided not to buy SC2 due to DRM protection. Isn't it?
>
> Mario, I *still* want to give Cater my bucks!! Here ya go, Hubie, I got
> yer money right here! I *loved* SC1! I'd buy SC2 *tomorrow* if he was
> willing to just sell it to me, and not try to rent it.
>
> The very day he ditches the Nazi DRM and stops assuming I'm a crook,
> I'll cheerfully give him my money. Happily. Can't think of a guy I'd
> rather send fifty bucks to.

That's splendid, really. I am now beginning to understand you
Really.
It's their call. Like in Poker.

BTW, once I played poker and had nick Joe Woody LOL

Now seriously fact that I am benovelent regarding that doesn't mean that I
don't understand you guys who take it very seriously. I hope that something
will come up out of this.



Mario
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

In article <fmrbl8$1fd$1@sunce.iskon.hr>,
george.washington.DeleteThis@microsoft.com says...

> >> You on the other hand was supporter of lone wolf programmer Hubert Cater
> >> and
> >> owned SC1 but decided not to buy SC2 due to DRM protection. Isn't it?
> >
> > Mario, I *still* want to give Cater my bucks!! Here ya go, Hubie, I got
> > yer money right here! I *loved* SC1! I'd buy SC2 *tomorrow* if he was
> > willing to just sell it to me, and not try to rent it.
> >
> > The very day he ditches the Nazi DRM and stops assuming I'm a crook,
> > I'll cheerfully give him my money. Happily. Can't think of a guy I'd
> > rather send fifty bucks to.
>
> That's splendid, really. I am now beginning to understand you
> Really.
> It's their call. Like in Poker.
>
> BTW, once I played poker and had nick Joe Woody LOL
>
> Now seriously fact that I am benovelent regarding that doesn't mean that I
> don't understand you guys who take it very seriously. I hope that something
> will come up out of this.

But then ...

Why not join us over on the side of the light?

Come now. The fundamental things that you, me, Eddy, Frank E, Oleg,
Epi, von Schmidt, CaligulasHorse, Vincenzo, Mike Kreuzer, Luca, John
Secker, psynnot, Briarroot, HR, MJB, RobP, oldsalt, Hannu, and about a
zillion other people whom I know and respect but can't dash off off the
top of my head, share is:

(1) We're wargamers. We love wargames.
(2) We desperately want our hobby to succeed.
(3) WE WANT TO GIVE WARGAME DEVELOPERS OUR MONEY.

It's just that simple.

Our *only* disagreement - you and me - is in terms of whether intrusive
copy protection is:

(a) A necessary evil.
(b) Killing wargame developers.

My point is that a big bunch of your fellow wargamers (see above) are
telling you that INTRUSIVE DRM IS KILLING WARGAME DEVELOPERS. We don't
hate developers - we love them! We don't want wargame developers to
fail - we *need* them to succeed. If wargame developers fail, then *we
all lose*.

Join us. You know you want to. We're right.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The IAAF ruled Monday that double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius is
ineligible to compete in the Beijing Olympics because his prosthetic
racing legs give him a clear competitive advantage."
- New York Times
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

On 19 jan, 02:13, "Bloodstar" <george.washing....RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> That being said if intruisive DRM is killing wargame developers, then we
> should make some plan of action, whatever it is.
>
> 1. making some website about this (where we can explain our motives etc...)
> 2. collect votes on forums about DRM ( like petition )...
> 3. maybe some other things

Or maybe act directly and tell them on their own forum I don't like
DRM and that it's stopping me from buying their game ?

I mean Hubert Cater himself has posted on the Battlefront forum that
sales of SC2 were below expectation. The question every business then
should ask itself is why sales are down. People have then pointed at
the orthogonal versus the hexes thing and that was tolerated and ok to
do so, but as soon as people mentioned the DRM as a sales inhibitor it
was banning time.

In other words : deep down they know people don't like DRM, that it
might make people think twice about buying the game, hence they get
scared when it's mentioned at the forum and act accordingly. Examples
enough at both the Battlefront and the SES forum.

So, in essence I don't think we need to tell them about how gamers
feel about DRM - by their very acts they've proven to me that they
already know. The next bit of info they get is from their accountant.
Now it's up to them. Like I said before : their call.

> What if they are really too stuborn to change their ways? We are than back
> to start.

If they're too stubborn to change their ways - and it happens all the
time with businesses in general - they go under - simple as that. If
your product doesn't sell anymore *for whatever reason* you're out of
business.

> Now that is just an idea. What is wrong to do in my book is to keep
> attacking wargame companies with bad words, calling them names etc... - we
> know that this can just get other effect.

We tried telling them gently and got kicked in the lower backside for
it, now it's time to say it a little louder.

> And again I don't know that our pressure on wargame publishers can get
> results we want.

Money speaks louder than words. Money they're not seeing.

> But what if turns out that our hobby is just simply dying slow death

As has been predicted for as long as I'm a wargamer.

> and that this DRM thing was just some sort of way some publishers tried to use
> it to prevent that death?

The thing is that wargame companies are a couple of years behind the
curve as far as DRM is concerned. The music companies started with it
years ago. At that point in time the only thing you heard from the
likes of Sony, EMI, etc. were victory bulletins. So, it was only
natural for some wargame publishers to think "he, why not us ?".

Back then the only opposition came from guys in big IT shops raising
their tiny voice telling people DRM would burn them badly - but nobody
listens to geeks - but then more and more guys who bought into this
DRM music thing got burned and here we are today where a very large
number of people have decided they won't buy any DRM'ed music
anymore.

And here we have wargame publishers betting the farm that people would
react differently with $50 wargames then they would with $20 music
cd's. I don't buy that. Literally too.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

In message <vXOjj.60533$Rf5.48273@newsfe13.phx>, Hannu Harvanpaah
<groggymonkey.TakeThisOut@NOSPAM.com> writes
>
>"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:KJOjj.54246$8j3.6646@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>> and if the mods at GameSquad are smart they
>>> will remove the link
>>
>> I don't see a correlation between the two items )
>>
>>> but if that ain't instructions on how to hack
>>> the activation in DG I'm eating my CS degree.
>>
>Yep, it is, all there in Cyrillic glory for those that wish to read it!
>
>Furthermore, the hack works on the DEMO for DG to unlock the full game!
>Haven't bothered with DG myself (and this won't change my mind), but
>ANYTHING that leaves Mr. Rose and BS protection schemes in meltdown
>stage is alright with me.......
>
>Funny thing, had DG not had a BS activation scheme I would have bought
>it, now they only managed to piss-off legitimate users, while the
>pirates are having a laugh.....
>
>
Yep, same here - this is my absolute core wargaming interest, big ships
with big guns, Jutland, Dogger Bank, Falklands. I would have bought this
instantly without even asking the price, but I am not going to give my
money to someone who will then abuse me and call me a thief when the
game stops working because of their mistakes, and I have to ask to have
it switched back on, please Mr Rose Sir. May have been the best computer
game for me ever written, but I will never know.
--
John Secker
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

> But then ...
>
> Why not join us over on the side of the light?
>
> Come now. The fundamental things that you, me, Eddy, Frank E, Oleg,
> Epi, von Schmidt, CaligulasHorse, Vincenzo, Mike Kreuzer, Luca, John
> Secker, psynnot, Briarroot, HR, MJB, RobP, oldsalt, Hannu, and about a
> zillion other people whom I know and respect but can't dash off off the
> top of my head, share is:
>
> (1) We're wargamers. We love wargames.
> (2) We desperately want our hobby to succeed.
> (3) WE WANT TO GIVE WARGAME DEVELOPERS OUR MONEY.
>
> It's just that simple.
>
> Our *only* disagreement - you and me - is in terms of whether intrusive
> copy protection is:
>
> (a) A necessary evil.
> (b) Killing wargame developers.
>
> My point is that a big bunch of your fellow wargamers (see above) are
> telling you that INTRUSIVE DRM IS KILLING WARGAME DEVELOPERS. We don't
> hate developers - we love them! We don't want wargame developers to
> fail - we *need* them to succeed. If wargame developers fail, then *we
> all lose*.
>
> Join us. You know you want to. We're right.

Gifty, you are made to be a leader ))

I agree with most of you said here. But even if I join as a pure solidarity
to you guys I cannot just eat everything I said. I cannot accept for an
example boycott of wargame companies - that just doesn't cut with my
principles.

But what I can endorse, since I love this hobby as much as everyone here is
that - we sat here with cold head and think what is best to be done.

That being said if intruisive DRM is killing wargame developers, then we
should make some plan of action, whatever it is.

1. making some website about this (where we can explain our motives etc...)
2. collect votes on forums about DRM ( like petition )...
3. maybe some other things

Now that is just an idea. What is wrong to do in my book is to keep
attacking wargame companies with bad words, calling them names etc... - we
know that this can just get other effect.

And again I don't know that our pressure on wargame publishers can get
results we want.

What if they are really too stuborn to change their ways? We are than back
to start.

Maybe for a start we should open the channels for a talk, chat or whatever -
hear all sides, hear arguments, without big words or hot blood.

If DRM is really killing wargames then I am OK to join you

But what if turns out that our hobby is just simply dying slow death and
that this DRM thing was just some sort of way some publishers tried to use
it to prevent that death? Maybe it can just accelerate that doom, don't
know.

See, I am not defending DRM at all but some sort of unity of wargamers is
needed. I am also tired of arguing.
It's too late so I am not very smart )


Mario
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

On 19 Jan, 01:13, "Bloodstar" <george.washing....RemoveThis@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > But then ...
>
> > Why not join us over on the side of the light?
>
> > Come now. The fundamental things that you, me, Eddy, Frank E, Oleg,
> > Epi, von Schmidt, CaligulasHorse, Vincenzo, Mike Kreuzer, Luca, John
> > Secker, psynnot, Briarroot, HR, MJB, RobP, oldsalt, Hannu, and about a
> > zillion other people whom I know and respect but can't dash off off the
> > top of my head, share is:
>
> > (1) We're wargamers. We love wargames.
> > (2) We desperately want our hobby to succeed.
> > (3) WE WANT TO GIVE WARGAME DEVELOPERS OUR MONEY.
>
> > It's just that simple.
>
> > Our *only* disagreement - you and me - is in terms of whether intrusive
> > copy protection is:
>
> > (a) A necessary evil.
> > (b) Killing wargame developers.
>
> > My point is that a big bunch of your fellow wargamers (see above) are
> > telling you that INTRUSIVE DRM IS KILLING WARGAME DEVELOPERS. We don't
> > hate developers - we love them! We don't want wargame developers to
> > fail - we *need* them to succeed. If wargame developers fail, then *we
> > all lose*.
>
> > Join us. You know you want to. We're right.
>
> Gifty, you are made to be a leader ))
>
> I agree with most of you said here. But even if I join as a pure solidarity
> to you guys I cannot just eat everything I said. I cannot accept for an
> example boycott of wargame companies - that just doesn't cut with my
> principles.
>
> But what I can endorse, since I love this hobby as much as everyone here is
> that - we sat here with cold head and think what is best to be done.
>
> That being said if intruisive DRM is killing wargame developers, then we
> should make some plan of action, whatever it is.
>
> 1. making some website about this (where we can explain our motives etc...)
> 2. collect votes on forums about DRM ( like petition )...
> 3. maybe some other things
>
> Now that is just an idea. What is wrong to do in my book is to keep
> attacking wargame companies with bad words, calling them names etc... - we
> know that this can just get other effect.
>
> And again I don't know that our pressure on wargame publishers can get
> results we want.
>
> What if they are really too stuborn to change their ways? We are than back
> to start.
>
> Maybe for a start we should open the channels for a talk, chat or whatever -
> hear all sides, hear arguments, without big words or hot blood.
>

Some times big words and hot blood are inevitable, for example when a
developer insults our intelligence by claiming that companies cannot
sell their games over the internet without using a DRM system, when we
have publishers doing just that.
If they want to claim that their way brings more sales, fine. But if
they claim that theirs is the only way to the business, then we do
have the right to be angry at them.
After all, wouldn't you be angry if someone lied to you? Especially if
it was a clumsy, obvious lie?

> If DRM is really killing wargames then I am OK to join you
>

I don't think that DRM is killing wargames, it might eventually kill
some developers like Storm Eagle, but there are more other studios
around doing business without DRM, so the "hobby" is not in danger.
The issue is not if we will have games to play in the future, but
rather who will be around to sell them to us.
So what do we need to do? I think that letting developers know that we
don't like DRM very much and that if they insist on using it we will
take our business elsewhere will be enough. They need us but we don't
need them.
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

On 19 jan, 16:43, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I'm not so interested in DG, but I sure would have bought CM:SF and
> > SC2WAW if they didn't have the "software-rental" DRM schemes. There
> > are probably more examples as well, but those two are just off the top
> > of my head - BattleFront could have made those two sales and gotten my
> > money, if not for their DRM.
>
> Well, I must meet one lady friend of mine, some time later egh so just
> this reply: it
> would be maybe wise to every time you made post like this you also send it
> Battlefront.com and SES way

You do realize that for months after the DRM scheme from SES became
known they didn't even have a contacting email address at their
website ? None. Zippo. There was simply no way to contact them,
leaving JR to claim at some point that they had *never* received any
complaints about the DRM scheme so far.

Well, he didn't lie that time.

We're well past the point where simply telling them has any chances of
success - we tried that - it didn't work.

> If enough people bombard their inbox maybe they will realize extent of the
> problem

If their banker bombards their inbox with overdraft messages they will
also realize the extent of the problem.

> Now excusema but I have more important thing )

Behave, but not too much

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ... 

"Paulo Vicente" <Paulo.Alexandre.Vicente RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fba30879-e179-423f-9e78-f34390ec39e1@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>> If DRM is really killing wargames then I am OK to join you
>>
>
> I don't think that DRM is killing wargames, it might eventually kill
> some developers like Storm Eagle, but there are more other studios
> around doing business without DRM, so the "hobby" is not in danger.
> The issue is not if we will have games to play in the future, but
> rather who will be around to sell them to us.
> So what do we need to do? I think that letting developers know that we
> don't like DRM very much and that if they insist on using it we will
> take our business elsewhere will be enough. They need us but we don't
> need them.
>

Nazi DRM and evasive protection schemes like starforce are killing computer
gaming for me. Ditto for on-line activation that requires I check-in just
so a gaming company can make certain that I am NOT a thief. It's just sort
of galling to be treated like that - especially when I've paid 40 or 50 or
70 dollars for the dubious privelige of 'owing' said piece of software.
It's worse than the game companies refusal to have legitimate and actual
hardware requirements on the game box - if the game won't run, I can always
replace the minimal effective part. Or wait until I get a whole new rig.
But if the game has nazi drm or starforce - it will always be so infected.
At least until I download a crack or the company releases a patch and I can
replace it.

<shrug>

What these companies don't seem to realize is that their products have in
economic terms I think was called 'high substitution' (or something
similar - economics 101 was a long time ago). And most of those
substitiutions are available IN MY OWN SOFTWARE COLLECTION ALREADY! At this
point I have 171 win98 or winXP computer games in my storage boxes that I
PAID FOR!. Most of them aren't 'wargames' - the majority are shooters or
RPGs or action / adventure or flight sims or faux-historical games like the
total war series or civilzation I, II, III or IV. But the point is that if
some new game is released with 'stuff' that inhibits my ability to use it by
messing with my hardware or restricts my ownership access PLUS it costs
fifty or sixty dollars to boot...

<shrug>

Plus - and this is something game designers had better realize - on my XP
rig (two and a half years old with a now average video card) these older
games absolutely fly. No lag, no CTDs, no slow load times or bottlenecks.
A four or five year old game on my current box is played with all the
sliders pushed to the right and all eye-candy enabled at as high a
resolution as the game can muster. No new, expensive game, with lag and
crashes, played at 800x600 with all the goodies castrated so it will run at
all can compare because the older game simply looks and plays better. And
if the older game is modable by the users, it might look and play even
better than the older game.

Morrowind was NOT replaced by Oblivion. European Air War was NOT replaced
by IL-2 Sturmavic. And old, washed-out games like Jagged Alliance 2, Panzer
General 2, People's General and many others have found new life (and new
fans) among the modding crowd online. And some of the available FREEWARE
like People's Tactics or Fields of Strategy are worth every nickle you pay
for them. So the notion that I, with my collection of over 170 games and
all the free mods and freeware, am going to be restricted by some company
that is trying to entice me into giving them my money is, well, silly.

And self-defeating as well.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Uncrackable activation schemes ...