Slashdot Mirror
Stardock, Microsoft Unveil Their Own New Anti-Piracy Methods
Island Dog sends news that shortly after Valve showed off their new anti-piracy methods in Steamworks, Microsoft and Stardock were quick to demonstrate their new, similar technologies as well. All three companies are bending over backwards to say that this is not traditional DRM. Stardock (the company behind the Gamer's Bill of Rights) calls their system Game Object Obfuscation (Goo), "a tool that allows developers to encapsulate their game executable into a container that includes the original executable plus Impulse Reactor, Stardock's virtual platform, into a single encrypted file. When a player runs the game for the first time, the Goo'd program lets the user enter in their email address and serial number which associates their game to that person as opposed to a piece of hardware like most activation systems do. Once validated, the game never needs to connect to the Internet again." Microsoft's update to Games for Windows Live has similar protections. "You can sign in and play your game on as many systems as possible, but you have to have a license attached to your account. Of course, this only works for online games."
Um, sweetie, online-only games don't require copyright protection of any sort. It's kinda inherent in the concept. And it also doesn't work with games you can play offline. And WoW sure as hell wasn't the first paid online game. I enjoyed INN in the early 1990s, and there were others before that.
The ability to "steal" content unfortunately is a necessary part of it being accessable and usable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Oh, you can steal the software, just walk into Gamest... (no, not Gamestop, my daughter manages one)... er, Best Buy and shoplift a copy. That's the only way to steal software.
You might have a hard time infringing its copyright. You would also have a hard time excersizing your right to resell what you bought and paid for, should you decide to buy it rather than shoplift.
It was smart of you to post AC, so nobody would know who the dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between stealing and infringing copyright is.
Free Martian Whores!
In the end I'm going to buy the games on steam, unless its not offered there, even if I dont get a discount like publishers offer (ie: EA). I love steam for the pure fact that I can download my games onto another computer, or if I reformat my computer its not a pain to find CDs and install things.
On the other side, it's always annoying the need of connecting to internet to register an offline game.
I have friends that don't have internet access. Few years ago even I didn't. Also, an ISP subscription is an extra cost, which not everyone is willing to pay.
They should provide an alternative(which I doubt they will now).
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
When a player runs the game for the first time, the Goo'd program lets the user enter in their email address and serial number which associates their game to that person as opposed to a piece of hardware like most activation systems do. Once validated, the game never needs to connect to the Internet again.
You need an internet connection to "associate" your email and serial to the game.
This is not intrusive either and does not prevent you from installing the game everywhere you want.
I approve.
Unless you don't have an internet connection available.
It's still DRM.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
What if I decide that I played the game enough and I want to give or sell it to somebody else? Must I give them my email account as well? Or what if I decide to give it to by kid/brother/wife/dog so he can start using it on his/her/its PC?
And what if I buy a new PC after I changed providers, so I don't have my old email address anymore?
It manages my rights digitally, so it is just a different kind of Digital Rights Management. Perhaps they have forgotten what DRM stand for?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The ability to "steal" content unfortunately is a necessary part of it being accessable and usable.
Just when I'm out of mod points...
But yes, that's exactly it: if it's not usable after theft, it's probably also not usable after something else went wrong.
As far as I understand, GOO does require online activation, which means that after Stardock goed bankrupt, you probably won't be able to install it on a new machine anymore. And if you are able to install it on new machines without requiring Stardock's permission, that pretty much means you can "steal" it.
That is great and all, but people like to own what they buy. No one wants a rental service as has been shown over and over in the marketplace (like the bastardized napster, *cough* *cough*)
Oh, you can steal the software, just walk into [...] Best Buy and shoplift a copy. That's the only way to steal software.
Well I prefer the other way, go to the developer HQ, and take all copies of source code and art there. That's what I call software theft, why stop at a copy ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Not a traditional DRM
Um...sure guys. Whatever you say.
How do you define "traditional". From my end, I don't get to see the implementation details, just whether or not I can run the game/program without any hassles and maintain my anonymity. If you're forcing me to identify myself or otherwise check in with you, it's still traditional DRM.
Get a clue. If the game phones home at any point, I don't buy it.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
You didn't actually address GP's concerns though. The fact that you initially have to activate the game online at all is restrictive. Maybe not so much now, but what about ten years down the road when you install the game for nostalgia's sake and the lisence server has been long since taken down?
If you don't think this will be a problem, and that these games will be able to be activated online until the end of time, then you need to wake up and pay attention to the history of DRM. There are already plenty of examples of servers being shut off, leaving people without access to the media they paid for.
Or maybe you just only play modern games. That's OK, as long as you realize that a good percentage of gamers out do pick up the older stuff every once in a while.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that 10-15 year old games are routinely played on computers today.
I'll stick to buying used classic PC games. These idiots aren't getting a dime from me!
DRM isn't about preventing piracy. It's about showing consumers who's boss.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not sure who is being a dumbass here. Stealing and theft as English words (not as a legal concepts) apply perfectly validly to a variety of uses that have nothing to do with tangible property or depriving the victim of its use: "he stole my idea", "identity theft" etc.
That's true, but copyright infringement is only "theift" to someone wanting to load the language for political purposes. Everyone knows that "stealing an idea" isn't really stealing and that identity thieves don't become the person whose identity they've stolen, but those who call copyright infringement "theift" see no difference between stealing a CD and downloading it from Pirate Bay. Equating copyright infringement with theift is a dishonest use of language, that, may I say, only the dishonest use.
Free Martian Whores!
Too bad I hate
(1)Needing an internet connection to play a 1-player game
(2)Forcing me to give a company my email account when I purchase a game
(3)Being treated like I'm a criminal for wanting to play their game
Luckily for me, the more companies that adopt DRM or other anti-piracy measures, the more free games I get. If they treat me like a customer, they'll get my money. If they treat me like a thief, they won't.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Piracy isnt about avoiding DRM, its about showing the companies who's boss.
Good-bye
I assume you mean "remarkably effective" in the sense of the kid getting punished (and therefore being less likely to share other games in the future) rather than the sense of undoing the distribution of the already-shared game, right?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The GP is a copy/paste troll. Please ignore.
Not true. Copyright "infringement" is also about extending rights into perpetuity, crushing fair use, limiting parody and free speech, and taking away the rights of the consumer to do what they want with the stuff they own.
You are welcome on my lawn.