What?
Are you talking about the platform which retroactively diasbled licences based on geolocalisation, because the publisher thought people hadn't paid a high enough price?
Are you talking about the platform whose Subscriber Agreement explicitly allow the publisher to kill a licence at any time, for any reason, without compensation?
Re:DRM for DVD is bad... DRM from network is evil.
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
2 possibilities:
- if your computer is connected to the Internet, as your serial is stored somewhere in the config files, the activation takes place in the background. You don't see it, but it still there and the authorization key refreshed.
- Stardock also usually release the first versions of their products DRM-free or with an optional activation (which is great). And it's only after a certain patch level or extra content is applied that activation becomes mandatory.
Unfortunately, like any DRM vendor, they are not very precise with how their product works. The most complete info I found was here.
And that's exactly what all those publishers using online activation (incl Stardock) are doing.... except that they make you pay the full price upfront so you believe that you have 'bought' something the old fashion way.
Re:DRM for DVD is bad... DRM from network is evil.
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
There is no such thing as a one-time network activation.
Try to move the game from on PC to another without Internet connection, and you will see an activation request. Why? Because the authorization token in indeed tied to the PC.
Otherwise, it would just be a watermark and completly useless to fight piracy.
Re:DRM for DVD is bad... DRM from network is evil.
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
The problem with network DRM is that each time you install the game, or the DRM detects your configuration has changed, you have to ask permission to a server you have no control on. And the server can deny you further authorizations for any reason. It could be an install limit or any future restrictive rule(like how Steam retoactively implemented region-locking).
With Stardock, the games are indeed tied with the PC: it is just less obvious because their activation servers have, for now, more lenient rules, and authorize many activations before raising a red flag leading to a key ban.
Yes, but when the activation server will have seen a hundred of activation request from a hundred of different computers, chances are that your serial and/or account will be banned, rendering further install impossible.
Even activation systems which claims to have "unlimited" installs do monitor install number : it's just that they don't tell you what are the banning rules (which may change anytime at the sole discretion of the publisher or the protection provider).
That's called a watermark and has indeed none of the drawbacks of DRM.
But it is a big legal risk for the user. Some worst case scenarios includes a game being bought with a stolen/guessed credit card number or being copied from your hard drive while having you PC repaired.
I totally agree with you.
Remember when Steam deactivated game licences that were previously working fine: people have legitimately bought games from Asia and one day, the great Steam overlord decided that the price was not high enough for "rich" countries. So, instead of negociating with the "faulty" retailers like any civilized corporation, they retroactively started to enforce region-locking to punish their consumers...
You cannot trust an online activation system. Period. Offline mode is not an answer: once a mysterious bit has changed on your computer, you are force to activate again.
Oh yeah, and Stardock are more or less in the same bag (except it's only some patches that are protected, not the base game).
There is no such thing as activating offline, it just can't work.
Version 1.0 on the CD has no protection. But update it up to a certain patch level and online activation is mandatory, tying your updated program to your hardware. If you want to move around this updated copy, or somehow change critical parts of your system, you will have to ask authorization again.
So maybe version 1.0 is already good enough, but I just don't like the idea of DRM being added afterwards with patches which could be critical to the experience.
The check being online is a HUGE difference with other copy protection schemes.
It means that, even if you have paid the full price for the product, the publisher still has a kill switch and can deny you the use of your game, for whatever reason he might invent at that time.
Different publishers have different rules for their allow/deny policy, with some appearing more lenient that other. But it does not change the fact the publisher is actively monitoring the number of time you install/use their software and on how many different machine.
The fact this rules are implemented server-side (while a dumb CD-check is client-side) means the publisher can change the rule at any time, for better or for worse. Moreover, EULA of these services are vague enough that the publisher is allowed to cut your activation-right for no reason : just have a look at the Steam EULA for instance (I don't know about Stardock's). And they do use this right from time to time : Steam, again, killed copies of genuine imported games because they feel purchasers hadn't pay the right price.
Online activation/hardware binding is great for renting or subscription-based content, but not for purchase, no matter how lenient the publisher promise to be.
Yup exactly. Stardock uses basically the same tricks as other activation system.
The only difference is that the orignal version of their games on the CD is not protected, the DRM only kicks in after a certain patch level. Then it's the same hardware-binding shit with more or less controlled number of installs like everywhere else.
That's for now. But as everything is on Valve's servers, they can change their mind at any time.
Remember the asian CD-Keys : one day they were perfectly working everywhere in the world. The day after, Vavle decided their prices in Asia were too cheap for Western countries : thus they retroactively enforced region-locking, rendering thousand of copies completly useless and letting their own customers handle the mess...
After all, their EULA explicitly says that they have the right to kill your access to their games at any time, for any reason, with no compensation whatsoever.
Though Steam may allow backup on CD, but I bet that once you install those backup on a different computer, it will require activation, which render the backup system almost useless.
Every download system based on "online activation" is a rental in disguise, no matter how lenient the rules seems.
Yup exactly.
Reminds me great gaming discussions about Half-Life 2, Bioshock, Mass Effect and PC crapware like that. "But they will release a patch sometimes... maybe... hopefully... They are good guys... Anyway, the game is so COOL and SHINY!!! lol"
That's not what they usually do. That's not what happened with GalCiv2. So maybe the activation has not been enabled yet (they keep it for a further update of the game) or they no more plan to use it.
In a the GalCiv2 era, people who played the game on an offline laptop and who patched the game (by transferring the update with a USB thumb drive) were nagged with a "please activate to play" screen. Stardock as an automated system through email for these situations (you copy paste a bunch of code -obviously through another PC- and they reply with a licence file for your offline machine).
Here are some sources about Stardock and activation: here and here.
"Online activation/hardware tying" is about the publisher having a kill switch to remotely prevent you playing a game you thought you have bought. At least next time you try to install it.
Unless they have a subscription based business model, I don't feel this to be a very minimal and polite way, especially in the free as in freedom world.
Stardock games do use DRM. It's is an online activation/hardware tying system, like most other. The main difference is that it is only activated after some patches : the original game has no protection, but when you patch (after a few early patch), you do have to activate with your CD key (and no, this is not a simple "register your key on our website to access the download page").
In my opinion, it basically uses the same tricks that CD-based protection : the goals of these "low-level hooking" is to prevent an attacker to bypass the protection. Whether it is CD-based or online based change nothing, the goal for the attacker is the same: remove the check and decrypt whatever was encrypted. So the protection tries to hide itself or prevents the use of some programs.
The only advantages of online activation is that there is no compatibility issue with drives. But it has other drawbacks.
There is no such thing as "validate once". The goal of "online activation" is to tie a piece of software to your hardware. Each time the DRM detects your hardware as change, it will need authorization again. And the DRM can be very picky about what is a "hardware change". Moreover, you don't know the rules implemented on the activation server (there will definitely be a max number of install to detect published CD-Key, alhtough it can be quite large and resetted periodically). And those can change at any time, for the better or for the worse (see how Steam retroactively implemented region locking).
Is this written down in a legally binding document?
"Yes, if we are no more here, we will be authorised to release a patch (alhtough we won't be there to do it..."
The music, video and software industry is full of horror stories about activation servers going dark, even with the servers' owner being still around.
Stardock uses an online activation DRM. It is switched on only after some patch is applied but it will then tie the software with your hardware. Though they might have more lenient rules concerning machine transfer rights than the competition, but it's still far from a DRM-free approach.
And no, I'm not talking about the simple "enter you cd key on our web site to download updates" (I'm fine with that sort of thing). There is some hardware tying on top of that. Try to patch their games on an offline machine : it will refuse to run and ask for validation through e-mail.
The French law forbids to tie-in a product (like a computer) with a service (like a software license). You must sell each of them individually.
To make a better car analogy, it would be like selling a car with a mandatory insurance policy or a 10-year repair contract.
RTFP
It was about single player offline game. If the whole interest of the game is based on being connected to the company's servers, then fine, they can do whatever they want in the meantime, as I'm already on their server. Still it should not be an online activation/hardware tying which should be used but a classic CD-Key check (to refuse blacklisted ones and multiple simultaneous connections).
For Spore specifically, I don't know (and I no more care) if the feature will be the main interest of the game or just a gimmick. The only single player game I know which is really designed to be played only online is "Missing: since January" (aka "In Memoriam" in Europe).
This "loosening" is just to make people accept, even praised, "online activation/harware tying", which is in my mind the worst kind of DRM for purchased content (though it is a perfect fit for renting).
By accepting this DRM, you agree to have you ability to play a single player offline game controlled by an online server. There is no such thing as a one time only activation, as each time the system detect your computer has changed (which can be triggered by simply using a different windows account with crappy DRM), it will ask for activation again, eating your previous activation credit.
Nothing guarantee the auth server will be there when you want to play. Even if it is there, nothing guarantee it will give you the right to play because of some "normal usage" rules implemented on it (and which can change over time). And don't expect too much competence and generosity from a consumer service, especially a few months after launch.
The software, music and video industries are full of horror histories about activation servers going down or being simply dumb and rigid.
Slashdot Mirror
What?
Are you talking about the platform which retroactively diasbled licences based on geolocalisation, because the publisher thought people hadn't paid a high enough price?
Are you talking about the platform whose Subscriber Agreement explicitly allow the publisher to kill a licence at any time, for any reason, without compensation?
2 possibilities:
- if your computer is connected to the Internet, as your serial is stored somewhere in the config files, the activation takes place in the background. You don't see it, but it still there and the authorization key refreshed.
- Stardock also usually release the first versions of their products DRM-free or with an optional activation (which is great). And it's only after a certain patch level or extra content is applied that activation becomes mandatory.
Unfortunately, like any DRM vendor, they are not very precise with how their product works. The most complete info I found was here.
And that's exactly what all those publishers using online activation (incl Stardock) are doing.... except that they make you pay the full price upfront so you believe that you have 'bought' something the old fashion way.
There is no such thing as a one-time network activation.
Try to move the game from on PC to another without Internet connection, and you will see an activation request. Why? Because the authorization token in indeed tied to the PC.
Otherwise, it would just be a watermark and completly useless to fight piracy.
The problem with network DRM is that each time you install the game, or the DRM detects your configuration has changed, you have to ask permission to a server you have no control on. And the server can deny you further authorizations for any reason. It could be an install limit or any future restrictive rule(like how Steam retoactively implemented region-locking).
With Stardock, the games are indeed tied with the PC: it is just less obvious because their activation servers have, for now, more lenient rules, and authorize many activations before raising a red flag leading to a key ban.
Yes, but when the activation server will have seen a hundred of activation request from a hundred of different computers, chances are that your serial and/or account will be banned, rendering further install impossible.
Even activation systems which claims to have "unlimited" installs do monitor install number : it's just that they don't tell you what are the banning rules (which may change anytime at the sole discretion of the publisher or the protection provider).
Because people want to buy stuff and not rent it.
So companies rent them stuff while pretending to sell it...
That's called a watermark and has indeed none of the drawbacks of DRM.
But it is a big legal risk for the user. Some worst case scenarios includes a game being bought with a stolen/guessed credit card number or being copied from your hard drive while having you PC repaired.
I totally agree with you.
Remember when Steam deactivated game licences that were previously working fine: people have legitimately bought games from Asia and one day, the great Steam overlord decided that the price was not high enough for "rich" countries. So, instead of negociating with the "faulty" retailers like any civilized corporation, they retroactively started to enforce region-locking to punish their consumers...
You cannot trust an online activation system. Period. Offline mode is not an answer: once a mysterious bit has changed on your computer, you are force to activate again.
Oh yeah, and Stardock are more or less in the same bag (except it's only some patches that are protected, not the base game).
you need to play classical music to your disks, and they'll perform even better.
There is no such thing as activating offline, it just can't work.
Version 1.0 on the CD has no protection. But update it up to a certain patch level and online activation is mandatory, tying your updated program to your hardware. If you want to move around this updated copy, or somehow change critical parts of your system, you will have to ask authorization again.
So maybe version 1.0 is already good enough, but I just don't like the idea of DRM being added afterwards with patches which could be critical to the experience.
The check being online is a HUGE difference with other copy protection schemes.
It means that, even if you have paid the full price for the product, the publisher still has a kill switch and can deny you the use of your game, for whatever reason he might invent at that time.
Different publishers have different rules for their allow/deny policy, with some appearing more lenient that other. But it does not change the fact the publisher is actively monitoring the number of time you install/use their software and on how many different machine.
The fact this rules are implemented server-side (while a dumb CD-check is client-side) means the publisher can change the rule at any time, for better or for worse. Moreover, EULA of these services are vague enough that the publisher is allowed to cut your activation-right for no reason : just have a look at the Steam EULA for instance (I don't know about Stardock's). And they do use this right from time to time : Steam, again, killed copies of genuine imported games because they feel purchasers hadn't pay the right price.
Online activation/hardware binding is great for renting or subscription-based content, but not for purchase, no matter how lenient the publisher promise to be.
Yup exactly. Stardock uses basically the same tricks as other activation system.
The only difference is that the orignal version of their games on the CD is not protected, the DRM only kicks in after a certain patch level. Then it's the same hardware-binding shit with more or less controlled number of installs like everywhere else.
That's for now. But as everything is on Valve's servers, they can change their mind at any time.
Remember the asian CD-Keys : one day they were perfectly working everywhere in the world. The day after, Vavle decided their prices in Asia were too cheap for Western countries : thus they retroactively enforced region-locking, rendering thousand of copies completly useless and letting their own customers handle the mess...
After all, their EULA explicitly says that they have the right to kill your access to their games at any time, for any reason, with no compensation whatsoever.
Though Steam may allow backup on CD, but I bet that once you install those backup on a different computer, it will require activation, which render the backup system almost useless.
Every download system based on "online activation" is a rental in disguise, no matter how lenient the rules seems.
Yup exactly.
Reminds me great gaming discussions about Half-Life 2, Bioshock, Mass Effect and PC crapware like that. "But they will release a patch sometimes... maybe... hopefully... They are good guys... Anyway, the game is so COOL and SHINY!!! lol"
That's not what they usually do. That's not what happened with GalCiv2. So maybe the activation has not been enabled yet (they keep it for a further update of the game) or they no more plan to use it.
In a the GalCiv2 era, people who played the game on an offline laptop and who patched the game (by transferring the update with a USB thumb drive) were nagged with a "please activate to play" screen. Stardock as an automated system through email for these situations (you copy paste a bunch of code -obviously through another PC- and they reply with a licence file for your offline machine).
Here are some sources about Stardock and activation: here and here.
"Online activation/hardware tying" is about the publisher having a kill switch to remotely prevent you playing a game you thought you have bought. At least next time you try to install it.
Unless they have a subscription based business model, I don't feel this to be a very minimal and polite way, especially in the free as in freedom world.
Stardock games do use DRM. It's is an online activation/hardware tying system, like most other. The main difference is that it is only activated after some patches : the original game has no protection, but when you patch (after a few early patch), you do have to activate with your CD key (and no, this is not a simple "register your key on our website to access the download page").
In my opinion, it basically uses the same tricks that CD-based protection : the goals of these "low-level hooking" is to prevent an attacker to bypass the protection. Whether it is CD-based or online based change nothing, the goal for the attacker is the same: remove the check and decrypt whatever was encrypted. So the protection tries to hide itself or prevents the use of some programs.
The only advantages of online activation is that there is no compatibility issue with drives. But it has other drawbacks.
There is no such thing as "validate once". The goal of "online activation" is to tie a piece of software to your hardware. Each time the DRM detects your hardware as change, it will need authorization again. And the DRM can be very picky about what is a "hardware change". Moreover, you don't know the rules implemented on the activation server (there will definitely be a max number of install to detect published CD-Key, alhtough it can be quite large and resetted periodically). And those can change at any time, for the better or for the worse (see how Steam retroactively implemented region locking).
Is this written down in a legally binding document?
"Yes, if we are no more here, we will be authorised to release a patch (alhtough we won't be there to do it..."
The music, video and software industry is full of horror stories about activation servers going dark, even with the servers' owner being still around.
Stardock uses an online activation DRM. It is switched on only after some patch is applied but it will then tie the software with your hardware. Though they might have more lenient rules concerning machine transfer rights than the competition, but it's still far from a DRM-free approach.
And no, I'm not talking about the simple "enter you cd key on our web site to download updates" (I'm fine with that sort of thing). There is some hardware tying on top of that. Try to patch their games on an offline machine : it will refuse to run and ask for validation through e-mail.
The French law forbids to tie-in a product (like a computer) with a service (like a software license). You must sell each of them individually.
To make a better car analogy, it would be like selling a car with a mandatory insurance policy or a 10-year repair contract.
RTFP
It was about single player offline game. If the whole interest of the game is based on being connected to the company's servers, then fine, they can do whatever they want in the meantime, as I'm already on their server. Still it should not be an online activation/hardware tying which should be used but a classic CD-Key check (to refuse blacklisted ones and multiple simultaneous connections).
For Spore specifically, I don't know (and I no more care) if the feature will be the main interest of the game or just a gimmick. The only single player game I know which is really designed to be played only online is "Missing: since January" (aka "In Memoriam" in Europe).
This "loosening" is just to make people accept, even praised, "online activation/harware tying", which is in my mind the worst kind of DRM for purchased content (though it is a perfect fit for renting).
By accepting this DRM, you agree to have you ability to play a single player offline game controlled by an online server. There is no such thing as a one time only activation, as each time the system detect your computer has changed (which can be triggered by simply using a different windows account with crappy DRM), it will ask for activation again, eating your previous activation credit.
Nothing guarantee the auth server will be there when you want to play. Even if it is there, nothing guarantee it will give you the right to play because of some "normal usage" rules implemented on it (and which can change over time). And don't expect too much competence and generosity from a consumer service, especially a few months after launch.
The software, music and video industries are full of horror histories about activation servers going down or being simply dumb and rigid.