Like I said, the online activation is not activated until some patch came out (and according to this source, it will be when a "content update" is released).
If your game fail to activate, you basically won't be able to play if you try to install this update.
I knew a company who had used a "gmail system" like you described, it was Egosoft with X2 : registering your serial on their web site gives you access to a "no-cd" patch. There were no additional hardware tying, you could happily copy this exe around. But it's not what Stardock does. Read the whole linked thread (like when you transfer updates toward an offline PC, you have to activate through copy-pasting stuff in an email to get an signature file).
I detailed why I hate "hardware-tied" protection in previous posts and there are numerous example of this kind of protection gone bad (Google video, Sony and Virgin music store gone dust, the MLB video, Xbox Live arcade games after a repair or a machine change, numerous small publishers software,...).
Now, you might prefer a "hardware-tied" protection over an "agressive disc check", but that's a completely different debate.
And I stand by my car-analogy. Change a furniture in your house and you car (that has not changed - same VIN - but you might have copied it and give it to a friend) won't start without a new visit to GM because it did not recognised the house it was parked this night. Change some special hardware or software (reinstall windows) on your machine and your previously activated game (that hasn't changed - same serial) won't launch without a new online activation because it thinks it is on a different machine. DRM is full of such stupid ideas that when you transpose it to the real world, it gives indeed stupid situations.
sigh...
The updated product is DRMed. Period. Stardock do not use a mere serial registration of their web site, there is a real hardware tying system of the game executable in place... The only difference with Steam or Bioshock is that it is a timed bomb : that is, it is only triggered after an update. But once, it is updated, for the legitimate consumers it is exactly the same potential problems, unless he does not want to update. I fail to see where the "do not piss off the legitimate consumer" apply.
Stardock games may be quite polished out of a box, I don't know. But imagine a publisher releasing a game loudly advertising the fact it has no DRM. But bad luck, there is a critical bug which prevents people from passing level 5. Fortunately, the publisher releases a patch which corrects the bug AND add Starforce protection.
Now you might prefer "hardware-tied validation (ie online activation)" instead of "aggressive disc-check", but that's an entirely different debate between 2 flavors of DRM.
Oh boy, a lame car analogy.
You seem to think that Stardock work this way:
- You ask for an update
- They check for the serial
- You download the update
- You can install the update wherever you want
Frankly, I wouldn't mind something like this. That's what Egosoft has made with their X2 game: you register a serial on their web site and they basically give you a no-cd patch you can happily move around.
But that's not how Stardock work
- You ask for update
- You download the update
- You install it
- Then they check the serial and link it with an hardware hash value to produce a machine-specific token. If the check failed, the game is unusuable
The UI of the autoupdater might ask you the serial sooner (you can even enter it optionally at the install of the DVD) but that do not mean it is the only check which is made. Don't be fooled by the UI or the fact that you might have already activated your game without paying attention to it.
The definite test to make is to install the game on an offline machine who never had the game on it and try to update with a patch transfered through an USB key. With GalCiv 2, at next launch you were nagged with a bunch of information you had to paste in a e-mail to request a manual activation code...
To tweak your car analogy, it would mean that GM would not only ask you to bring the vehicle and the VIN, but also all the furniture in your house in order to have your car fixed. And if, in the future, you change some furniture, the car will automagically break and you'll have to see GM again.
For both repliers:
The main problem with online activation is that you cannot use a product without a regular explicit permission from the publisher. You have to ask for permission, even after you have paid in full for the software. You could have to ask permission every week, at every install, every time you change an hardware component,... You never really know when you will have to ask permission.
And now, when you ask for permission, the publisher can reply "no" for any reason it might imagine (too much installs detected, you have bought the game in a country you should have not - steam anyone?). Those rules can change at any time as they are implemented server-side. In other more radical scenarios, the activation server can be down. The whole publisher can be down as well and for good.
And I'm not even talking about minor annoyances like the necessity of an Internet connection, and the fact that only God know what kind of information are sent by the program when it phones home for activation.
Stardock has eased the pain as v1.0 has no activation. If v1.0 has no really bad bugs, that's not that bad... But as soon as you patch, you're back in a Steam/Bioshock/iTunes like scheme. And that's very hypocrite to make believe it's a "no-DRM" approach.
You cannot buy a [licence of an] online-activated software, you can only rent it for as long/short as the publisher want.
I'm fed up with Stardock attitude. They say they do not use DRM while using, the worst kind of DRM, in my point of view : online activation.
Sure there is a twist : when you buy the DVD, yes, the game on the disc has no DRM whatsoever. BUT, if you update the game, you are REQUIRED to activate the updated version online. Version 1.0 has no DRM, but version 1.0.0.0.1 which could fix whatever critical bug must be "activated". And with online activation comes all the usual what-if problems : what if the activation servers are down for whatever reason, what if the activation server denies the authorization because of whatever "reasonable use" rule implemented on it,...
Stardock attitude is typical of all the others DRM defenders : trust us, our DRM is not really a DRM, 100% compatible, no problem ever. Like all the other, they do not tell the whole truth...
They don't even need to remove it.
Only one stolen copy or a scapegoat/idiot is needed so the whole world can mindlessly share a file which incriminates someone else.
tracks purchased with a stolen credit card number,
files discretly copied by your son's friend on a usb thumb drive or getting picked up by a technician supposed to fix your computer,
indelicate family member to whom you have lended a track,
trojan and other malware, etc.
Examples are numerous of how digital files can leak away from you. You would need to be paranoid and skillfull to properly secure music files which would become very personnal and sensisitve data (or have a user-controled DRM that does it for you...).
Watermarking in a file the name (or an id) of the legitmate buyer is just a stupid idea, period. Filesharers will happily go on sharing watermarked files who identify someone ELSE or unmarked copies, while only the one who has PAID will be bullied by the **IA lawyers.
The problem is: the person who distribute the file may NOT be the one identified by the watermark? Yet the usual extortion letter will be sent to the legitimate buyer...
Yeah but it's still trouble for nothing.
You may prove your laptop was stolen, but how do you prove a particular file was on a laptop or an iPod? Do you have to keep at any time a detailed list of every watermarked file and burned CDs you have??
How do you prove your Wi-Fi was hacked? How do you prove it was the kid next door with it's USB thumbstick? Etc...
And what you should do with all other copies you may have left on your computers? Destroy them?
With watermark, like with all DRMs, you can admire how only the legitimate user is annoyed...
I agree with you : I haven't problems with DRM being part of a "renting" or "access to a catalogue" business model, where you pay a monthly fee. Because in this case, if you are not happy with the DRM, you can stop paying and that's the end of the story. So the provider must do its best to keep you happy.
But like the vast majority of people, I am not interested in these business models. I still like to buy things, build a collection,... I prefer the classic "buy once for all" business model. And in this model, DRM are completly inacceptable.
There is not such thing as "BUYING" a DRMed media, those things are just too volatile : change your hard-drive/OS/players too much time and your file self-destroy ; providers can go bankrupt with their activation servers ; buy new hardware which happened to be incompatible with non-standard DRM techniques, have your player key revoked because some hackers found it, etc... And of course, if the DRM is efficient, you cannot make backup or "interoperable" copy. So sooner or later, your media is broken for no reason and you can't do anything about it...
You cannot buy a DRMed media, you are renting it ; the provider just forgot to tell you for how long... And if you are not happy with the DRM, too late, you have already paid. I suppose that's qualify as a business "innovation".
The main points are:
- Why Apple don't sell MP3 ? Answer : either because there is no demand (if you ignore Jobs-no-DRM), or because it will be complicated for consumers (Apple consumers are not that smart ??) or it will be complicated to update the software (as if iTunes didn't know how to work with MP3 already)... Yeah sure,...
- Why Apple doens't licences its DRM ? Answer : because it will be doing like Micosoft, and we all know Microsoft is EVIL(TM), and Apple doesn't want to be EVIL(TM). And consumer have choosen iPod because its DRM is good (yeah sure, it's not beacause of desing, feature, laucnh timing, marketing,...). And because it makes no sense to have competition between music stores, beacause content is just a utility for players (artists will appreciate the point). And if Apple licence it to other hardware manufacturer, it will sell less iPods (no kidding) ; and Apple need a near monopoly to protect us for the evil RIAA demands.
Steam "backups" will still require activation (aka log in on the Steam service) when re installed. It doesn't solve the problem at all.
Moreover, have a look at the infamous Steam Subscriber Agreement. It clearly states that they have NO obligation to provide offline versions of their games in case they decide to shut down some parts of the service.
As with most digital distribution services, you never purchase anything on Steam: you merely rent it until the day they change their mind.
... at least when it is used to identify the original buyer.
Just imagine you have lots of CD/iPods/whatever full of watermarked (with your name) titles. And you lost your stuff or someone stole it. Then those same files are found on P2P networks or on counterfeited CD. And tada, the RIAA lawyer charges you with massive copyright infrigment.
What should you do ? Go to the police to tell them precisely all the tunes you were stolen, then try to fight the RIAA lawyer with that ?
Sorry, but I do not want to take so much juridical risks for stupid songs. The scary thing is that iTunes or any other service could very well implement that in their "burn cd" features, and without telling you about it.
When reinstalling the backup on another computer, it will need to phone home to reactivate. Basic download copy protection behavior.
So no, you will have to talk to them again sooner or later (and hope they're still there and in a good mood).
Why they don't enable it by default?
I guess that's because the encryption must use the login password as the key... And as stupi^H^H^H normal people routinely loose their password, they would also lose all their data when in need of a password reset.
On such DRM systems, the signature file depends of a "machine hash". So you reinstall the game on the exact same machine with the file, yes it will work flawlessly. But if you change some piece of hardware or the OS, it won't work, the signature will not match.
The point with manual GalCiv2 updates is that if you apply them to a non-activated install, when you launch the game it will popup a window asking you to validate. So you can't play the patched game until you let it phone home.
So yes, it's not the same kind of DRM like Starf*ck and SecuRom. CD-checks and online activation have different drawbacks. On one hand, CD-checks force you to have the CD in the drive, have terrible compatibility problems and, by using undocumenting or other agressive, can pose serious security and stability problems. On the other hand, with online activation, your "right to play" is dictated by a remote server you have no control over : do the server allow an unlimited number of activation (which, at minimum, are mandatory in case of an hardware change), has my key not been leaked and is still considered invalid, is the server down for the week-end or the company has gone bankrupt, won't the autorization policies change overtime...
To understand my disconfort with that "delayed DRM" scheme, just try to imagine that Half Life 2 was realeased without DRM (and somehow advertised as such), while the 1.1 version which fixes sound stuttering would have required the full Steam experience...
When it's limited to online, okay, bring all the online DRM you need as I need, for optional bonus contents, why not. But for bug fixes, no...
No, I haven't tried Oblivion myself, it's just what I have read here and there.
For GalCiv2, the system is not a simple serial check to acces the downloads, like what Egosoft has done with X2 and the official "nocd" patch. But if you download a GalCiv2 patch manually, you will still need to validate either online, or by email. The online auto-update does the validation automatically.
If you update the game and do not validate, it is not playable. Though, you can rollback to version 1.0, which seemed pretty complete and stable in this specific case, I must admit.
But I'm defintely not comfortable with this "compromise", it can be easily abused with that "must-have-bug-fix-which-needs-the-DRMed-patch". And I'm even less confortable when the publisher as made such a fuss about being against invasive copy protections. Online activation is definitely not a mere "serial number verification", as they used to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, the online activation is not activated until some patch came out (and according to this source, it will be when a "content update" is released).
If your game fail to activate, you basically won't be able to play if you try to install this update.
I knew a company who had used a "gmail system" like you described, it was Egosoft with X2 : registering your serial on their web site gives you access to a "no-cd" patch. There were no additional hardware tying, you could happily copy this exe around. But it's not what Stardock does. Read the whole linked thread (like when you transfer updates toward an offline PC, you have to activate through copy-pasting stuff in an email to get an signature file).
I detailed why I hate "hardware-tied" protection in previous posts and there are numerous example of this kind of protection gone bad (Google video, Sony and Virgin music store gone dust, the MLB video, Xbox Live arcade games after a repair or a machine change, numerous small publishers software, ...).
Now, you might prefer a "hardware-tied" protection over an "agressive disc check", but that's a completely different debate.
And I stand by my car-analogy. Change a furniture in your house and you car (that has not changed - same VIN - but you might have copied it and give it to a friend) won't start without a new visit to GM because it did not recognised the house it was parked this night. Change some special hardware or software (reinstall windows) on your machine and your previously activated game (that hasn't changed - same serial) won't launch without a new online activation because it thinks it is on a different machine. DRM is full of such stupid ideas that when you transpose it to the real world, it gives indeed stupid situations.
sigh...
The updated product is DRMed. Period. Stardock do not use a mere serial registration of their web site, there is a real hardware tying system of the game executable in place... The only difference with Steam or Bioshock is that it is a timed bomb : that is, it is only triggered after an update. But once, it is updated, for the legitimate consumers it is exactly the same potential problems, unless he does not want to update. I fail to see where the "do not piss off the legitimate consumer" apply.
Stardock games may be quite polished out of a box, I don't know. But imagine a publisher releasing a game loudly advertising the fact it has no DRM. But bad luck, there is a critical bug which prevents people from passing level 5. Fortunately, the publisher releases a patch which corrects the bug AND add Starforce protection.
Now you might prefer "hardware-tied validation (ie online activation)" instead of "aggressive disc-check", but that's an entirely different debate between 2 flavors of DRM.
Oh boy, a lame car analogy.
You seem to think that Stardock work this way:
- You ask for an update
- They check for the serial
- You download the update
- You can install the update wherever you want
Frankly, I wouldn't mind something like this. That's what Egosoft has made with their X2 game: you register a serial on their web site and they basically give you a no-cd patch you can happily move around.
But that's not how Stardock work
- You ask for update
- You download the update
- You install it
- Then they check the serial and link it with an hardware hash value to produce a machine-specific token. If the check failed, the game is unusuable
The UI of the autoupdater might ask you the serial sooner (you can even enter it optionally at the install of the DVD) but that do not mean it is the only check which is made. Don't be fooled by the UI or the fact that you might have already activated your game without paying attention to it.
The definite test to make is to install the game on an offline machine who never had the game on it and try to update with a patch transfered through an USB key. With GalCiv 2, at next launch you were nagged with a bunch of information you had to paste in a e-mail to request a manual activation code...
To tweak your car analogy, it would mean that GM would not only ask you to bring the vehicle and the VIN, but also all the furniture in your house in order to have your car fixed. And if, in the future, you change some furniture, the car will automagically break and you'll have to see GM again.
For both repliers: ... You never really know when you will have to ask permission.
The main problem with online activation is that you cannot use a product without a regular explicit permission from the publisher. You have to ask for permission, even after you have paid in full for the software. You could have to ask permission every week, at every install, every time you change an hardware component,
And now, when you ask for permission, the publisher can reply "no" for any reason it might imagine (too much installs detected, you have bought the game in a country you should have not - steam anyone?). Those rules can change at any time as they are implemented server-side. In other more radical scenarios, the activation server can be down. The whole publisher can be down as well and for good.
And I'm not even talking about minor annoyances like the necessity of an Internet connection, and the fact that only God know what kind of information are sent by the program when it phones home for activation.
Stardock has eased the pain as v1.0 has no activation. If v1.0 has no really bad bugs, that's not that bad... But as soon as you patch, you're back in a Steam/Bioshock/iTunes like scheme. And that's very hypocrite to make believe it's a "no-DRM" approach.
You cannot buy a [licence of an] online-activated software, you can only rent it for as long/short as the publisher want.
I'm fed up with Stardock attitude. They say they do not use DRM while using, the worst kind of DRM, in my point of view : online activation. ...
Sure there is a twist : when you buy the DVD, yes, the game on the disc has no DRM whatsoever. BUT, if you update the game, you are REQUIRED to activate the updated version online. Version 1.0 has no DRM, but version 1.0.0.0.1 which could fix whatever critical bug must be "activated". And with online activation comes all the usual what-if problems : what if the activation servers are down for whatever reason, what if the activation server denies the authorization because of whatever "reasonable use" rule implemented on it,
Stardock attitude is typical of all the others DRM defenders : trust us, our DRM is not really a DRM, 100% compatible, no problem ever. Like all the other, they do not tell the whole truth...
You cannot install Steam "offline games" offline, that's the problem.
Whether you can play these games online or offline afterwards is irrelevant.
That would be the bare minimum, but actually, they won't even put the constraints on the box, or they put them with a very careful wording
Just look at the packaging of a recent video game where "Internet connection required" on the box actually mean "Number of install limited to x".
They don't even need to remove it.
Only one stolen copy or a scapegoat/idiot is needed so the whole world can mindlessly share a file which incriminates someone else.
Examples are numerous of how digital files can leak away from you. You would need to be paranoid and skillfull to properly secure music files which would become very personnal and sensisitve data (or have a user-controled DRM that does it for you...).
Watermarking in a file the name (or an id) of the legitmate buyer is just a stupid idea, period. Filesharers will happily go on sharing watermarked files who identify someone ELSE or unmarked copies, while only the one who has PAID will be bullied by the **IA lawyers.
The problem is: the person who distribute the file may NOT be the one identified by the watermark? Yet the usual extortion letter will be sent to the legitimate buyer...
Yeah but it's still trouble for nothing.
You may prove your laptop was stolen, but how do you prove a particular file was on a laptop or an iPod? Do you have to keep at any time a detailed list of every watermarked file and burned CDs you have??
How do you prove your Wi-Fi was hacked? How do you prove it was the kid next door with it's USB thumbstick? Etc...
And what you should do with all other copies you may have left on your computers? Destroy them?
With watermark, like with all DRMs, you can admire how only the legitimate user is annoyed...
I agree with you : I haven't problems with DRM being part of a "renting" or "access to a catalogue" business model, where you pay a monthly fee. Because in this case, if you are not happy with the DRM, you can stop paying and that's the end of the story. So the provider must do its best to keep you happy.
... I prefer the classic "buy once for all" business model. And in this model, DRM are completly inacceptable.
But like the vast majority of people, I am not interested in these business models. I still like to buy things, build a collection,
There is not such thing as "BUYING" a DRMed media, those things are just too volatile : change your hard-drive/OS/players too much time and your file self-destroy ; providers can go bankrupt with their activation servers ; buy new hardware which happened to be incompatible with non-standard DRM techniques, have your player key revoked because some hackers found it, etc... And of course, if the DRM is efficient, you cannot make backup or "interoperable" copy. So sooner or later, your media is broken for no reason and you can't do anything about it...
You cannot buy a DRMed media, you are renting it ; the provider just forgot to tell you for how long... And if you are not happy with the DRM, too late, you have already paid. I suppose that's qualify as a business "innovation".
The main points are: ...
...).
- Why Apple don't sell MP3 ?
Answer : either because there is no demand (if you ignore Jobs-no-DRM),
or because it will be complicated for consumers (Apple consumers are not that smart ??)
or it will be complicated to update the software (as if iTunes didn't know how to work with MP3 already)... Yeah sure,
- Why Apple doens't licences its DRM ?
Answer : because it will be doing like Micosoft, and we all know Microsoft is EVIL(TM), and Apple doesn't want to be EVIL(TM).
And consumer have choosen iPod because its DRM is good (yeah sure, it's not beacause of desing, feature, laucnh timing, marketing,
And because it makes no sense to have competition between music stores, beacause content is just a utility for players (artists will appreciate the point).
And if Apple licence it to other hardware manufacturer, it will sell less iPods (no kidding) ; and Apple need a near monopoly to protect us for the evil RIAA demands.
And stop funding these people by boycotting their products, of course...
CD-key are only for retail product. Downloadabe titles do not have any CD-key.
Short answer is, no, you can't resell anything (like on iTunes). Long answer is you can resell your account, but try not being caught.
Steam "backups" will still require activation (aka log in on the Steam service) when re installed. It doesn't solve the problem at all.
Moreover, have a look at the infamous Steam Subscriber Agreement. It clearly states that they have NO obligation to provide offline versions of their games in case they decide to shut down some parts of the service.
As with most digital distribution services, you never purchase anything on Steam: you merely rent it until the day they change their mind.
... at least when it is used to identify the original buyer.
Just imagine you have lots of CD/iPods/whatever full of watermarked (with your name) titles. And you lost your stuff or someone stole it. Then those same files are found on P2P networks or on counterfeited CD. And tada, the RIAA lawyer charges you with massive copyright infrigment.
What should you do ? Go to the police to tell them precisely all the tunes you were stolen, then try to fight the RIAA lawyer with that ?
Sorry, but I do not want to take so much juridical risks for stupid songs. The scary thing is that iTunes or any other service could very well implement that in their "burn cd" features, and without telling you about it.
When reinstalling the backup on another computer, it will need to phone home to reactivate. Basic download copy protection behavior.
So no, you will have to talk to them again sooner or later (and hope they're still there and in a good mood).
Why they don't enable it by default?
I guess that's because the encryption must use the login password as the key... And as stupi^H^H^H normal people routinely loose their password, they would also lose all their data when in need of a password reset.
On such DRM systems, the signature file depends of a "machine hash". So you reinstall the game on the exact same machine with the file, yes it will work flawlessly. But if you change some piece of hardware or the OS, it won't work, the signature will not match.
The point with manual GalCiv2 updates is that if you apply them to a non-activated install, when you launch the game it will popup a window asking you to validate. So you can't play the patched game until you let it phone home.
So yes, it's not the same kind of DRM like Starf*ck and SecuRom. CD-checks and online activation have different drawbacks. On one hand, CD-checks force you to have the CD in the drive, have terrible compatibility problems and, by using undocumenting or other agressive, can pose serious security and stability problems. On the other hand, with online activation, your "right to play" is dictated by a remote server you have no control over : do the server allow an unlimited number of activation (which, at minimum, are mandatory in case of an hardware change), has my key not been leaked and is still considered invalid, is the server down for the week-end or the company has gone bankrupt, won't the autorization policies change overtime...
To understand my disconfort with that "delayed DRM" scheme, just try to imagine that Half Life 2 was realeased without DRM (and somehow advertised as such), while the 1.1 version which fixes sound stuttering would have required the full Steam experience...
When it's limited to online, okay, bring all the online DRM you need as I need, for optional bonus contents, why not. But for bug fixes, no...
No, I haven't tried Oblivion myself, it's just what I have read here and there.
For GalCiv2, the system is not a simple serial check to acces the downloads, like what Egosoft has done with X2 and the official "nocd" patch. But if you download a GalCiv2 patch manually, you will still need to validate either online, or by email. The online auto-update does the validation automatically.
If you update the game and do not validate, it is not playable. Though, you can rollback to version 1.0, which seemed pretty complete and stable in this specific case, I must admit.
But I'm defintely not comfortable with this "compromise", it can be easily abused with that "must-have-bug-fix-which-needs-the-DRMed-patch". And I'm even less confortable when the publisher as made such a fuss about being against invasive copy protections. Online activation is definitely not a mere "serial number verification", as they used to say.