Game Protection: Where do you draw the line?

[TosaInu]

Hello,

It's still a concern that I can only play the game I paid for, while Steam is around. Maybe Steam itself would release some sort of unlock crack if worst comes to worst and no other company takes over. I recall some companies have some release day protection and remove that with one of the official patches. It's to fight day zero piracy, a neat policy I think.

The real problem I had with Steam in the past was that it was quite resource hungry and leaking memory, even while doing nothing.

Installing sneaky software that hurts hardware or system performance and a limited amount of activations is pretty nasty in my books. There are also claims that rub me the wrong way: 'we do this to artificially age the product, as it doesn't wear like other goods (too much value on the used item market)'. Like I play rough with other stuff I have and throw it away within a year (all my books, CD's and movies are nearly new and fully functional even after decades). I also think that this says something about the attitude of some gamedevelopers: make a game that pleases for a few months and then forget about it. While that might be the reality with some customers, the aim should be higher.

[Husar]

So, what if Microsoft went bankrupt then or did you all pirate your copies of XP enterprise edition or something?

[caravel]

That is really verging on "apples and oranges". Windows is the OS, which is a very different thing to a game. The OS industry is one that demands such long term support, unlike games. OSs often run mission critical apps whereas a game is simply a form of entertainment.

Games developers have a history of being much more volatile: Including; going bust, being bought out, changing publisher, dropping support, releasing only a certain number of patches etc. In fact when it comes to placing a bet on either a games developer supporting my game a few years down the line or MS supporting one of their OSs then I'd have to (reluctantly) go with MS every time. Also touching on games developers changing publisher - this often involves difficulty in finding/downloading patches and multiplayer servers going offline.

[Ramses II CP]

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

[pevergreen]

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

Thanks for providing another quote from my assignment

[Husar]

That is really verging on "apples and oranges". Windows is the OS, which is a very different thing to a game. The OS industry is one that demands such long term support, unlike games. OSs often run mission critical apps whereas a game is simply a form of entertainment.

That would make it even worse if Microsoft went bankrupt.

Games developers have a history of being much more volatile: Including; going bust, being bought out, changing publisher, dropping support, releasing only a certain number of patches etc. In fact when it comes to placing a bet on either a games developer supporting my game a few years down the line or MS supporting one of their OSs then I'd have to (reluctantly) go with MS every time. Also touching on games developers changing publisher - this often involves difficulty in finding/downloading patches and multiplayer servers going offline.

That was my argument back when everybody and their mother complained about XP requiring online activation but I was told it was way too invasive nonetheless/matter of principle etc.

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

So when a game connects online to phone home that is way too invasive because going online is a priviledge reserved for the OS? Have you ever played a multiplayer game? Or maybe you missed my point as I was only talking about online activation, not starforce or anything like that.

[Fragony]

I have already drawn the line at having to install steam to play Half-Life 2. The last pc-game I bought.

[Ramses II CP]

That would make it even worse if Microsoft went bankrupt.


That was my argument back when everybody and their mother complained about XP requiring online activation but I was told it was way too invasive nonetheless/matter of principle etc.


So when a game connects online to phone home that is way too invasive because going online is a priviledge reserved for the OS? Have you ever played a multiplayer game? Or maybe you missed my point as I was only talking about online activation, not starforce or anything like that.

Sorry, but we clearly did have a misunderstanding; accessing information online is in no way reserved for your OS. In point of fact a large majority of modern applications do so. If you were only referring to online activation then I don't see the relevance because you can relatively easily install XP (I haven't done a Vista install) without ever connecting to the 'net. It supposedly 'requires' online activation only as another silly MS hoop you have to jump through.