Did Atari not learn anything from EA and 3 activation limits?!

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: chizow

In any case, I should have my copy tomorrow or Wednesday, needless to say I'll also provide screenshots with time stamps and system info etc. for validity.

Thanks for taking this on.

 

[Golgatha]

The most effective DRM scheme ever devised!!!

 

[mindcycle]

Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

I agree, we can assume that at the time of writing this information is correct. Given the evidence, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to prove that this information is incorrect?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

I agree, we can assume that at the time of writing this information is correct. Given the evidence, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to prove that this information is incorrect?

it is just not a big deal to 99% of Atari's customers

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

I agree, we can assume that at the time of writing this information is correct. Given the evidence, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to prove that this information is incorrect?

it is just not a big deal to 99% of Atari's customers

Are you sure about that?

http://www.ataricommunity.com/...howthread.php?t=672558
http://www.ataricommunity.com/...howthread.php?t=671930
http://www.ataricommunity.com/...howthread.php?t=672897

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

I agree, we can assume that at the time of writing this information is correct. Given the evidence, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to prove that this information is incorrect?

I think you know the answer to that..

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is just not a big deal to 99% of Atari's customers

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=riddick+DRM

 

[apoppin]

yes, i am sure - that one percent is a very loud one percent

did they sell 1,000,000 copies yet?

999,000 are very pleased with the game

it is an extraordinary game .. and i really don't give a crap if you miss out
- i played it through and scored it an 8.2 conservatively for the whole package

Now i am going to uninstall it and SELL it; i am not using it for benchmarking games
- they next guy will have 2 PCs with unlimited uninstalls - i will make sure he knows

- something i could never do with steam

i can get back $30 of what i paid for Assault on Dark Athena - i got my money's worth already
:thumbsup:

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes, i am sure - that one percent is a very loud one percent

did they sell 1,000,000 copies yet?

999,000 are very pleased with the game

it is an extraordinary game .. and i really don't give a crap if you miss out

I doubt they'll even sell that many. Maybe combined (PS3, 360, and PC), but it's highly doubtful it will sell that much on the PC alone.

I'm not saying your wrong here, since we're both guessing, but 15 pages of google articles and forum posts with hundreds (if not thousands) of responses tells me it's probably a bit higher than 1%.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
The most effective DRM scheme ever devised!!!

Actually it looks like the Tages DRM that Riddick uses is effective enough, given the game hasn't been cracked yet a week after release. In the process, its doing a pretty good job of refuting some common fallacies about DRM:

1. 1) DRM doesn't work in preventing piracy
   2) DRM doesn't do anything to increase actual sales from those who would pirate anyways.

For proof the above statements are false, just drop into any of the many Riddick Crack threads on the various torrent sites. They're actually pretty funny reads, but certainly allows for a glimpse into the simple minds of petty thieves.

The entire thread is an entertaining read, I'll go ahead and link it given its not technically a link to a crack as no crack exists. If the mods think its inappropriate I'll certainly remove it, but the following quote summarizes the anti-DRM/pro-Piracy agenda quite well:

• Frustrated Pirates, hard at work crackin' away
  
  Well, I know the scene frowns on VM wrappers and workarounds, but I am also tired of seeing people breaking ranks by caving and giving Atari their $50 along the message that this kind of DRM is ok, and acceptable.
  
  One of the big arguments for anti-DRM supporters is that DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. Well right now, that argument is failing because this DRM is doing something to prevent it. That needs to be changed quickly.
  
  A proper crack can come out later, but right now we need to stop the bleeding.

If you read a few pages earlier, you'll also see the would-be crackers slowly cracking one by one, giving in and doing the unthunkable.....buying the game. LMAO.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's confirmation of the non-revocable installs from an Atari PR manager. Unlimited installs on a single machine per "token", but you use up one each time you install it (on new or changed hardware) and have to call Atari if you run out.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tection-resolved/News/

For "those" of us that would like to try and prove otherwise, go right ahead and give it a shot.. but given this plus the hundreds of other reports all over the net stating that Riddick does indeed contain non-revocable installs, I think it's safe to assume this information is correct.

Yep, I've already seen that and while it does a fine job of discrediting some of the misinformation you've spread earlier in the thread, it does nothing to confirm or deny the main distinction between other forms of activation employed in the past and the form Riddick is being accused of. Clearly I'm not the only person who has wondered why no one has directly addressed this, as Andy Chalk from the Escapist also wonders out loud.

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I agree, we can assume that at the time of writing this information is correct. Given the evidence, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to prove that this information is incorrect?

And I've already explained why, I'm genuinely interested to see if there is any merit to the public outcry over the DRM employed by Riddick. I think the real question is why people would go out of their way to discredit a DRM they have no experience with or first-hand knowledge of without first ensuring their assertions are in fact accurate.

 

[apoppin]

i am sure the pirates are bitching all over the internet about it
- good to see them buying it

yes, the REAL complainers are a TINY minority of Atari's customers

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
Clearly I'm not the only person who has wondered why no one has directly addressed this, as Andy Chalk from the Escapist also wonders out loud.

UPDATE: Atari has issued the following statement in response to the DRM controversy:

"The protection on the PC version of The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena is an activation system with online authentication required the first time you install the game on a machine. The activation code lets you install the game on up to 3 machines, with an unlimited number of installs on each assuming that you don't change any major hardware in your PC or re-install your operating system."

"If you reach the maximum number of installations you can contact the Atari hotline and if it's a legitimate request you can get a new activation code. We implement this protection in an effort to avoid early piracy."

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i am sure the pirates are bitching all over the internet about it
- good to see them buying it

yes, the REAL complainers are a TINY minority of Atari's customers

hehe ya I wonder how long before we see a "TaGES in Games is t3h Devil" thread.

While a 3 machine activation limit would certainly be cause for complaint from actual customers, I think its very clear at this point the vast majority of complaints aren't coming from Atari's customers.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Originally posted by: chizow

1. 1) DRM doesn't work in preventing piracy
   2) DRM doesn't do anything to increase actual sales from those who would pirate anyways.

For proof the above statements are false, just drop into any of the many Riddick Crack threads on the various torrent sites. They're actually pretty funny reads, but certainly allows for a glimpse into the simple minds of petty thieves.

Both of your "fallacies" are strawmen and I'm not sure why you like to use the term proof so loosely. Any form of DRM, even a yellow sticker that says "Hey You, Don't Let Your Friend Copy This!" is going to result in some sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The actual issue of interest is whether any additional sales outweighs the drawbacks in not only lost sales but negative user experience with a company that primarily hurts sales from future games and the PC gaming industry in general.

You've found a few idiots on a random forum to support a non-contested point, when there are plenty of people on this forum (and thread) who have mentioned that the presence of DRM is a disincentive to purchase for them. More significantly, there are a lot of people on this forum who list DRM as one of their primary complaints with PC gaming and why they migrate to consoles.

There's no doubt that the industry would benefit significantly from a joint study into the correlation between piracy and total revenue as well as DRM and total revenue. Consider that many smaller companies (without management/investor pressure!) choose to forgo DRM entirely. Is this really because SecuRom is leaving money on the table by not marketing to them? Or because they don't feel DRM is in their best interest? I don't see why you are so insistent on jumping to conclusions and claiming you have proof based on random forum posts. Do you get points for how many complicated issues you can oversimplify each day?

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
The actual issue of interest is whether any additional sales outweighs the drawbacks in not only lost sales but negative user experience with a company that primarily hurts sales from future games and the PC gaming industry in general.

Exactly. Well said.

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
I don't see why you are so insistent on jumping to conclusions and claiming you have proof based on random forum posts. Do you get points for how many complicated issues you can oversimplify each day?

He'll do anything he can to satisfy the massive ego he's created for himself. I find it kinda funny the lengths he'll actually go to accomplish that, like the "proof" he came up with in his above post (as you pointed out), when his whole goal is to supposedly clear up the FUD from all the "pirates" who post here..

It's quite entertaining if nothing else.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
Both of your "fallacies" are strawmen and I'm not sure why you like to use the term proof so loosely. Any form of DRM, even a yellow sticker that says "Hey You, Don't Let Your Friend Copy This!" is going to result in some sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The actual issue of interest is whether any additional sales outweighs the drawbacks in not only lost sales but negative user experience with a company that primarily hurts sales from future games and the PC gaming industry in general.

Strawmen? I don't think so, it seems the people who throw that term around so loosely rarely understand what it even means. So lets look break down it down. True or false, as of right now, is there a crack available online that effectively bypasses Riddick's DRM? No, there isn't. The Tages DRM used on Riddick is 100% effective at preventing anonymous online piracy right now. Clearly not a strawman argument. Effective DRM prevents piracy, its simple cause and effect.

My second point is also clearly confirmed as casual pirates will in fact choose to purchase a title if they believe there is no hope in alternative means of obtaining that title for free. I counted no less than 5 people on a torrent forum, intent on stealing the game if it were possible, instead caving in and purchasing the game. You can claim whatever you like but that clearly shows some people will steal first if its an option, and a percentage of those people will pay if there is no other option. That's clearly 5 sales Riddick would not have gotten if it shipped without any DRM at all.

Now that may or may not outweigh the loss in sales resulting from the DRM existing in the first place, but that assertion clearly falls outside of the scope of my "strawmen" arguments.

You've found a few idiots on a random forum to support a non-contested point, when there are plenty of people on this forum (and thread) who have mentioned that the presence of DRM is a disincentive to purchase for them. More significantly, there are a lot of people on this forum who list DRM as one of their primary complaints with PC gaming and why they migrate to consoles.

Well random idiots on forums aren't hard to come by, there's plenty here as well. But those idiots in that forum I linked to do a great job disproving a very contested point echoed by many of our resident idiots, as one of the pillars of the anti-DRM argument is the claim it does nothing to prevent piracy. In this case DRM is very close to 100% effective, but even if it weren't 100% effective, it doesn't deny the fact any form of DRM is more effective than no DRM at all in preventing piracy and therefore, a necessary inconvenience.

As for your comments about DRM forcing people to consoles....LMAO. Are you claiming consoles don't have any DRM? We've already been over all this before, you just choose to ignore the fact consoles have much more effective forms of DRM and as a result, much lower piracy rates and total pirated copies compared to their PC counterparts.

There's no doubt that the industry would benefit significantly from a joint study into the correlation between piracy and total revenue as well as DRM and total revenue. Consider that many smaller companies (without management/investor pressure!) choose to forgo DRM entirely. Is this really because SecuRom is leaving money on the table by not marketing to them? Or because they don't feel DRM is in their best interest? I don't see why you are so insistent on jumping to conclusions and claiming you have proof based on random forum posts. Do you get points for how many complicated issues you can oversimplify each day?

LOL, joint study? Between whom? Pirates and the game industry? I guess we can just do an anonymous study and use the same honor system used for games without DRM. I'm going to take a guess that 80-90% of the results will be BS with respondents claiming they would absolutely buy a game rather than steal it if it had no DRM.

Until then I guess we'll have to rely on actual sales and piracy data that show without a doubt that games with more effective forms of DRM suffer a lower piracy rate than games without any DRM, which are punished the worst by piracy.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
The actual issue of interest is whether any additional sales outweighs the drawbacks in not only lost sales but negative user experience with a company that primarily hurts sales from future games and the PC gaming industry in general.

Exactly. Well said.

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
I don't see why you are so insistent on jumping to conclusions and claiming you have proof based on random forum posts. Do you get points for how many complicated issues you can oversimplify each day?

He'll do anything he can to satisfy the massive ego he's created for himself. I find it kinda funny the lengths he'll actually go to accomplish that, like the "proof" he came up with in his above post (as you pointed out), when his whole goal is to supposedly clear up the FUD from all the "pirates" who post here..

It's quite entertaining if nothing else.

Rofl, and once again, I've shown your anti-DRM agenda promotes a pro-piracy agenda whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Given you past posting history and continued attempts at spreading misinformation, its becoming more and more clear you are cogniscent of that reality. I'll just post the quote again because it really articulates the "cause" and motives behind anti-DRM misinformation better than anything I could make up.

Random idiot thief on some random torrent forum:

Well, I know the scene frowns on VM wrappers and workarounds, but I am also tired of seeing people breaking ranks by caving and giving Atari their $50 along the message that this kind of DRM is ok, and acceptable.

One of the big arguments for anti-DRM supporters is that DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. Well right now, that argument is failing because this DRM is doing something to prevent it. That needs to be changed quickly.

A proper crack can come out later, but right now we need to stop the bleeding.

 

[mindcycle]

Chizow, you've shown time and time again that you're perfectly willing to spread misinformation with no research in order to promote your pro-DRM agenda..

Originally posted by: chizow
What makes anyone think this version of activation SecuROM is any different from the others used in the past, where activations are returned automatically when the game is uninstalled on any given machine?

I don't even have to "create" proof, all I have to do is quote you.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Chizow, you've shown time and time again that you're perfectly willing to spread misinformation with no research in order to promote your pro-DRM agenda..

Originally posted by: chizow
What makes anyone think this version of activation SecuROM is any different from the others used in the past, where activations are returned automatically when the game is uninstalled on any given machine?

I don't even have to "create" proof, all I have to do is quote you.

You haven't prove a single thing except your inability to debate the issue

Atari's DRM is working and they haven't fully clarified what they meant yet about the activation issue

we aren't even sure what kind of DRM they are using except the Pirates are stymied for now and clearly they are getting pissed off at Atari for keeping them from stealing as they are accustomed to do

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Chizow, you've shown time and time again that you're perfectly willing to spread misinformation with no research in order to promote your pro-DRM agenda..

Originally posted by: chizow
What makes anyone think this version of activation SecuROM is any different from the others used in the past, where activations are returned automatically when the game is uninstalled on any given machine?

I don't even have to "create" proof, all I have to do is quote you.

I'm not sure how you can claim the above with a straight face, even a simpleton would understand the difference between a question or inquiry and a definitive statement of opinion or position. I guess that's what the --->?<--- at the end of the sentence is for. But given most people here aren't simpletons I don't think there's any more need to cover the difference.

As for my inquiry, as I've asked repeatedly, what makes you or anyone else think the DRM used is different than the previous forms used by Atari, EA and others? I know what Atari has stated, but their ambiguous statements are certainly part of the problem coupled with the clear misinformation and hysteria caused by anti-DRM/pro-piracy interests.

Clear evidence of this is how each of your links and evidence simply serves to refute and disprove some BS you linked to earlier. But none answer the simple question whether or not activations are returned on uninstall or not, or whether anyone has confirmed or denied installation on a 4th machine. I did receive my copy today, so I guess we'll know for sure soon enough.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You haven't prove a single thing except your inability to debate the issue

Atari's DRM is working and they haven't clarified what they meant yet

If two public statements from Atari mentioning nothing about revocable installs isn't enough to put this issue to rest, then i'm not sure what will. Not to mention the hundreds of articles and forum posts.. If a revoke feature was built in don't you think Atari would want to clear that up right away?

Maybe you should give it a go and post your results if you're so convinced hundreds of people might be wrong. Chizow is going to do that supposedly.. I wonder if he'll still post his results if it does nothing but confirm what's already been reported a hundred times.. I'm guessing not.

..and seriously, if pointing out an obvious inaccurate statement isn't debating then maybe you live on a different planet then the rest of us.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
I did receive my copy today, so I guess we'll know for sure soon enough.

Sounds good. I look forward to reading about your results.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: apoppin
You haven't prove a single thing except your inability to debate the issue

Atari's DRM is working and they haven't clarified what they meant yet

If two public statements from Atari mentioning nothing about revocable installs isn't enough to put this issue to rest, then i'm not sure what will. Not to mention the hundreds of articles and forum posts.. If a revoke feature was built in don't you think Atari would want to clear that up right away?

Maybe you should give it a go and post your results if you're so convinced hundreds of people might be wrong. Chizow is going to do that supposedly.. I wonder if he'll still post his results if it does nothing but confirm what's already been reported a hundred times.. I'm guessing not.

..and seriously, if pointing out an obvious inaccurate statement isn't debating then maybe you live on a different planet then the rest of us.

i am doing it now .. i guess i won't be selling the damn game afterall
i need to explore ambient occlusion on a Geforce vs a Radeon anyway

just because Atari doesn't "jump" when you ask them for clarification, does not support your claims - either way

Assault on Dark Athena has been released a week ago yesterday
. . . do you really think *many* legitimate customers have used up all their activations yet?
:roll:

EDIT: it looks like i do NOT have to test and that we will have an answer soon