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

[mindcycle]

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...wthread&threadid=97306

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

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

http://www.incgamers.com/News/...iddickDRMIssuesAlready

http://drmnewsbits.blogspot.com/

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58088

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...hree-install-limit.ars

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mindcycle
lol Yes, the same usual suspect is back and intent on spreading misinformation.. Did you even read the thread?

The Starbreeze Forums and Atari Forums for The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena each have threads complaining about the game's DRM, describing a non-revocable three-installation limit that does not allow further installations after it has been reached.

It actually says this right in the topic summary as well..

*ignore filter is now on

Yep, and that's the same BS that was spread about Spore, Mass Effect, Crysis Warhead, Bioshock and every other title that shipped with activation-based DRM that "ate" an installation each time you actually installed it, when that wasn't the case. In all of those games, an installation was returned provided you uninstalled the game, the only need for a revocation tool was if you exhausted all 3 of your installations and wiping your OS without first uninstalling the game.

So I ask again, what makes you or anyone else in this thread believe this version of SecuROM is different than those employed in the past? I've already detailed what I'm basing it on, and as far as I've seen, this has also been the case with the Activation SecuROM Atari employed in another recent title:

• Alone In the Dark - SecuROM and Unlock FAQ fixed link
  
  REVOCATION GUIDELINE :
  
  Revoking the activation is important to reset the full activation rights and allow you to install the game on another computer or sell it. The revocation of the serial is done automatically during the uninstallation process. However, if you decided not to revoke your license when the option is displayed, you can still do it later by re-installing and de-installing your game or you can download are run a revocation tool from this site.

So again, do you have any actual evidence this is not the case with the activation based SecuROM on Riddick? Or are you just parroting misinformation spread by the various anti-DRM outlets?

Dude, why do you like DRM? Do you install games just to install securom?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...wthread&threadid=97306

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

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

http://www.incgamers.com/News/...iddickDRMIssuesAlready

http://drmnewsbits.blogspot.com/

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58088

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...hree-install-limit.ars

So you are just parroting what various news outlets and anti-DRM blogs are reporting, which really means nothing given this was the same misinformation spread about the other titles I mentioned earlier at launch. I was actually hoping you had some actual evidence or research testing whether or not the activation-based DRM was in fact different and restricted to 3 machines total, or whether it was an extremely poor job by Atari of communicating how typical activation SecuROM works.

The key difference between what is being claimed about Riddick and prior versions is that these reports are claiming Riddick will not return a revocation token for a new machine, even if you uninstall the game from another machine. This is different from the past forms, which return a token when you uninstall from a prior machine. The end result is that you can only have up to 3 *active* simultaneous installations where Riddick is claimed as having only 3 installations *ever* on 3 machines.

Personally I think that nothing has changed and you do get installations returned if you uninstall and Atari has just done an incredibly poor job of communicating that fact. Sure its possible they've changed it so that it is locked onto a certain machine, but I doubt it given that's not how any of the previous versions worked. I guess we shall see, I just so happen to have 4 machines/OS installations handy and my copy should be in sometime next week.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Dude, why do you like DRM? Do you install games just to install securom?

Where have I claimed I like DRM? I dislike misinformation, its that simple. And I'm genuinely curious as to how the install limits work, as the best way to avoid problems is to understand how things work.

 

[coloumb]

I like this reply from the bluesnews forum - here we are bitching about a 3 install limit when STEAM is far worse than any of the current DRM schemes - STEAM version is FOREVER linked to your soul. 3 activation limit sucks - but you know what - if you LIKE the game, go buy it, install it, apply the crack, and play the game [or buy it, torrent it, and resell it on ebay as a sealed copy]. Sure - it's a crappy way to avoid the DRM - but how else can we let the developers know they made a product we enjoy? Well... pending they do get a bonus depending upon how many games are sold... if they do not, then Atari can burn in hell for implementing this DRM.

.............................

"On-topic, this thread is really all a bunch of hooey. You all know how easy it is to crack the game and run it without activating it... you won't even need to for a looong time, and when you do I promise you the cracks will be everywhere, easily accessible for those who want to play the game 5 years after it came out. Finding ways to run old games on PC isn't even anything new, so I don't see why it's so horrible to do it for this title.

Here's the results of your actions:

1 - Pirate the game in protest - This just backs up their reasoning and makes you a thief. They continue to lament the piracy problem on PC and you look like a rationalizing thief to anyone with half a brain and any respect for morals in a capitalist system.

2 - Protest the game entirely - Probably your best bet if you're really upset about DRM. Make sure you send a letter explaining why you are not buying the game.

3 - Buy the game - I still choose to do this, as being a developer is much harder and thankless than any of you seem to grasp, and they NEED the success and money from game sales to survive. Instead of punishing them for something their publisher did, I support them with a sale and then crack the .exe when I need to... in essence, it is more important to me to support developers making great games I like than it is to complain about DRM I can easily bypass.

I don't like activation limits but I like seeing PC releases dwindle and great developers being shut down even less. Iron Lore is a great example... a great bunch of guys with a great game (Titan Quest) that sold like crap but was torrented to hell and back. They didn't do anything to bring that on themselves either, the game was not saddled with horrid DRM, but people pirated it anyway. The simple fact of the matter is that humans are bastards a lot of the time, and they steal when they can and don't think they will be punished.

I also find it funny that Steam is seen a better solution... give me TAGES or SecuROM anyday over Steam. With Steam you don't even have any semblance at all of owning the game, you simply subscribe to the game through their service, and they can literally take the game way from you anytime they want. It's also much harder to bypass than SecuROM, and I bet 20 years from now when Atari and Valve are both dead and gone, Riddick will be a lot easier to get working than Left 4 Dead."

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Dude, why do you like DRM? Do you install games just to install securom?

lol Some have guessed that he works for SecuROM, but that would make too much sense. I think he just has a huge ego and gets his kicks out of trying to prove people wrong.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Wow. Non revocable installs...just wow. How is that going to impact piracy when any crack will necessarily avoid any internet authentication anyway? Pirates rock on as usual, legitimate buyers are saddled with an incredibly onerous limitation on what they can do with their game. Good god, the stupidity of it. I too would have purchased the game and probably will not now.

Your loss

an unlimited number of installs on 3 PCs is quite reasonable
:roll:


Steam sucks in comparison .. at least i can sell Dark Athena when i am done with it
- it is MINE .. and they will give me a revocation tool

I'm sorry, but you're a idiot for thinking that. I have a desktop PC and laptop (that can play crysis), I format every 6 months or so which this software will read as a new machine. Then if I decide to say... upgrade my CPU then that's another machine there most likely.

Given the right time I can burn through 3 installs in a week, so don't pretend that because you don't care others have no reason to.

-edit- oh, and even given a revoke tool I don't always have access to the internet, and I refuse to rely on customer support that may or may not call me a pirate. Have fun with your DRM, I won't have to worry about any of this crap.

i think way less of you - so what?

Any idiot can burn thru three installs in a single day; but then a wise person will uninstall the game so that it may be installed again - instead of just wiping the HD and reformatting; Dragon SW and many other programs do this

You prefer Steam's DRM which is ten times more restrictive?

i know pirates would prefer no DRM .. but that is damn unrealistic .. leave your car unlocked if you think that is not so
:roll:

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i know pirates would prefer no DRM .. but that is damn unrealistic .. leave your car unlocked if you think that is not so
:roll:

Man.. You have some good ideas that I respect, like the description of the DRM on the back of the box, but don't do what you're doing above.. Claiming that those of us against DRM are pirates is clearly false.

Why would pirates be concerned about DRM? They aren't the ones that have to deal with it.

 

[apoppin]

i DID not say "WE" are pirates

i would MUCH prefer there was NO DRM

but that is unrealistic

You have to realize that pirating is now a HUGE business
- there are guys that infest forums spreading FUD and hysteria against DRM

there is no way around DRM .. what other choice do publishers have ?

. . . SecureROM or Steam

 

[marmasatt]

Originally posted by: Frodolives
This cools my interest in the game as well. I'll still buy it most likely, but in light of this I'll wait until it is in the $20 bin someday.

This..... for me anyway.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i DID not say "WE" are pirates

i would MUCH prefer there was NO DRM

but that is unrealistic

You have to realize that pirating is now a HUGE business
- there are guys that infest forums spreading FUD and hysteria against DRM

there is no way around DRM .. what other choice do publishers have ?

. . . SecureROM or Steam

Why is no DRM unrealistic? Ubisoft have been releasing games with no DRM recently, EA announced that The Sims 3 would have no DRM.
The days of no DRM are far from dead.

I would take SecuROM over Steam any day though.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
lol Some have guessed that he works for SecuROM, but that would make too much sense. I think he just has a huge ego and gets his kicks out of trying to prove people wrong.

lol I must've put on my Atari hat today omw to work. :roll:

Proving people wrong is only fun when those people actually think they're right. Which makes me wonder, if you're proven wrong here (again), are you going to scream it from the rooftops as vigorously as you've complained? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Why is no DRM unrealistic? Ubisoft have been releasing games with no DRM recently, EA announced that The Sims 3 would have no DRM.
The days of no DRM are far from dead.

I would take SecuROM over Steam any day though.

The only recent title Ubi released with no DRM at all is Prince of Persia. Sims 3 still has serial + disc check SecuROM and other games cited from publishers who claim no DRM like Stardock do in fact employ DRM. Its very clear though based on various responses and especially about attitudes toward Steam, SecuROM, and MMOs is that much of the stigma is purely psychological. The most effective forms of DRM are the ones that convince people they're not DRM.

 

[NoWhereM]

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh the same usual suspects, dealing in the same brand of fearmongering and misinformation, as usual. 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?

From the BioShockRevokeTool pdf:

The five by five scheme limits the number of installations to five different activations, on different hardware configurations and five activations on the same hardware configuration, where the license information has been reset, either because the hard disc drive has been formatted/replaced, the license information has become corrupt and cannot be read, or a major hardware change has been made.

As long as the license information is intact between installations on the same machine configuration, BioShock will not ask to be re-activated between installations and therefore your activation limit will not be affected.

Please read the second paragraph carefully. Uninstalling the game did not return an activation, it remained on the computer. Only using the BioShock Revoke Tool would return an activation. In fact it clearly states that in the pdf:

Once an activation has been made, the number of available activations on your specific activation code is reduced accordingly on the activation server. The BioShock Revoke Tool, is designed to clear the activation license off of the user's machine and contact the activation server to free up the revoked license for future use.

Originally posted by: chizow
Yep, and that's the same BS that was spread about Spore, Mass Effect, Crysis Warhead, Bioshock and every other title that shipped with activation-based DRM that "ate" an installation each time you actually installed it, when that wasn't the case. In all of those games, an installation was returned provided you uninstalled the game, the only need for a revocation tool was if you exhausted all 3 of your installations and wiping your OS without first uninstalling the game.

So I ask again, what makes you or anyone else in this thread believe this version of SecuROM is different than those employed in the past?

They don't believe it is different than those employed in the past. They believe it will work in much the same way it did on BioShock. That, I believe, is their issue with it.

Originally posted by: chizow
...I dislike misinformation, its that simple. And I'm genuinely curious as to how the install limits work, as the best way to avoid problems is to understand how things work.

I think everyone here agrees with you. I know I certainly appreciate the op and others taking the time to explain the hazzards of SecuRom Activation limits.

BTW, regarding what constitutes a hardware change the BioShockRevokeTool pdf might give a good indication. Specifically it says this:

Another case where you may be asked to re-activate BioShock, is when you have made significant hardware changes to your computer's existing configuration, such as changing the motherboard or DVD Drive, which will count as a new hardware configuration and therefore use one of the activations.

I don't really know how they think, but I would consider changing my graphic card more of a major hardware change than changing my DVD drive. Honestly I don't even know how they would know you've changed your DVD Drive but apparently they do and it's not allowed.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mindcycle
lol Some have guessed that he works for SecuROM, but that would make too much sense. I think he just has a huge ego and gets his kicks out of trying to prove people wrong.

lol I must've put on my Atari hat today omw to work. :roll:

Proving people wrong is only fun when those people actually think they're right. Which makes me wonder, if you're proven wrong here (again), are you going to scream it from the rooftops as vigorously as you've complained? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Why is no DRM unrealistic? Ubisoft have been releasing games with no DRM recently, EA announced that The Sims 3 would have no DRM.
The days of no DRM are far from dead.

I would take SecuROM over Steam any day though.

The only recent title Ubi released with no DRM at all is Prince of Persia. Sims 3 still has serial + disc check SecuROM and other games cited from publishers who claim no DRM like Stardock do in fact employ DRM. Its very clear though based on various responses and especially about attitudes toward Steam, SecuROM, and MMOs is that much of the stigma is purely psychological. The most effective forms of DRM are the ones that convince people they're not DRM.

Endwar and H.A.W.X from Ubi also have no DRM.
I would argue that a CD check and cd key aren't really DRM. They've both been around for a long time and no one has considered them DRM, as they do not interfere with your rights to use your game as you wish. It may be a SecuROM based disc check, but that doesn't make it the same as other implementations of SecuROM which limit installs etc.

CD key + disc check has been pretty much the de facto standard for quite a long while and no one complained or (AFAIK) found difficulties in reselling products using those two things.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i DID not say "WE" are pirates

Thanks for the clarification. I've just seen that happen time and time again in these types of threads and assumed that's what you were referring to.

Originally posted by: apoppin
You have to realize that pirating is now a HUGE business
- there are guys that infest forums spreading FUD and hysteria against DRM

People downloading games from bittorrent or through other file sharing apps aren't supporting any sort of pirating "business". Sure, in Asian and other markets, piracy makes money, but the people buying and selling stuff there don't care about DRM since by the time they get a hold of it it's already been cracked.

I maybe be wrong here, but I just don't see how there would be any motivation behind pirates supposedly spreading FUD when clearly they aren't the ones dealing with the DRM in the first place.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i DID not say "WE" are pirates

i would MUCH prefer there was NO DRM

but that is unrealistic

You have to realize that pirating is now a HUGE business
- there are guys that infest forums spreading FUD and hysteria against DRM

there is no way around DRM .. what other choice do publishers have ?

. . . SecureROM or Steam

They have plenty of choice not to burden their customers with DRM. DRM is by far a requiement of doing business. Its obviously a cost/benefit analysis and they seem to think it's worthwhile, and obviously, many of their customers disagree.

The choice we have is whether or not to buy securom games. I choose not to buy them.

Steam is far less restrictive than securom anyway. I know that on whatever PC I install steam, I can download my games to it. I dont have the ability to lend or resell my games, but I have an issue with paying $50 for a download anyway, so I limit myself to $20 games at most, and I've been more than happy with it.

The only issue is if steam were to go down for good, and in that case, I'd have absolutely no moral qualms about "pirating" a game I bought on it, something that is almost absurdly easy nowadays.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: NoWhereM
They don't believe it is different than those employed in the past. They believe it will work in much the same way it did on BioShock. That, I believe, is their issue with it.

That may be the case with Bioshock (even though it had its own annuller after 1 year), but its clearly not the case with EA's activation scheme and also not the case with Alone in the Dark, another Atari game that uses the same activation-based SecuROM as EA that returns activations on uninstall.

So again, I ask, what makes people think they would go this route over the more common form used that does return activations on uninstall, especially given this is what they've used in the past?

[I think everyone here agrees with you. I know I certainly appreciate the op and others taking the time to explain the hazzards of SecuRom Activation limits.

Even when they're wrong, I'm sure and of course you make no effort to correct those mistakes. So clearly no, not everyone here agrees with my view on spreading misinformation.

I don't really know how they think, but I would consider changing my graphic card more of a major hardware change than changing my DVD drive. Honestly I don't even know how they would know you've changed your DVD Drive but apparently they do and it's not allowed.

Its a simple dxdiag or system.cfg dump file I'm sure, but given all the constant hardware and OS changes I've made, the only time I'm prompted for a new activation is if I change the motherboard or OS without uninstalling first.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Endwar and H.A.W.X from Ubi also have no DRM.

Idk about Endwar, but HAWX definitely does have DRM with a discrete online key needed for multiplayer. Endwar being multiplayer-centric, I'd guess it does as well.

I would argue that a CD check and cd key aren't really DRM. They've both been around for a long time and no one has considered them DRM, as they do not interfere with your rights to use your game as you wish. It may be a SecuROM based disc check, but that doesn't make it the same as other implementations of SecuROM which limit installs etc.

CD key + disc check has been pretty much the de facto standard for quite a long while and no one complained or (AFAIK) found difficulties in reselling products using those two things.

I'd agree, but there's clearly a vocal minority that wants to do away with all DRM completely that find any form or mention of SecuROM a problem regardless of how innocuous its implementation is.

 

[mindcycle]

I would advise those of you here to refrain from replying to or trying to debate chizow. Without going into why (as I know that is likely to just cause more posts) i'll just point you to this thread instead.. http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=drm

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I would advise those of you here to refrain from replying to or trying to debate chizow. Without going into why (as I know that is likely to just cause more posts) i'll just point you to this thread instead.. http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=drm

Debate? There'd be no need for debate if someone offered definitive evidence showing the 3 machine limit works exactly as feared and is limited to 3 machines only, even on uninstall. Instead we have a handful of people more interested in complaining about a form of DRM they don't have any experience with rather than actually learning how it works.

Your link only helps prove what we already know, you'd rather perpetuate misinformation and contribute to unwarranted hysteria than learn the truth and make a rational decision based on that knowledge. But like I said, I'll find out soon enough when my copy arrives. Others can chime in with their own experiences and we can go from there.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: apoppin
i DID not say "WE" are pirates

Thanks for the clarification. I've just seen that happen time and time again in these types of threads and assumed that's what you were referring to.

Originally posted by: apoppin
You have to realize that pirating is now a HUGE business
- there are guys that infest forums spreading FUD and hysteria against DRM

People downloading games from bittorrent or through other file sharing apps aren't supporting any sort of pirating "business". Sure, in Asian and other markets, piracy makes money, but the people buying and selling stuff there don't care about DRM since by the time they get a hold of it it's already been cracked.

I maybe be wrong here, but I just don't see how there would be any motivation behind pirates supposedly spreading FUD when clearly they aren't the ones dealing with the DRM in the first place.

ONE example: Pirate Bay gets millions of hits a day and that translates to huge ad dollars

Pirating has become a business

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...nologysection.insideit

Svenska Dagbladet, a Stockholm morning paper, claims the site is making tens of thousands of pounds every month from advertising: the firm that handles the site's Swedish business told the Guardian that the largest ads cost 200,000 SEK (about £14,700) and that they had sold four of these, and a great many smaller ads in the last month. The price has risen in the past few weeks after the government's attempts to shut the site brought widespread publicity.

Localised advertisements

The Pirate Bay offers services in 20 languages, two of which are forms of Norwegian. When I was browsing, the ads were all relevant to my location of Cambridge, England, which suggests the ads are localised through different brokers for different locations.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/n...pirate-bay-trial-comes

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: apoppin
ONE example: Pirate Bay gets millions of hits a day and that translates to huge ad dollars

Ok, you're right about that. I see your point with the whole business comparison. I still think most of the people outraged and posting about the DRM are the legit customers, as can be seen in this forum and many others. The reason being is they are the ones that have to deal with it. By the time it gets into the pirates hands the DRM will already have been cracked, so really it's a non-issue for them unless they were planning on buying it beforehand.

 

[mindcycle]

Just an update for you guys about the non-revocable installs issue. Below is a post from the Atari forums from a guy who has 3 copies of the game and did a test with one to prove the 3 installs are indeed non-revocable.

For some proof here. I installed and uninstalled the game on one of my laptops 3 times and with an attempted 4th install which failed.

I will be posting more on this later through my blog http://drmnewsbits.blogspot.com/

-Jollyrigger

Here's a link to the thread, post #27, near the bottom of the thread right now: http://www.ataricommunity.com/...1bd4c65829a62&t=671930

This was also reported in PC Gamer magazine in their review of the game.
http://www.giantbomb.com/the-c...n-revocable/35-235726/

 

[Red Irish]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

That's Latin, it means "who will police the police?". Concerns relating to the abuse of authority have accompanied the human race since the emergence of the earliest societies. In this context of ever-increasing DRM, where piracy is employed as a pretext to attack the second-hand market, gradually herd us all towards consoles and place unneccessary restrictions on consumers, we ask the question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And the answer? Ladies and gentlemen, we do, via the power of our wallets.

Do not buy this game.

Individually, we are insignificant, collectively, we can bring these companies to their knees.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh the same usual suspects, dealing in the same brand of fearmongering and misinformation, as usual. 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?

In any case, its gotten the typical treatment, mass hysteria and misinformation from the anti-DRM crowd, poor reporting of the facts by the gaming "press", and even worst communication and clarification from Atari. That's assuming relevant information about uninstallation wasn't omitted from those news releases of course.

As for the purpose of install limits, its to prevent casual piracy, but its also to prevent more rampant community abuse like Cyber Cafes or college dorms. Its also to prevent install and resale. Note, this is not the same as resale, as once you sell your copy you also transfer your rights to use it.

I always do my best to post correct information. As in the past, I will admit to any misinformation if either I or others prove what I'm saying is wrong. As far as fearmongering is concerned, I think we as consumers have plenty to fear from essentially taking one step forward (3 installs increased to 5 and we now have an install revocation tool from EA) and two steps backwards (5 installs decreased to 3 and now the installs are non-revocable).

This situation (as far as I can tell from the ATARI forums) is actually worse than the original SecuROM 3 install limitation imposed by EA, because at least those were given back when you uninstalled the game. Regardless, we should be making progress towards consumer friendly implementations of DRM instead of traveling back to 2007.

Finally the problem, in my mind at least, with preventing install and resale is that it prevents resale by legitimate customers. Screwing over those who abide by the law and actually pay for your products, seems like a piss poor business model to me. Copyright law provides legal recourse against those that do illegal things. DRM just seems to punish everyone involved (including the IP copyright holders because they're paying good money for ineffective protection). On that note, I'd say fearmongering is probably best used as a sales tactic for the SecuROM PA sales reps. A simple CD-check would suffice to stop casual piracy quite nicely.