"Science" is not some magical endowment upon something. Polls are polls, they should be designed with as much accuracy and representation as possible, but there is nothing unscientific about using a convenience sampling method; you just have to be careful about generalising it, as I have been.
Obviously there are more accurate and desirable methods of polling but as I said ED had every opportunity to use them and did not do so.

It's utter ignorance to claim that you can't know the effect of something because you don't have 100% accuracy.
No scientific study in the world has 100% accuracy. We have confidence intervals and error bars.

What we do have is strong evidence that DRM does not stop piracy and may even encourage it (see: sales figures for spore and investigations as to why users were getting the pirate version), as well as strong evidence that DRM makes some proportion of legitimate buyers not buy it.

Which is why Amazon, itunes etc are getting rid of DRM: its bad for consumers.

If the evidence is so strong why do so many games come out with copy protection? If it's so obviously bad for the bottom line then why do game publishers still use it?

Less and less games are coming out with DRM; Ubisoft has dropped it from many of their games after public outry, for example.
It takes time for companies to accept change. I could equally well ask "Why do game publishers NOT use DRM, if it's so good?"
Inertia. They take time to react.

I know Ubisoft is doing a test with Prince of Persia but they've been using Securom since they dropped SF. Far Cry 2 just came out and that's still using Securom.

ED has data that indicates Copy Protection recovered potential sales losses.

That data is likely far better than your assumptions, and given that ED is interested in INCREASING, and not DECREASING its profits, I'd say they have done a whole lot more investigation into the matter than those who aren't in the business of specifically creating ED's software.

Further, what is true for one product may not be true for another - for some products piracy may indeed cause more damage, for others, DRM might.

I find it amusing that with all the hauty talk about statistics this and that, some people fail to consider the fact their own sample is in some ways small or inappropriate.

ED does not have data that indicates Copy Protection recovered potential sales losses.

Oh look, I can make #%&*$# up too!
Evidence for your claim?

Apparently no company ever makes bad decisions because that could cost them money. Wow. Whats that model of economics called?

ED has VERY good data. Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not is rather irrelevant to their actions based on this data.

ED has reasons for what they're doing, and again whether you like it or not - they're pretty good.

To give you some visibility, the piracy in russia determines western CP because if they were not to protect the western version just as well, unprotected files can be easily ported to the protected russian version.

So far BS has been selling well and SF has not impacted sales in any significant way.

You keep CLAIMING they do, but there is NO evidence that they have anything of the sort.
Where is this data? Why is it a secret? There is no such data, just a decision to go with starforce.


Again, making stuff up. You have no evidence for this.


The protected russian version that was cracked within hours of release, if not earlier?
Starforce did a lot of good then, didn't it? If they protect the western version "just as well" then the "nasty pirates" will get their hands on it instantly!


Another fabricated claim with NO evidence to back it up.
You have no idea how much better BS could be selling if people weren't put off by starforce.

Companies consider their sales data a trade secret. End of story. Again, just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it isn't so. You're just reaching, knowing that no company will release that data, hoping it'll somehow prove your point. It proves it exactly as much as you making a claim that smart cards aren't secure.




You're making things up. I have evidence. Whether I show it to YOU or not doesn't matter.
You really don't have a leg to stand on on this one. You're going to tell ME what I know and what I don't know?

You can say you think I'm wrong in my analysis - or that ED is, and I have to leave it at that since I won't show you any data, but calling me a liar will get you nowhere.



It wasn't cracked; the devil is in the details.



I didn't mention SF in this case. Your argument is pretty baseless. BS is selling pretty well, PERIOD.

Anyway, all that aside - why do YOU think ED used SF in their product? Perhaps that's a good question to ask at least understand a think or two on my side.

A *very* small part.

BTW Gisen... Black Shark is doing very well!

How many responded in that poll?

How many users are registered on the DCS forums?

You do the math as to what percentage is represented.

I'm happy to hear Black Shark is doing well.

Gisen... Grayghost is a long time member of the beta team...

When is the last time you had direct contact with someone from Eagle Dynamics/TFC?

Do you think Eagle would publically release the information they have on this issue? Why do you expect to see "evidence"? The closest thing to evidence you will find is the fact they are using CP for DCS.

You sure have wasted a LOT of time here on a forum for a title you will never own.

I really feel for the idea behind your post - but to protest while still buying the goods leads to nothing ever. DCS clearly knew what they were getting themself into in terms of forum "ruckus" as they had conducted their poll, and yet ignored the results.

StarForce Boycott has been done on far bigger products (like Ubisofts) but there it already worked out - Ubi dropped SF completley. It doesn't make sense to take the protest to other larger publishers then.

And I wouldn't worry about DCS financial survival - much of their income is generated by products for the Military, and the coming A-10C "module" is as far as I heard also prepared for the Air Force. They won't stop making sims.

My guess?

Because they know that in Russia piracy is rampant (which means that requires SF), and rather then go trough the hassle to implement another CP in the Western Version, they thought that the appeal of BS was enough to convince people to accept the DRM.

Also because they already had SF used in FC, which likely made the implementation easier. Wasn't it you yourself who said all BS betas already came protected with SF, you never saw a beta test of another protection method?

There are games with mass market appeal like Stalker:Clear Sky which use Star Force for the russian release, and Securom or something else for the western release. There are also games with mass market appeal like Fallout3, which uses no CP at all.

Neither Stalker nor Fallout3, both pretty high profile titles, use any form of activation on installation. Even if Stalker requires a disk check, I still feel I'll be able to play it in three years if I want to, as long as I keep the disk nice and safe. With BS, this feeling would not be there, since who can assure me that if I run out of activations, or if the system crashes, I'll still be able to use what I paid for?

Did you get the case of Microsoft's old music store, where they planned to shut down the activation servers and told users they wouldn't be able to license their music if moved to a different OS? That is what DRM does. It means you might lose control over content you bought, in a year or two.

Couple that with a copy protection which has credible reports out claiming to destroy hardware, or require OS reinstalls, and which is made by a company who sees everyone asking for help as a "pirate", and you know why SF DRM is the ultimatly worst idea.

Why the hell BS isn't already on Steam is beyond me. That's still the DRM problem right there, but at least it's not by the same people who called legitimate users "thiefs", and chances are that Valve will live a lot longer in the business than the already damaged SF company, which lost major customers like UBI already.

Any idea on when this game will surface on Steam?

I'm not planning on purchasing it unless they use Steam so I'm really hoping it happens and it happens soon.

Fallout 3 is protected by SECUROM

There are STEAM games which are DRM' ed and also games which are SF Protected. So im not fully understanding that STEAM hype here.

STEAM protection for main SP games are very weak.

Starforce ain't that much better either - but you get the bad rep as an added bonus.

Well, it isn't really. The main game executable doesn't even have a disk check. Only the launcher, which allows to set graphics options. But to play the game, no CD is required in drive - no cracks need to be applied.