DRM

My stance of not buying DRM infected games was the other day vindicated when I decided that I would install IL2 Forgotten Battles so that I could get the Saitek X52 Pro and practice while waiting for Rise of Flight.

Sadly for me the copy protection incorporated in IL2 Forgotten Battles is not compatible with Vista Ultimate x64. So the game that I paid for cannot be used. I bet people who pirated it don't have this issue.

Which brings me to the question of will this game have DRM?

to be honest, I pirated my legit copy of il2 just to not have to bother with the cd all the time. Most of the il2 pilots I know have done the same, though they all have legit copies.

I use Vista64 and I have a euro copy of 1946. There are no DRM incompatabilities.
Just insert the disk and run a.exe.

Then search for Securerom on your PC, the DRM used in IL2 and you will find it didn't install.

Besides Securom is not that bad, it ain't ideal, but it is nowhere near as bad a Starforce.

Teddy mentions the Ultimate word Brigs, does that make a difference?

Ming

Same here. Absolutley no issues with Vista64, nor any DRM incompatabilities.
As Brigstock said, simply run a.exe on the DVD.

Ultimate version is server-based (or something like that, it's different anyhow from Home Premium) so I'm wondering if there's tighter security on that version which might explain some things

Ming

Ultimate doesn't mean nothing, it's not a factor here, bit like XP pro and Home. Security on Basic and Ultimate is the same. Ultimate has a few more back up features and some access features, but it isn't a server OS. Teddy's problem is what every one has, he just needs to run the a.exe, his issue is Vista based not DRM or IL2 based.

OK guys lets do from the top again.

I have IL2 Forgotten Battles, not IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.

I also know how to run 'a' exe... I 'even' know how to run it as an administrator!!! Seriously dismissive of you?

Vista is different to XP in that even though my account is part of the domain administrator group (yes I do run a domain at home, not local admin) exe's and command prompts and the likes do not automatically run at the elevated level.

When the game attempts to run it will get the 1st small IL2 screen the disk will spin up and then essentially make the OS unusable as the process cannot be stopped and the system cannot shut down gracefully i.e. hard reboot.

I will also note that in my googling of the issue it was indicated that the US version is significantly different to the Australasian version.


And lastly, what DRM if any will Rise of Flight have?

Whatever your problem is, don't solve it by getting IL2:1946 for like $20.
That would be just too frikking easy and... there's principles to consider as you have been wronged.

Seriously dismissive of you? How arrogant!

Neal,
I appreciate the uhm, suggestion? Though it is $60 here in Australia if it can be found at all. Yer there is bound to be second hand copies around but one has to find it first. Also Throwing a lot of good money at a DRM laden product in the hope that it may work does not seem sensible.


Brigstock,
Ooops, re-read what you had posted and for the life of me not sure how I read it the way I did. So sorry, my bad.

I understand that at least one version of 1946 does not have SecureRom.
I didn't know that you can't buy from internet sources in Australia yet when I dealt with Dontronics
in Australia before it HAD to be through PayPal as the banking here to there is poorly set up.
You really want to have fun, try sending money to Russia some time.

Teddy, you might want to arrange a deal with someone in US or Europe and probably save half by the
time shipping is figured. I got 1946 soon after it came out in Europe by procuring a British copy
through Go-Gamer.com. In fact, I got my original IL2 through Britain internet because it had not
been released in the US yet. LOL, FB release outside Russia was US-first and the complaints from
Europe were that the US "always" has first release and how sick of it they were! but, but, but....

It's a shame that the banks and retailers play these games with customers.

No more dismissive than the answers to solutions offered previously.
So why not just buy the right software that others are using with Vista and work out the install?
Surely there are enough avenues presented to make something work?

If what you're doing isn't working then it's time to change tactics!
What is the goal here? Discuss or solve?

There is a Vista/XP Wizard on the UBI board who was just made a Moderator.
He might be able to solve the problem as he has a number of others.
I forgot the exact name spelling though.

Any copy protection system on an older game that has issues with Vista64 will have an update available at the website of the CP creator.

Or you can try the Acme Corporation mirror

Ming

The question is what D.R.M. will be on Rise of Flight.

As the developers haven't announced a Western publisher yet and the DRM is usually a matter for the publisher, then how can anyone expect an answer to this question?

The developers have the final say on what publisher they sign on to. They also can stipulate in their contract whether or not a certain copy protection scheme would be used. What we are asking amounts to, "What is Gennadich's stance on copy protection"? Some developers refuse to allow Naziware on their games. Most don't have a problem with it. I suspect that Gennadich falls in the latter category.

What's Gennadich (they've been neoqb for almost a year now).

Oh? I thought that Neoqb acquired Gennadich. I did not realize that they also changed the name.

Yes, it's a name change. It seems that "Gennadich" was something that could be pronounced, and therefore unsuitable.

A much more customer friendly "Neoqb" was adopted instead.

I like to say it as "Neo-qua-buh," and "Neo-quab."

I guess that would be the case if publishers were lining up to pick the title up. ROF has been trying to find a publisher for a age now, with nothing on the horizon. The Liepzig trip was a hunt to find one. My feeling is that NEOQB will go with whatever their (when they get one) publisher says. They may not get a choice about what protection is added.

I've seen smaller studios than Neoqb call the shots on copy protection, including a husband-wife team from Turkey who have since then expanded their team due to the success of their work. They originally had an even smaller market than Rise of Flight already has, and yet they were somehow able to distribute with their choice of a fair copy protection method.

Smaller independents are not NEOQB, they have been developing this title for a couple of years with considerable cash investments. There is a lot more to getting this title out to the world than choosing who publishes it. As I said if there is a queue of publishers with substantial clout able to market and sell ROF around the world in the numbers required from NEOQB to make a profit for themselves and their investors then they may be able to have more say. But if there isn't (which I believe to be the case) then they will have to toe the line.

Because a small proportion of their planned target audience have issues with DRMs will not stop them going ahead with a good publisher who wants DRM included.

Brig, when people want something enough there -is- no reasoning that they will see.

Look at how many people subscribe to the idea of running cars on water lately.
The explanations either given or linked to run into perpetual motion "when they get heavy" yet there
are people who buy into it and believe what they are told about the stage-magic "demonstrations".

Well, hopefully the project will bomb for other reasons, then. Maybe with some luck Neoqb will be sued for their nasty D.R.M. like those idiots who made Spore.

Benny, with any luck there won't be any hitches except to a minority of screwballs and idiots who
won't be able to follow instructions well enough to run a great game LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

You do not know what you are talking about. Invasive copy protection negatively affects every user who follows the directions exactly. Here's to the quick demise of the simulator if it is so infected.

Listen bub, you can spout your trash about this sim or that, or some unrelated DRM BS, and clog up these forums here with your hypothetical prognostications about everyone else's creativity and hard work, but when you start messing with THIS sim, and this ERA, and state you hope THIS project bombs, and that people should be sued, all without an ounce of facts, then you're messin' with a whole lot of FANS here that don't give a hoot about what you think!

I'm tired of propagandists who hang out on these forums and attempt to generate self-importance by criticizing the work of other people who actually do something to promote this hobby of ours. To be so selfish as to wish ill on other people you don't even know, for some beef you have with some other game, and then spew forth this vindictive ranting onto another promising product you've never even tried, is the epitome of immaturity and ignorance.

This hobby doesn't need you, your small mindedness, and your constant negativity Mr. BM!

I think that time will prove me right. Mark my words; this simulator is headed for a D.R.M. scheme which will keep it from being legitimately played ten years from release. And you lot seem happy about that. If that turns out not to be the case, then I'll be more than happy—ecstatic, actually—to eat my words. The "I told you so" wouldn't bother me in the least. But I doubt it will come to that.

If indeed the simulator is released with a fair and honest copy protection method, and is as good of a simulator as it looks to be, you will be surprised at how much I will support it. When I fall in love with a game, it is for life. And you have no notion of how much I want the world to have a good Great War aerial combat simulator. I take it more seriously than most of you do.

If I express preemptive disappointment that a good simulator would be spoiled by harsh D.R.M., it is because experience has shown me that when a game seems too good to be true, it invariably is. Lately, the tainting element has been the copy protection used. "Once bitten, twice shy ..." And even as you berate me for being angry over a copy protection I am not yet certain about, your associates make smug remarks about that same hypothetical copy protection. I say, "It'll have bad D.R.M., which will suck," and they gleefully reply, "It's going to have bad D.R.M., ha ha!"

He's dead boring isn't he

Night John boy

Ming

That's your problem BM, you've been eating your words for years, and what you really need is a good healthy BM (but in private please, as your public rants are just clogging up the pipes).

Well said Dave.

Benny, If there is a DRM on this game and it has not been cracked by then, I'll eat my foot.

You seem to find new ways to state how much you hate the DRM scheme. I rather hope it does include it in some form so you will find other forums to drone on in and give this one a breather.

Wishing bad tidings on a company looking to provide us a new WW1 title in such a dry sim market is not cricket.

Seriously relax. I think everyone is pretty aware of how you feel about things now. Wait and see what transpires.

What once might have been construed as a valid concern has turned into a troll-like constant annoyance. You only damage your own viewpoint every time you continue to harp on the subject. After your last bold statement I really could not care what your viewpoint is on any other subject.

I guess you'll be changing your nickname once the game rolls out no doubt and the moniker Benny Moore will be nothing but a distant memory.

Oh, all games are cracked eventually. The problem is that using such is dangerous to one's computer (though probably less so than some of the standard copy protection) and also illegal.



... As if it matters. Even were I to construct the most profound, eloquent, and genteel explanation of why invasive D.R.M. should not be included, inconsiderates such as Neal would still support the malware and the companies would still include it. At least venting about it provides a small measure of relief from the locals' supercilious justification.



No. If the simulator turns out to have acceptable D.R.M. and I thus buy it, my name will surely draw a multitude of foes online. Why would I change that?

Back on topic, here is a neat little story about a class-action lawsuit over a popular D.R.M. scheme. Sure, E.A. can deal with it, but how about a smaller company?

My copy of IL2 is the British release which has a DRM and it hasn't stopped me from running anything
including Nero. It hasn't screwed with any of my hardware or software.

I second everything that FlyRight stated above as well.

YOU don't like it then YOU stay out.

Why don't you go play Targetware and hang with Stiglr? Two of a kind, you should get along.

BM, why do you assume that your answer is the only one, and everyone who disagrees is foolish, misguided, inconsiderate, or in some way out to thwart the perfection that you see so very clearly?

The world is not made up of idiots and fools, you do not have all the answers, you are not always right. Take it easy.

Many of us here (quietly) wish for little copy protection, but if there is I doubt many (besides you) will cry over it. It's annoying, but I'd rather be in the skies over France than sitting bored on my oh-so-high horse, even if that means DRM.

P.S: the couple who made Mount&Blade (the team you referred to) are self-published over the net, remember? Not quite the same, and, if I recall, something else you take exception to. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I can't work out that statement, hopefully NEOQB bombs, strange thing to say!
You need to chill out a little mate. Step back, have a breather!

I'm an inconsiderate according to the one who wants to see this product FAIL if it has an industry
standard, used by the millions DRM? This person who would have people NOT BUY the software just
because he doesn't agree with what it takes to get the game published... and I'm inconsiderate.

You just sit right back at home and expect the world to kiss your butt, Benny. I don't have any
problem with that but when you go active against what doesn't then I'd like to show you far more
than just inconsiderate!

Holy S... Do you really believe in your own BS???

There are many among us on this forum who allready DID a lot for this game, by providing data and informations directly to neoqb (and for myself, I allready spent much more on data gathering than the game will cost)... did you anything concrete to help this game to be a "good Great War aerial combat simulator"???
I gess not... instead you spend your time spiting on eventuallities that may not even concern this game. To "take is seriously" is to do something, not just trolling around the forum...




There's at least a sure thing: modesty wont kill you...

Putting words in my mouth ... unsurprising. I didn't say anything about wanting it to fail if it has "standard" D.R.M. I said I wanted it to fail if it has harsh or invasive D.R.M. I've bought plenty of games with fair and reasonable D.R.M. (including Mount & Blade, which was, as pointed out, distributed online). No game needs to have invasvive copy "protection."



Come on. Look at this thread! You people would line up for a chance to make a lawn dart out of me.

Not true, Benny, some of us would be placing the hoops that provide scoring circles.



Now, then, has everyone jumped on Benny? Did anyone miss out on an insult or two?

Folks, knock it off. And that's you, too, Benny. And me. Everybody cool off.

On DRM:

Benign DRM doesn't bother me. And my definition of benign means that it doesn't hinder the operation of my computer or the software that I have legitimately purchased and installed. Bog standard SecuROM is easily dealt with, and I only do so because I like to. Otherwise, it doesn't do anything harmful.

Don't get me started on The-DRM-Who's-Name-We-Do-Not-Speak that trashed a CD and a DVD writer's firmware on my PC and made them useless for their intended purpose, however.

Yeah, I was part of that unlucky 10% that cursed the day I purchased LOMAC.

Benny's point that it is really a gamble for a developer to trust/sign away DRM options on a publisher, as it may effect sales. I am super hesitant over anything in the LOMAC lineage, including the upcoming Black Shark, based on my experience with their DRM choice. He may have expressed it poorly, but a company that doesn't protect its product from customer abuse placed by the distributor probably shouldn't survive in the market place (philsophically, anyhow).

Part of any simulation/software business model should now include a firm policy decision on DRM. It's an ugly reality of our times, but it's a function of success.

Accept bad DRM from a distributor and have a black mark against your product and brand - or face the possibility of not getting published at all. I do not envy the software company in that position.

I now wait to purchase sims/games to see what DRM they have. I might grab Spore via Steam at some point, but not on DVD. And yeah, I consider Steam as benign DRM; one can play stuff without ever connecting to Valve once it's downloaded and played the first time, it can be reinstalled infinate times (four re-formats, and it was nice to just re-download the games with a couple clicks), and is inexpensive.

At any rate I think you're over-reacting, Benny, and, in your own words "being angry over a copy protection I am not yet certain about." Viks and crew read this forum, and I think they got your opinion on the matter loud and clear.

Wouldn't it be better to bug the publishers to test out whatever scheme they use than to abuse the
developers and future products?

I don't remember any Good DRM as opposed to Evil DRM before this started, only DRM's in general.

The nature of D.R.M. changed a while back. I'm not sure exactly which was the first truly invasive copy protecton, but the first infamous one was Starforce. Since then, other companies have taken up the mantle Starforce largely lost when Ubisoft gave it the axe. It seems that they're kicking the boundaries, trying to see just how much they can get away with.

The last few examples of very popular games which had very bad Digital Restrictions Management were Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Spore. What made the copy protection on those so bad is that they have everything that "standard" copy protection (I use that term cautiously because the standard is rapidly changing, for the worse) has, but also limit the number of lifetime installations.

The copy protection on Mount & Blade, interestingly, does limit activations. However, what makes it unique is that the number of activations is refreshed on a basis of time. I think it is two activations every six months, which is very reasonable. Other games with limited activations give only a few lifetime activations, so when you reinstall your O.S. or upgrade your computer that many times, you're out of luck.

Viks and crew read this forum

Steam distribution is very good VikS, I must logon (automatically and very speedily) to confirm that I have paid for the game before I can run a Steam-powered game. And Steam feels like a community. We all want to protect our investment. But more importantly yours

Ming

So it will work as long as Steam is around as a viable company. And then it's tough luck.

Support Steam to make it more viable

And cheer up for goodness sake

Ming

I probably won't have the required hardware when it comes out, maybe a year or two later when the
newer stuff comes out and the price drops within reach. If I'm going to support Neoqb by buying
at release (when the market weasels are watching) then I'll want to buy something that's going to
work -year(s) later- when I can afford the HW.
A few years are like nothing to me but in the meantime I've seen companies come and go quicker.
I've also seen things lose support even when companies are still around. I've got a nice steamer
cooker that I lost the instructions to and can I find them anywhere? NO! Oh yeah, I should buy
a new one!

I can support only so much. I'm living at the lower end of things. YOU GUYS go have fun as I don't
want to see the hobby/genre go to bleeps like M$. Getting the hardware will be a stretch but all
that for something that maybe I can play later and have to have a connect to use? Not me, no thank
you, one more or less won't make a big difference anyway.

Perhaps, but I still say you could sound more cheerful about it if you're going to spill The Cup Of Bitterness all over my monitor

yay-holes like M$

[mod edit out this bit]

Someone had to say it

[Mod: no, they didn't.]

Ming

I intend to get a new computer for gaming only. I do not intend to connect it to the internet.
Does that mean that it is highly likely that I cannot be authorised play this game, or does the DRM allow authorisation by downloading codes which i can transfer to my gaming computer?

If the former, then that is another customer they likely won't have.

Must be livin' in a hole.

So I read this thread and these forums, got to assume all promising game projects are really just evil conspiracies, they're all just vaporware, and if they get released they're going to be infected with something real destructive to my computer called a "DRM", maybe I shouldn't upate Windows over the internet, and by golly, now I even have to worry about Steam disappearing!

I'd be afraid to crawl out of bed every morning.

BOO!

It is not computer damage that is the primary concern with invasive or draconian copy "protection" systems, because computer damage from a D.R.M. program is fairly rare (though, as Dart's experience shows, far from unheard of). What are real concerns are things such as invasion of privacy, loss of control over one's computer, and the inability to play, after some time, the game that one purchased. I do not think that it is outside of my rights to require that nothing be installed on my computer without my knowledge and consent. I do not think that it is paranoid to require that nothing installed on my computer read my personal files, or send information I have not authorized to a company. And I do not think that it is unreasonable to require that I be able to play the game I bought, regardless of how many times I upgrade my computer and no matter how much time has elapsed since I paid for the game.

You do not understand the basics of retail computer game transactions, as you never own a game you purchase, you only own the right to use the game program as agreed to under the provisions set forth when you install the software onto your computer, and if you do not understand this I'd suggest you avoid installing anything.

You'll be safe, but probably very sorry, however, the option not to install is always yours.

Worry or not FR, companies shutting down is a fact of life just like energy prices going up.
Big companies, I don't see it happening soon but small ones come and go.
I'm not saying they ARE going to disappear, just that it's a chance I won't take on my timeline.

YOU just might have the PC to run it on right from the start.
*I* won't so *I* have to make MY OWN decision that doesn't affect YOU.

When I wrote that one more or less won't make a difference, that wasn't for drama.

Most computer gamers accept a general notion that advancements in the "state of art" go hand in hand with advances in the "state of computer technology".

Still, companies trying to sell games want as many consumers to be able to run their software as possible. ($$$$$)

Making decisions about one's own discretionary spending is a personal choice of course, and I don't think many would argue with you on that (but you never know what people will suggest on these forums, as they'll argue about almost anything).

Cas, the trend is to release on multiple media; you may have to order a DVD of the sim from GoGamer or some other outfit.

For example, Tomb Raider Underworld will be available on DVD and (most likely) on Steam as well (since the other two latest ones in the series are).

The problem with a completely offline system is that updates and unlocking planes to be flyable will be unavailable.

Yes, time was when buying a game was simple. I know that devs need to stop piracy, but things have gone too far if there are issues involved as described by Benny's latest post. ( what he requires not to be done to his computer seems reasonable to me)
And, I don't agree that FlyRetired's idea of what you buy is what it should be.
If I buy a sheet of music, I shouldn't copy it, right- but I sure as hell ought to be able to give it to someone when i have finished with it, or read it in another room or another place.
This business of you buy software only to use on one computer- and if you upgrade to another then buy another copy? As the man said at Bastogne -"Nuts"

Well welcome then to this our brave new world of software piracy and online cheaters (so it's called the few who can spoil it for the many).

The whole turn of this discussion about DRM being included in some yet unreleashed product is all just an exercise in the hypothetical.

You're certainly welcome to your opinions Cas141 or Benny Moore, but until this sim is released it's like spittin' in the wind.

This is fluid and dependent on jurisdiction. In the United States of America, it has been ruled that the customer does, in fact, legally own the software that they purchased. Just as someone who purchases a copy of a book owns that copy (as opposed to "licensing" or renting it), someone who purchases a copy of a computer game likewise owns it. He or she does not have the right to reproduce the game, but the same is true of a book. Books and computer games are comperable in terms of ownership and reproduction. Of course, software publishing companies generally ignore this, because customers are not companies and do not usually have the means (such as a team of lawyers) to legally enforce their rights or pursue their legal interests as companies do. But once in a while a case will pop up.

OK,

So if Benny Moore as legal owner loans someone in the U.S. his game, and the DRM screws up their computer, they sue him?

Well praise the American legal system!

I'm not sure if such a lawsuit would be possible, but our legal system is indeed in a sorry state. Not that the rest of the world has any better, mind you. Regardless of whether or not you can be sued for that bizarre reason, however, if you loan someone your game disk, then you've got a problem on your hands already. Unless you unintalled it from your computer first, you've essentially made an illegal copy. To use the book comparison again, this would be like Xeroxing a book and giving it to your friend. Even though you own the book, this isn't okay (unless you are the author of the book, of course).

I should admit to reading books I never bought. To listening to music I never bought.
To watching video I never bought.

I'm part of a huge ring of those who do this and we do it through a central facilitator.

It's called the Library, but please don't tell!

Neal, where do you stand on the D.R.M. issue? I thought you were blasting me a few pages ago for taking an anti-Naziware stance, but for the last page or two it seems you've also been decrying it. I'm confused.

OK,

So if Benny Moore as said legal owner reinstalls his game, or installs it onto another of his computers in the future, and the DRM screws up that system, he'll have to sue himself?

Well praise that American legal system once again!

If you read INTO what I write then don't ask me the meanings that you put into it.

DRM is not up to me. I'd rather there was nothing that I can't deal with because if there is then I
can't use the product. But that doesn't give me the right to tell them what to do or to mount any
campaign to have my way.

But wait, maybe Benny is beginning to make sense with his DRM discussion here?


So now the matter of DRM liabilities is finally resolved, that is if you live in the U.S.A., because if you buy a game there you are the legal owner of that game. If that game screws up your computer for some reason, you are responsible for those damages. Furthermore, be aware, that if you decide to loan your game to someone else, and it damages their computer, you as legal owner may be considered responsible for those damages too.

The bottom line......if you buy it, you have only yourself to blame!

FR that's a ridiculous extrapolation if there ever was one.

If I buy a car then I own that car. If someone gets hurt because of a manufacturing defect then I
can only be sued/prosecuted if I knew of the defect prior to the event. Ownership is not automatic
assumption of responsibility for everything that happens related to that vehicle.

I might as well sue YOU if I buy the disc and there's a DRM related problem since you said it's okay.

Neal's automobile analogy is correct. I can take it further; you claim that since you cannot do anything you want to with your copy of the game, that you do not really own it but rather "license" it. Using that argument, you could say the same thing about your automobile. After all, you aren't allowed to set up an assembly line for making copies of that automobile, are you? So you don't really own it. And the automobile companies would be perfectly within their rights if they were to terminate your license to that copy of their automobile, as long as the license said that they could. Do you not see how absurd that line of reasoning is? You seem to believe that companies have all of the rights with software and that the customer has none. You believe it because the companies have told you that, clamorous, for years. Perhaps if the automobile companies were to use the same arguments, you would eventually see things their way as well.

This is, by the way, why there are supposed to be anti-monopoly laws. If the companies all agree to something outrageous, then the customers have only two options: go along with it, or do without. If the product is a necessity, then they have no choice but to acquiesce to the company's demands. Since computer games are not a necessity (at least, not necessary to survival), I more often than not do without. I limit myself to purchasing from small, usually independent developers who do not agree to put outrageous copy protection or E.U.L.A. terms on their software.



Perhaps you are now beginning to understand why I am so cautious about buying software which has D.R.M.

...if you decide to loan your game to someone else, and it damages their computer, you as legal owner may be considered responsible for those damages too.

The bottom line......if you buy it, you have only yourself to blame!

If you loan it then of course you have only yourself to blame if you accept the EULA's terms, which probably will not allow you to loan it

Loan me your faulty lawnmower and I'd sue you if your faulty equipment caused me damage. Even psychological damage at the thought of mowing a lawn. In fact that image has caused me psychological damage already and I hold you responsible. Partly. I'm ready to settle can we meet <starts rigging a wire>

Ming

LOL, exactly Ming.

There are laws that protect the means of production, uphold intellectual property rights, govern product liability, adjudicate marketing contracts, and dictate user responsibility, to name a few.

If we buy a book, or game, or car, owning it doesn't mean we can violate our personal responsibility to use the product within the realm of these governing laws. When a consumer buys a computer game and agrees to uphold the terms of usage at the point of installation onto an appropriate operating system, they have assumed responsibilities to uphold. Doesn't really matter if someone thinks they own it in this regards, because each user is now bound by the terms and provisions of the installation they have agreed to. If an individual doesn’t agree with these, then they should not go forth and install the game product, because agreeing to do so is a personal commitment of responsibility.

I hope we have now reached an understanding that using software (and lawnmowers ) comes with responsibilities attached, and to assert that somehow the process of buying digital media grants an owner rights beyond established protections is unsupported. Now if a product violates liability laws, or is defective beyond its claims, that involves a different matter.

So what’s any of this have to do with this discussion here about DRM?. Well if you don’t like DRM, then don’t install games that have it. If you think some DRM scheme broke you computer and you want some sort of restitution, then it’s your responsibility to establish the fact. Who knows, maybe you’ll even help establish a new legal precedent, or maybe you would be better off just mowing the lawn.

Finally, common sense. I once had a police officer tell me that just because there's no minimum speed limit on some highways, that doesn't mean citizens should drive along them at 10 mph whenever they're traveling (and it doesn't matter here if you own the car or not).

Fortunately, at least some judges in the U.S. say otherwise. I and, I contend, anyone with common sense consider the E.U.L.A.s to be invalid. For one thing, you usually cannot read them until after you've paid for the software (money which you cannot get back in most cases). That alone makes them unfair to the point of being null. That, I believe, is the primary basis of the lack of enforceability in the U.S.

I explained in my previous post the other reasons for the outrageous terms of E.U.L.A.s not being valid. You seem to believe that if all companies want to require for purchase that you sign a paper which claims that they own you, then it's okay. I, on the other hand, say that it's time for the government to step in and say, "Nonsense! That contract is balls."



That's pretty much how I operate. That does not mean that I should not argue against the unethical use of D.R.M., as you seem to be implying I should not do.

Your egregious and unethical claims are what I'd be more worried about if I were you.

And please, no more predictions about products you have no demonstrated knowledge of.

Finally we get back to "the pernt, Edith".

There is absolutely nothing unethical about hoping that immoral business practices will lead to bankruptcy. On the contrary, hoping (as you do) that immoral business practices will be successful is unethical.

Threads always used to end up in food before the armchair lawyers noticed the trail of crumbs. We should have stuck to what we know. Pies.

Ming

I think that the discussion prior (and subsequent) to my fissionable remark made it clear that the statement was hypothetical. The context should have made it obvious that my meaning was, "If Rise of Flight has invasive D.R.M., then I hope it bombs." I had stated several times previous to the remark that I have no problem with beneign copy protection. What I most certainly did not mean was, "I hope that Rise of Flight does poorly even if it has passive copy protection or none at all." Does anyone claim to be honestly under the impression that this was my intended meaning?

It seems to me that my remark was deliberately misinterpreted because of my negative popularity here, creating a convenient excuse to pile on me like a pack of rats on a dead thing. Whether or not my expounding on the statement is believed, it was indeed my intended meaning. If I erred, it was only that I assumed the the surrounding discussion would leave no room for doubt. It was poorly worded, yes. Amend it? Sure. Retract it? Never. So:

I hope that Rise of Flight bombs if it has invasive Digital Restrictions Management. If it has a lifetime activation limit or destroys hardware, then I hope that Neoqb or the publisher is sued over it, just as other companies are being rightly sued for the same thing.

Ming, I like pie.

FR I'm reading a really good book you probably know it. I thought I'd read a book called On A Wing And A Prayer... but this one came out this year

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wing-Prayer-Untold-Pioneering-Aviation/dp/0007269455

I don't need a bookmark so I know it's got my attention, very good read indeed.

Could have sworn I read a book with that title but it's not this one

Ming

Exactly correct!

the software companies need to develop a fool(hacker)proof system so that the disc you buy needs to be in the drive for the sim to work.
Then YOUR disc can be sold, loaned, used on any computer you own, and all would be legal, because the information on the disc can only be used at any one time by one computer. - which is what the computer company got their money for.

Dare I suggest a convenient, non-invasive and fairly robust system of copy protection?

Codemeter from Wibu systems - a USB key that contains license information for any number of programs that you want to run. The license information can be backed up and transferred should the stick be lost or broken, or the software sold on. I can install many different versions of the software on one machine, or indeed on many machines simultaneously, but I can only actually run as many instances as I have licenses. It is possible to set one machine as a license server for a network with multiple licenses on one Codemeter device, or to use a Codemeter on a local machine.

A few people have had issues with the drivers and Vista64, but I have had no problems whatsoever during the two years I have been running software using this protection scheme.

A common reaction to the suggestion of Codemeter is that it 'adds to the cost of the software' as the end user needs to have a Codemeter stick in order to run the program, but IMO this is a little like saying that the requirement for a 3d accelerator adds to the cost of a program... it is a one off cost for the physical device and then everything else can be done electronically - adding new companies, product ids and licenses to the stick, downloading software etc.

Ming, thanks for the recommendation, I don't have that book!

Cas141, I'm glad your saw the ridiculousness of the extrapolation, as I hoped its flaws would be pretty obvious, and serve well to expose the ridiculousness of the whole argument being forwarded.

Lieste, thanks for your mindful post above too, and for presenting your suggestions without feeling the need to go over the top in doing so.

This kind of protection is normally used for the protection of expensive pieces of software like Autocad. In instances like that were software runs into hundreds of pounds (or dollars) I can see the benefit as the cost of the device is a very small percentage of the actual cost of the software. But for a £30 game title the cost of the device is going to look expensive or if it's included it'll push the cost of the title up. Either way it'll have a negative marketing effect, DRMs built in to the software are one thing but increasing the initial cost of a product will cause more concern.
I've not seen "dongles" used for games in the past, I may be wrong.

I *knew* the cost of the device would be raised as an objection.... I just knew it

This is a multi-use device, in that you only require one, and can load it with many licenses for any software from any vendor that chooses to utilise high-end random .exe encryption.

It is true that traditionally dongles are a pain - each installed piece of software requires a parallel port/Serial port/USB port (on the motherboard), and the dongle for autocad only supports autocad and nothing else..

Currently the Wibu website doesn't list any USB keys for less than 49.95 Eur... but they don't offer the vanilla key, only ones with additional storage.

To my knowledge this is already used successfully by eSimGames, for their SteelBeasts Pro/ProPE software.

If I want to run BoP or SOW then I'm gonna need a new mobo, CPU and RAM for a $30-$40 game.
I'd rather be able to get away with a $5-$10 stick than a few $100's for other hardware.

OTOH I could have to run a non-copyable disc whenever I play the game, shortening the life of both
disc and player because that's somehow "better" than paying for a one-off USB device.

There's both sides to this, IMHO.

First, I have no problem with companies trying to protect their intellectual property.

Second, I have a big problem with some DRM implementations. For example, I won't be buying Black Shark, which makes me very sad. I just can't justify the cost of a new DVD burner against playing the simulation. StarForce (and the add-on LOMAC that came with it) ruined two drives - a CD and a DVD burner - at the firmware level.

I am unwilling to take the risk of having to spend time removing StarForce and the expense of replacing a DVD burner on any flight simulation, no matter how good.

I'd love to see a "Games for Windows" dongle. It would be both a PR and a sales boon! Buy a dongle and activate the game/sim online, have the dongle grab the license, and it's all complete.

On ownership/license status. Under Steam, one is buying a license for use, not purchase. It's part of the Steam EULA that one signs when downloading the software, so I'm guessing they're covered legally. The upside is that one can re-download software an infinate number of times.

Dongles are a pain. If you are worried about DRM affecting your hardware, relying on a breakable piece of hardware does not seem a like a great idea. I've seen one snap off on a notebook when moved from desk to desk. The dongle IS the software and has to be replaced. At that point does one then have to send via mail back to Russia to have it replaced for a nominal fee?

Dongles are just as crackable as any other copy protection so I really don't see the benefit.

This is really all academic anyway. No matter the method used to protect the developer's property, some one will have a horror story and issues: No matter how you slice that fly-pie.

I would think the more pressing issue for the developers is finding a publisher that will successfully market their product in the world regions and perhaps finishing the sim?


S!

Codemeter dongles have so far *not* been cracked. Even in 6 week long 'crack-the-dongle' hacker competitions with substancial prizes.

The software is the license, which can be transfered to another dongle. Wibu is based in Germany, but it has branches in the US amongst other places.

Mice, joysticks, external drives, etc can all be broken - do you avoid purchasing these items just in case?

And the dongle won't disable my DVD burner.

I can't say the same for StarForce!

The dongle can't be more fragile than a DVD one has to place in the drive in order to make a game or simulation work. One can scratch a dongle and it still works!

I did not see this as a competition about what is the best solution or possibly worst offender of protection schemes.

As I mentioned, someone will have issues no matter the solution used: You just happened upon mine. For a game it may be o.k. but I've had bad experiences working around them in a professional environment, with a specific mishap costing a client's time and my company much more money that a broken mouse or keyboard would have resulted in.

Still, if the developers were interested, I'm sure they would have dropped by Wibu's booth at Leipzig. I just can't see Neoqb pawning off the costs of such a protection scheme on military contracts like eSim, unless wood and canvas crates suddenly become relevant in modern warfare simulations.

Anyway the horse in this thread seems long since dead. Perhaps a mod should consider putting a bullet in it to make sure?

S!

How do those dongles actually work? If it is possible to download a license into one of those dongles from the Internet, who is preventing you to copy that same license into several dongles? If the downloaded license is dependent on the specific dongle you have, then buying a new dongle wouldn't help but you'd have to download a new license - in other words that's just like any other internet activation method with the exception that most activation protections are dependent on system hardware whereas the dongle protection is dependent on the dongle hardware.

I run an application that installs a licence server on my computer, computers. I start the application and run it. I can't run it on a second machine without disabling the licence on one computer and re-enabling the licence on the second, third, fourth etc machine. Everything works fine, speed of light, no piracy and the developers get their hard-earned cash

Steam games run the same way. No fuss and (usually bone-idle) thieves must work hard to steal content. Only nerdish thieves have the time to break this stuff and most thieves think of themselves romantically hence the swashbuckling pirate metaphor

I see that Black Shark has Starforce. It'll end in tears haven't these people heard about unbreakable cyphers

It's like the doctors. Most people don't like strangers poking around but we allow a degree of licence for professionals so we cooperate. Starforce is the medical student which failed its exams but learned enough to sound as if it knows what's best for us "An immediate preventive operation with gowns and everything yes and if you live you'll enjoy playing this er, whatever it is, game is it? I don't play games I'm a doctor. Almost."

Ming

You contact the vendor (either the distributor, software developer/publisher or Codemeter) and send your Codemeter control file. (basically just the Codemeter stick ID, plus the vendor code if already present)

An updated control file is returned, with the vendor code, and the new license.
You write this to the codemeter stick using the control panel, and you now have a license to use the software.

Even after all of the fuss, even after all of the grief, Eagle Dynamics still chooses to continue to use Starforce? That's a shame, because I would have enjoyed Black Shark. I guess I should stop paying attention to anything that Eagle Dynamics does from here out. (And people here wonder why I'm pessimistic about flight simulator developers and their stance on copy protection.)

FR- Not sure what to make of this remark. Because i understood it was your extrapolation!
I am basically with Benny's and Neal's arguments on this DRM thing. The manner of copy protection ha
s gone too far when the software sellers try to tell me that a disc I bought can only ever be used on one computer, and that I should not/cannot install it on a subsequent computer that I may own.
Or that I must be online with that computer to authorise installation: or that I must trust them not to mess up my computer in loading DRM which may have a rep for trouble ( eg starforce).
As I don't know the effect the DRM will have before I install, how can i choose not to install the software. Your argument of "if you don't want DRM dont install the software" results in not installing any sim, ( assuming they all will likely use DRM), does it not?

ROF is miles from release it seems, it is going to be a part sim - other parts to be purchased later; and is likely to have strong DRM.
Not much incentive for me to buy, I'm afraid. Pity, 'cos i love WW1 sims and was looking forward to
flying it.
I'll await and see reactions of those who do buy at release time, before i decide.

Cas141,

Why be so consistently against this WWI project???

A check of your postings on this forum, less the frequent adverstising you do here for OFF, contains so much hostility towards this effort. Your doubts, negative predictions, and inferences about the developers and their project, along with the repeated statements that you probably won't be buying the sim if it's released anyway, begs the question of why you continue to post here?

Is it just impatience and anticipation about waiting for this sim?

Why do you repeatly state that you want this sim, and then trash it moments later?

Today, October 10, 2008:


October 05, 2008:


May 11, 2008:


March 19, 2008:


March 11, 2008:


February 14, 2008:


January 29, 2008:


November 28, 2007:


September 30, 2007:


September 29, 2007:


September 03, 2007:

Something not out yet may be good or may be bad.

OTOH, if it runs on CFS3....

Then in the truest sense, requiring another game to run, Over Flanders Fields has always been a "part sim" (the latest phase planned as a retail add-on still needing CFS3).

Many will be comparing OFF and ROF in fact, but you're gonna need a real coaster for your beer when playing Rise Of Flight.

Unless they rewrote the CFS3 AI, no thanks.

As long as it works on my computer I'm happy.

FR - I won't display your posts ( out of the context of the subject matter of the thread in which they were written ), but you are knocking me for having doubts about some parameters of this sim, and indeed doubts as to whether it may appear at all.
You seem to have none, and indeed you have made many points e.g. as to why a retail sim inherently and by definition, must be better than any other sim add on; or that s sim issued in parts, each to be paid for, has virtues over a sim sold as complete, -which leads me to think that possibly you are professionally involved in retailing sims, and maybe even this one?.
If you are, then I sincerely wish you ( and the devs ) success with it. I would wish anyone success with a WW1 sim.
But that does not mean that I cannot express doubts about it when there are indicators that the reasons for those doubts are credible.
Anyone reading this sim forum knows that there were vast expanses of time when nothing was heard here from the devs as to what was happening, in the manner that all other threads started by devs of other sims were, and have historically been, updated. Even when posts were asking for something- anything, there was a period of ....nothing.
So my speculation and asking was unreasonable and negative? Even though I always said that i hoped a good WW1 sim would be forthcoming?

And I responded about OFF to posts which indicated that they were waiting for a WW1 sim, and seemed to suggest that the poster was not aware of a current WW1 sim being available, i.e OFF.

Then we had the revelation that ROF would have only two flyable planes, and no mission builder etc.
And, again, I was unreasonable and negative to not approve of that ?


And now I am being unreasonable and negative to be dismayed at the possibility of intrusive and/or unreasonable DRM?

So, which one of these three situations did I cause? Or was it what the devs or others initiated?


I, along with quite a few others, merely responded to those absences, revelations and speculations.- after all, this is a forum for chaps to talk about what is relevant and topical?.

I say again, FR. When this sim comes out I will buy it if it is good value and the DRM is absent or innocuous, and is sensibly loadable. By the latter, I mean that I don't have to validate online so that only the online computer can play the sim. Because I write this on a laptop, and my gaming machine ( and the next imminent one ) are not online.
Which prompts me to ask you, being as you are, I believe,close to the devs, - will my future gaming computer be able to install and play this sim?

And, finally,I'm sure you will agree, even the original doubting Thomas, hoped that he was wrong.


cheers

Cas141,

You have always misunderstood my assertion "that if it aint retail, it aint".

I have been involved with many WWI mod projects over the years, and I have seen first hand that flight sim fans generally pay more attention to retail sims than to mod projects, and this despite the excellence that might have been achieved by any particular add-on. This has as much to do with human nature, as it does with any degree of mod quality.

Now to this day, many OFF fans wonder why more attention hasn't been given to this add-on. One of the reasons is that 3rd-party add-ons to a large extent depend on the popularity (or lack thereof) of the original sim. When the Knights Of The Sky team announced three years ago their intention to make a stand-alone retail WWI flight sim, the whole prospects of a WWI resurgence materialized. There's just too much capability that can be achieved by building a sim from the ground up, and there's too many advantages and future potential if the developers are controlling the code themselves. Finally, there's that buzz that surrounds a new retail title that can focus community anticipation, and carry forth interest beyond the initial hype of a product "going gold" (if deserved).

I've read many post by OFF enthusiasts that state that ROF is going to be primarily an online sim, and this to a large extent claimed because of the designers have talked about giving multiplayer much attention. This really just begs the question though, and no one in the know has ever indicated that single-player is being ignored as a result. Rather, it's the contrast between the effort of building good online functionality, and the lack of CFS3's multiplayer performance that illuminates a glaring weakness with add-ons built to it (this fact many of us have experienced personally).

Finally, to this issue of predicting imminent failure, repeating doubts, forecasting sub-performance or system unsuitability, or that things like DRM inevitably will be included in any new game software today, I ask what's the point in repeating this stuff ad nauseam?

"If you are, then I sincerely wish you ( and the devs ) success with it. I would wish anyone success with a WW1 sim."

Those that support developers often help a game become a success to the benefit of all, FlyR is one of several here, and I for one am appreciative that they have kept the flame going for RoF through some lean times.

But they are not one and the same as you churlishly and acerbically state with "sincerely wish you ( and the devs )success with it".

And there are trolls, everywhere, you know. Spinning similar lines ad naseum on this and other games. At other forums too - maybe thats one definition of a troll? Who needs them, eh? Certainly you'd agree they are not people you or anyone would think would "...wish anyone success with a ww1 game" at all.

A post from "cas" in another forum about RoF, and its the only post that person has made in 6 months at that site.

I have to agree with Fly and BB here, since this forum has been around Cas has popped in every now and again to nay say the development of KOTS/ROF whilst promoting OFF. Nothing has changed it seems, the attitude looks to be the same. Which is why I've had him on my ignore for the last 6-8 months

ROF is one sim and OFF is another, both have their pro's and con's and both have their own priorities in what the devs feel makes a good sim. OFF is nowhere near the finished article but shows good promise for P3. To compare the two is a mistake they are very different sims albeit about the same content. Cas and his attempts to promote OFF are in danger of causing a ROF vs OFF culture and that is not good. I don't think the OFF team would really consider that a good thing either. The more WWI flight sims there are the better I think.

In the context of this forum, what the ROF guys want and need is for simmers to judge their project based on its merits.

If ROF is published (and it's never a done deal until we have it installed), then its success should depend ultimately on the excellence of the work invested into it, and the foresight of what will take the sim into the years that follow. The hopes are that flight sim fans will like what they see, that Il-2 fans, and Red Baron fans, and First Eagles fans, and LOMAC fans, and EAW fans, and Longbow fans, and yes, OFF fans, etc., will all want to be part of this new ROF world.

The last thing the publishers and developers of ROF want, is for this project to be thought of as a niche product by the flight sim community. I think most sim fans are looking forward to flying ROF, and hopefully that's where we'll come together in the not too distant future.

Yes, I agree with these sentences.and I would appreciate that those who condemn my points of view would judge on the words I have written, and not on what they think it is that i am really saying.
Unlike the modern world, ( usually politics etc ) what I mean is what i write- not what you think i really mean. For instance, how many of you really think I mean it when I say I agree with what FR says above. If you're careful, you will see I have omitted some of what he said, and that is because I don't fully agree with it.

I am being considered trollish because I critisized the prolonged silence from the devs, to the extent that some thought it meant this sim was vapourware. That would be unreasonable if there was not a long silence- but you know there was - and it was on a thread which was started by the devs.
But because I said so, I was trollish.

Again, many on this thread said (WTTE ) they were really looking forward at last to a WW1 sim they could fly. Frankly, I thought it a good idea to point them towards OFF, as it seemed they clearly hadn't tried it, or even knew about it.

And for me to have an opinion that impractical ( for me ) or damaging DRM would mean i wouldn't buy the sim, if the DRM was of such a nature, - that too was trollish?

Do you really want just "fanboys" posting here?

And Big Bouncer- if i say that I want ROF to be successful, because i would like all flight sims, particularly WW1 sims, to be exactly that, then I mean it.

I would like to buy the DVD, install it and find my offline PC can play it fully. I don't want to copy the DVD or anything like that- just put the DVD in the PC everytime I go to play ROF.
To find that the graphics are like the video, with good FPS and good AI and good FM,DM and sound -
That'll do for me.

But, before then, having seen this forum's threads, I'm entitled to be wary.

cheers

Certainly so.

Ok, so let's put away the six shooters and we'll all head over to the saloon instead, but you gotta buy the first round Cas (wary you won't pay the tab)!

Don't have time to look thru this topic, but (fyi) RoF containing DRM will preclude me from not only buying it, but also preclude me from bothering to ever get a newer PC. XP also needs to be supported.

Sure, that's fine by me !. But, don't worry about me not paying the tab, I live south of the border, in the Old Country - And I drink beer.

cheers