Sony

[maerean_m]

PC games do NOT sale. Why? Because the operating system allows the users to run 3rd party applications allong with the game. And there are people that use these applications to crack the game so it can be played by anyone, without any proof that it has been paid for. Some never buy the games they play. Even I did this, back when I was a child and didn't make my own money.

Now, it makes perfect sense to me that any PC games should not start while there is a running application that ALL hackers use to remove the protection.

The fact that the SecuRom module checks for hacker-enabled-applications does not contradict with anything from my previous post (even the "You are perfectly safe"). SecuRom does not send any information to any server after the first run of the game, but that does mean it doesn't do all it can to protect the 100000 man-hours put into the game. That's the equivalent of you working by yourself for 60 years non-stop to create the game and bring it to the market.

My personal impression is that there is a 1 to 20 and maybe even a 1 to 50 ratio between paid and cracked PC games out there.
What do you think it would be the reaction of your local fast-food store if only 1 out of 50 customers would have paid for their hamburgers? What would you do if you were the manager of that restaurant?

I wonder, why do we even make PC games?





I'm done on this topic.

[jazman]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

Now, it makes perfect sense to me that any PC games should not start while there is a running application that ALL hackers use to remove the protection.

Why don't you guys gripe to Microsoft? They're the ones distributing this tool. Are you suggesting that Microsoft is cracker-friendly?? :hmm:

Get it right here, from Microsoft:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb896653.aspx

I bet they're even paying Russinovich to do his dirty deeds!

[maerean_m]

No, I'm not suggesting that. Please don't misinterpret my words. Is not funny, I was making a serious statement.

I'm suggesting that there are too many not-so-honorable guys out there. And some guys here got stuck on a technicality that stops them to see the big picture: PC gaming will die with all the game genres associated with it. And that frustrates me even more than the piracy issue.

[Reece]

I'm suggesting that there are too many not-so-honorable guys out there.

So the rest have to suffer for these few ... does that make it right to hack our computers with viruses just incase the user might be a pirate?

What do you think it would be the reaction of your local fast-food store if only 1 out of 50 customers would have paid for their hamburgers? What would you do if you were the manager of that restaurant?

I certainly wouldn't infect it with a virus ... I'd be sued!

[maerean_m]

Virus?

Appart from not running while Process Explorer is active, what makes you say (SH4's) SecuRom is a "virus"?

In what way were you or your PC been harmed?

[danlisa]

@ Reece

Piracy is a bigger market than you know. So the many suffering for the few is not the correct analogy to use.

@ All

Let's try to dispel the fears that has been generated over SecuRom shall we?

Example - Let's say that I have a pirated copy of SH4 1.0 and have loaded the ISO/BIN via Deamon tools. The only thing that will happen is that SecuRom will not let the game start. That's it. Other forms of protection will 'blacklist' your optical drive meaning you'll never play the game again.

Now, as far as I can tell, the biggest issue with SecuRom is that it doesn't play well with genuine developer tools aka Privateer's & RR's running processes. That is a failing of it's design and is not malicious in anyway.

I suspect, as usual, the hysteria over copy protection (in this case SecuRom) is caused because it has undesired side affects and, understandably, a user wants to permit or deny what is allowed to run on his/her PC and to govern what a permitted program is or is not allowed to do. I can understand that but I can also understand the need to protect the hard work done by game devs.

The bottom line is, SH4 patched to 1.5 does not need the SecuRom protection, except for online play, so if you don't want to play MP, remove it, if not, please accept that developers wish to protect their work and learn to live with a form of copy protection that in 99% of cases will never cause you any problems.

Simple really.

Edit - @ maerean_m

Sorry for the crossed post. Like I said, Hysteria.

[Rockin Robbins]

Here is the long and short of it. Process Explorer can no more help you crack a video game than Disk Defrag. There is only one reason SecuROM discriminates against it: Mark Russinovich found Sony's rootkit hiding on Sony music CD's. Sony's rootkit was a worm, using you as the kind vector, which damaged hundreds of thousands of customers world-wide. Russinovich cost Sony big money, even for Sony. Sony has a score to settle with Mr Russinovich. This is how they settle it. Piracy is not the issue here. Revenge is. Al Capone is putting the hit on Elliot Ness. Just as in "The Untouchables" Russinovich/Ness works for the Feds/Microsoft, not the mob/crackers.

SH4UBM was cracked before it was ever released. SecuROM is useless against the big-time crackers, who were ready to go years ago. Only the legitimate purchasers of SH4UBM cannot run Process Explorer and presumably the other Microsoft Sysinternals Utilities. People who steal SH4UBM are under no such restriction! The pirates cloak their third-party software so SecuROM cannot see it. The pirates remove SecuROM when they post their stolen games! Can't you see that you are encouraging the very thing you claim to fight? Treating honest customers as criminals while leaving the guilty unhindered serves no purpose but to aid Sony in their racketeering.

You are correct: SecuROM is not a virus. A virus is a piece of malware that replicates itself and sends itself to other victims.

SecuROM is worse than that, it is a classic worm: a piece of malware that piggy-backs on a desirable piece of software and installs itself without consent, performing unwanted "functions" that the computer owner does not want or consent to. It does not announce its presence until the "gotcha" and it has no provision for normal uninstall procedures. And it defends itself against other uninstall procedures by rendering software that you DO want inoperative.

What part of SecuROM does not qualify? It is pond scum: useless to UBI, harms your customers and destroys our faith in Ubi. That is its only function. Ubi could have written the call-home procedures itself and ensured that patches were legitimately purchased without assaulting its customers.

I repeat. I know not what course others may take but I've purchased my last Ubi product until SecuROM is no longer an undocumented "feature" of their products. Treating good, honorable, honest, paying customers as criminals is unacceptable. I'm going back to 1.4 and recommend that all do likewise. Don't you dare call me a crook. My honor is not for sale.

The shame is Ubi's isn't for sale either. They PAID to have their reputation trashed. Think about it. Do you think they did that in an informed manner, with full knowledge of the consequences, or were they dishonestly sold a product that did harm to Sony's real customer: Ubi? I'd say the most costly hit and must egregious deception was to Ubi. Not one cracker has been deterred. Every slimeball who wants an illegal copy not subject to the worm can get one right now. All paying customers have been harmed by having their freedom to lawfully use their computer unreasonably and indefensibly infringed upon. Sony has already been paid. I'd call that a lose/lose situation.

Ubi needs to do what I have done. Take their losses (the money to Sony is already gone) and do the right thing by eliminating SecuROM. Write your own checking routines that don't promote a private vendetta against harmless foes and rerelease the software with apologies to customers who have been inadvertently harmed. This should be accompanied by public statements that Ubi values and respects its customers too much to treat them like criminals and is careful to protect their property without interfering with customers' rights to use their machines honestly and honorably. All previous purchasers should be given the right to download the replacement for free, which should automatically remove SecuROM from their machines IF THE CUSTOMER CHOOSES (SecuROM may be holding other games hostage!). THEN sales will raise by a surprising amount as Ubi stands revealed as a company who values their customers and believes that if you care enough to buy a product, you care enough not to distibute copies for free.

Trust is a two way street. If you don't trust me, should I trust you? Not being trusted is a good reason not to trust in return. There are good companies (Midway among many--don't believe the garbage about "everybody does it") who let you run their games without the CD in the drive and without restricting your use of your own property. Ubi needs to become one of them.

[Reece]

Quite agree RR, my mistake as you say, not a virus but a WORM! I should be the one to decide what programs, services etc are to be running on my PC, there is far too many things running in the background already without malware such as worms being transferred. I agree fully with protecting your software by disk protection or secured downloads etc, but NOT by secretly downloading a hidden spy/malware program running in the background on MY pc, especially when the particular application is not even in use, this is criminal!!

[Yosarian]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

My personal impression is that there is a 1 to 20 and maybe even a 1 to 50 ratio between paid and cracked PC games out there.

And why? Take the new games from Ubisoft and other publishers, they rushed them out in the market, nearly untested and with lots of bugs, if someone bought such a game for a full prize, must wait three or four patches until it is playable as it should be out of the box.

If todays publishers see their customers as customers and not as beta-testers and produce games with more quality and manuals that deserve the description "manual", I belive they would sold more of those games.

Just read the thread and definately agree with Rockin Robbins on this, am very suprised UBI allowed Sony back into the fray considering their previous "excursion". At the end of the day, if you accept this type of behaviour then you are opening the door to the thin edge of the wedge.

As much as I like SH3 (not that keen on SH4 to be honest) and respect the work the devs have put into it and this community, I really do get a little ticked off when people defend UBI regardless, I mean come on people where is your mind?!!!

Just because they have produced a couple of Sub Sims doesn't mean you have to bend over and allow them to take you up the Jakarta!

[cwelt]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

Just read the thread and definately agree with Rockin Robbins on this, am very suprised UBI allowed Sony back into the fray considering their previous "excursion". At the end of the day, if you accept this type of behaviour then you are opening the door to the thin edge of the wedge.

As much as I like SH3 (not that keen on SH4 to be honest) and respect the work the devs have put into it and this community, I really do get a little ticked off when people defend UBI regardless, I mean come on people where is your mind?!!!

Just because they have produced a couple of Sub Sims doesn't mean you have to bend over and allow them to take you up the Jakarta!

Couldn't agree more, I have yet to purchase the add-on and must say I am glad I waited. I hate to put the blame on UBI rockin robbins but if you look back at thier history in all thier titles, they don't exactly have a great track record.. I believe they knew exactly what they were getting when they signed on to thie package. The people I feel for is the devs, as their product is getting slandered due to the stupidity of the production company.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by cwelt

...I hate to put the blame on UBI rockin robbins but if you look back at thier history in all thier titles, they don't exactly have a great track record.. I believe they knew exactly what they were getting when they signed on to thie package. The people I feel for is the devs, as their product is getting slandered due to the stupidity of the production company.

Please hear exactly what I'm saying. Follow the logic here. I postulate that Ubi is a victim here, just as we are. Otherwise, why did Ubi remove the SecuROM completely in patch 1.3? Patches 1.3 and 1.4 did not scan running processes at all. Only with SH4UBM did SecuROM rear its ugly head again.

Read maerean_m's first post carefully. He is clearly under the clear impression (edit: how could one be unclearly under a clear impression or clearly under an unclear impression? deep thoughts that bear pondering) that SecuROM is supposed to make sure the download is legitimate and then never be seen again. He says so very clearly. Only after we tested and spilled the beans on what really happens did maerean_m change his tune. He feels he has to protect his job. But his reactions validate my theory that Sony really did tell Ubi that SecuROM would just check the download and go to sleep.

I could be too charitable here, but I count Ubi as a victim here, not a perp. They tried to do the right thing and got stabbed in the back. Hold it.... Al Capone uses a gat. :hmm: I'll get all the analogies right eventually.

@Yosarian: your scenario is not a valid excuse to make yourself a criminal. But if you want free food that bad I hope you get your just reward if you feel justified in stealing. Without software pirates, none of this conversation would be happening. All of us should agree that software piracy is never good. It needs to be stopped. But treating valuable customers as criminals hurts a company much worse than piracy ever could. I believe that piracy can be minimized without infringing on customers' rights and with customers' overt support. I paid for my game and I expect others to do so also.

[cwelt]

I do get what you are saying rockin robbins... I just assumed that was his opinion but I see is a member of the dev team. obviously there is some foul play at some level, but I still do not put it past Ubi to be a little more to blame than anyone, they have used SecuROM before and know what it does. As you say they removed it once why bring it back at all.. even if just to verify the DL was legit, there are other ways this can be accomplished.


*** edited ***

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by cwelt

I do get what you are saying rockin robbins... is maerean_m an Ubi staff or dev??

He's a dev and he's a straight shooter.

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by cwelt

even if just to verify the DL was legit, there are other ways this can be accomplished.

Please detail