I'm new here, what's all the fuss over Starforce anyway?

[jasondef]

Could somebody please explain to me in a layman's nutshell what exactly Starforce is, why its so evil, why should I boycott them, and how does it effect me negatively? I've had no problems so far playing SH3 off of DVD. I've read a ton of posts regarding Starforce and boycotting them, but so far all I can find is postings condemning them and damning them to hell, but nothing that actually explaining what the problem is! I've gathered so far that is has something to do with playing it off of the DVD version, but that's about it. There must be other newb's out there wondering about this, I hope. :hmm: And I know, coming from me the "I'm new here" routine must be getting old to some of you, but hang in there, someday I'll figure it all out! Besides, its the best excuse I have for ignorance, and fools people into thinking that I'm intelligent and just lack experience! :up:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

try and copy a file or folder to a cd or dvd...

--Mike

[jasondef]

Well, just earlier today I burned a CD with a bunch of downloaded preview movies of the games "Oblivion" and "HOMMV" for my mom, because my parents just have a slow dial-up connection, and they couldn't download the big files, anyway that's a long story. Well, it worked fine, so what? Why can't someone just tell me what its all about instead of teasing me with encrypted riddles? :-j

[Gunner]

arrrrrgh! thats why I can't copy anything with my DVD,also me sound went kaput on me media player,can't find the problem.i :hmm:

[TDK1044]

Starforce is a protection system that uses a needlessly intrusive set of Drivers to protect the designated game from being copied and distributed illegally. The early SF Drivers impacted a small number of computers by reducing, and in a few cases preventing the CD and DVD burning ability of other applications. The latest SF Drivers are much better at doing the job they were originally designed to do, without intruding beyond the scope of the game they are are there to protect. It's true to say that it's relatively easy to defeat SF if you know what you're doing, but in all honesty, with the latest Drivers there really is no issue, other than the subjective issue of whether such Drivers should ever be installed on a computer.

[Mowgli]

Starforce is a protection system that uses a needlessly intrusive set of Drivers to protect the designated game from being copied and distributed illegally. The early SF Drivers impacted a small number of computers by reducing, and in a few cases preventing the CD and DVD burning ability of other applications. The latest SF Drivers are much better at doing the job they were originally designed to do, without intruding beyond the scope of the game they are are there to protect. It's true to say that it's relatively easy to defeat SF if you know what you're doing, but in all honesty, with the latest Drivers there really is no issue, other than the subjective issue of whether such Drivers should ever be installed on a computer.

Of course is you were to read other posts by other people you would have a completley different response than the one quoted.

There are two camps, those who defend it blindly and those who recognize that it is a nasty piece of malware.

Do a search in Google with "Starforce problems" and make your own mind up.

[Onkel Neal]

There are two camps, those who defend it blindly and those who recognize that it is a nasty piece of malware.




"Defend it blindly" and blindly accuse it of being "a nasty piece of malware", is putting it fairly, I think. I'm neither for or against SF but I haven't seen any real proof it is spawn of the devil. Before I grab a pitchfork and leap on the bandwagon, I would like to see tests by Cnet or some neutral lab.

[Marhkimov]

There are two camps, those who defend it blindly and those who recognize that it is a nasty piece of malware.
Not really... You also have people like me, who don't give a *crap* either way... :D

On my PC, Starforce neither hurt nor hindered my performance. I can burn/copy CDs and DVDs just fine, but then people started complaining about SF ruining their drives, so I just decided to get rid of that junker...

Perhaps it'll save me some trouble in the future... Who knows...

[joea]

I wonder if some of these guy who are anti-SF (again I think there are valid reasons to be wary though I've had no problems with it) and have U-boats and such in their sigs have uninstalled SH3. :88) Or found other arrangements. :know:

Just think it ironic. Bet UBI regrets having put SF in SH3. Hope they drop it.

[Marhkimov]

I wonder if some of these guy who are anti-SF and have U-boats and such in their sigs have uninstalled SH3. :88) Or found other arrangements. :know:
LOLOLOLOL

Who has a u-boat in his sig? Show me to him! :stare: ;)

[Sea Demon]

There are two camps, those who defend it blindly and those who recognize that it is a nasty piece of malware.
Not really... You also have people like me, who don't give a *crap* either way... :D

On my PC, Starforce neither hurt nor hindered my performance. I can burn/copy CDs and DVDs just fine, but then people started complaining about SF ruining their drives, so I just decided to get rid of that junker...

Perhaps it'll save me some trouble in the future... Who knows...

Yup. That's me in a nutshell. It didn't hurt my system at all, but I do not intend for my system to become a lab rabbit for Starforce drivers. I'm still studying the issue, and trying to determine if the complaining voices out there have some validity to their claims. Hopefully I'll be able to put SH3 back on my hard drive. It is an amazing game, that I'd love to play again.

Sea Demon

[Mowgli]

There are two camps, those who defend it blindly and those who recognize that it is a nasty piece of malware.




"Defend it blindly" and blindly accuse it of being "a nasty piece of malware", is putting it fairly, I think. I'm neither for or against SF but I haven't seen any real proof it is spawn of the devil. Before I grab a pitchfork and leap on the bandwagon, I would like to see tests by Cnet or some neutral lab.

Nice pick up. However I would like to think that you are not the kind of person who jumps aboard any bandwagon. I for one am not.

If you or your moderators are unable to determine the truth about Starforce by now, then you never will OR you are privy to information to which I and the other members of this forum are not.

For you to step down from your Ivory Tower must mean something.

[turnerg]

one thing, it appears that starforce will not allow me to use Simbin's FIA GTR game in my plextor dvd r/w. this said, my SH3, and my soon-to-arrive GT Legends, which both use starforce(I suspect GTL does, as its predacessor did).

does this mean that I'll have to go get ANOTHER drive, a plain dvdrom, just to use them?

and what ever happened to the legal right to make your one personal backup of any cd you buy?

[Gizzmoe]

does this mean that I'll have to go get ANOTHER drive, a plain dvdrom, just to use them?

I don´t know. You should try the SF driver update:
http://www.star-force.com/support/sfdrvup.zip

[Takeda Shingen]

Let us be honest. There are six types of people that post about Starforce:

1. People who refuse to acknowledge that there may be anything damaging regarding the program.

2. People who concede that some people may experience difficulties with the program.

3. People who believe that Starforce is intrusive software that will damage most systems on which it is installed.

4. People who believe that Starforce, if given enough time, will kill off all of mankind and end civilization as we know it. They regard any person who disagrees with them as ignorant or on the payroll of UbiSoft.

5. People who just don't care.

6. People who really don't care, but think that the people from number four are really, really funny. (That's me).

[TDK1044]

Let us be honest. There are six types of people that post about Starforce:

1. People who refuse to acknowledge that there may be anything damaging regarding the program.

2. People who concede that some people may experience difficulties with the program.

3. People who believe that Starforce is intrusive software that will damage most systems on which it is installed.

4. People who believe that Starforce, if given enough time, will kill off all of mankind and end civilization as we know it. They regard any person who disagrees with them as ignorant or on the payroll of UbiSoft.

5. People who just don't care.

6. People who really don't care, but think that the people from number four are really, really funny. (That's me).


Very well observed. I'm number 2, but with enough computer knowledge to have looked at the SF Drivers very closely, and to have determined that they were not present on the Grassy knoll in Dallas in November 1963. It looks like they may infiltrated South Wales though.

[bradclark1]

I'm #4 :88)

[bradclark1]

Whup's. Double post.

[JSLTIGER]

I'm a #3. Also one of the primary reasons I don't d/l iTunes 6.0.2.

[Excalibur Bane]

I've never bothered to comment on Starforce in the past. It really wasn't worth the effort. Too much speculation and not enough facts I suppose but nevertheless, I will give my view of it.

Starforce in general is one of the least effective and most invasive forms of copy protection to date. That's puting it plainly. It would not suprise me to find out that Starforce is most certainly damaging hardware. In their zeal to block software piracy, their driver takes entirely too aggressive measures to block emulation on a system. The worst part of it is, that it simply isn't effective. Not anymore anyway.

At first, it was a challenge to remove the protection routines from the software, but it hasn't taken very long for them to take a different approach and simply bypass it entirely. More and more tools, ironically most of them made by legititame software owners, are being created to get around Starforce so they can keep their original CDs in mint condition. They spent millions of dollars I'm sure developing this system, only for it to become the bane of users everywhere. Why software companies continue to license it and embed it in their products, remains unclear.

In fact, Securom or Safedisc are much better alternatives to Starforce for the simple reason that they need to "cracked" by software pirates and actually take a reasonable amount of time to do so, this hasn't been the case for Starforce for some time and they are available much quicker on the net then either of the two other protection methods. In fact, I would venture to say that Starforce protected products are pirated much more then any of the other two protection systems. Clearly no hard facts are around to support this, but I'm sure they will be eventually.

If one looks deep enough, I believe you will find the same conclusions as mine. The entire gaming community, including software pirates, have taken a personal hate towards Starforce and that's why so much work has gone into breaking and circumventing this protection, more so because it's so invasive and probably damaging to ones hardware.

Companies spend godly sums of money to buy Starforce from it's creators, and what does it get them? Nothing but bad public relations, and their product is still distributed illegally just as much as the next company's. The end result, is that they will get less sales and they have wasted profit investing in a damaging copy protection that is not fool proof or even close to it.

The most amusing part, is that one of the more successful tools in use right now, which I will not name here for obvious reasons, has encrypted it's files so the developers at Starforce are going to have to crack another tool's protection system for future versions of Starforce, so the current version of the other tool will no longer bypass Starforce. The irony there is truly fitting for the people at Starforce.

At any rate, I am not a cracker or hacker or whatever you would like to call it, I've just been interested in Starforce seen it's infancy and the wild claims by Starforce that it was in fact invincible, they made such a big about it before it was released and now it's just another protection system like any other that has not only attracted the ire of your average pirate but that of legal customers as well.

In the end, I think we will see the disappearance of Starforce. The company will either will collapse in upon itself or it will take the form of a more reasonable protection system. Either way, Starforce has failed and all their grandose claims mean nothing in the end. Nothing is unbreakable. The war on piracy is the same as war on drugs, it will never be won and there will be always be people pirating software. That's simply the way it is. My opinion anyway. For what's it worth :)

[jasondef]

Don't forget #7! That's me, people who don't know enough to know whether they should care or not. I still haven't had any problems, but I've read some reviews lately on many gaming sites who badmouth it, but then they say SF has gotten better lately. Does SF problems have anything to do with running the game on a virtual drive, I wonder? I recently ran my desk chair over a game CD and broke it, and I've been thinking of getting one of the virtual game programs that let you run games without having the CD in the drive once you've installed them, just for protection of my game CD. If that's the case, maybe game companies have a right to have such coded discs, as people could abuse the virtual drive thing, and share games without buying them. I think its unfair that way because I'm from the thought that as an owner of a game, I should have a way to backup my disc somehow should breakage happen or whatever. And I don't like it when companies punish the masses of honest game users like myself just because a few people abuse it. But game companies going under happen more often than I like, so maybe they just have to do whatever they can to ensure maximum sales.

[Excalibur Bane]

Don't forget #7! That's me, people who don't know enough to know whether they should care or not. I still haven't had any problems, but I've read some reviews lately on many gaming sites who badmouth it, but then they say SF has gotten better lately. Does SF problems have anything to do with running the game on a virtual drive, I wonder? I recently ran my desk chair over a game CD and broke it, and I've been thinking of getting one of the virtual game programs that let you run games without having the CD in the drive once you've installed them, just for protection of my game CD. If that's the case, maybe game companies have a right to have such coded discs, as people could abuse the virtual drive thing, and share games without buying them. I think its unfair that way because I'm from the thought that as an owner of a game, I should have a way to backup my disc somehow should breakage happen or whatever. And I don't like it when companies punish the masses of honest game users like myself just because a few people abuse it. But game companies going under happen more often than I like, so maybe they just have to do whatever they can to ensure maximum sales.

You need to learn to use paragraphs, my friend. It makes it much easier for one to read your posting then a singluar, large block of text ;)

Yes, Starforce is mainly to do with emulation and virtual drives. For the most part, that's what it tends to target. Most of the other protection routines aren't quite as aggressive about detecting virtual drives, they can easily be hidden from the protection system with a number of tools. Starforce on the other hand, will get extremely angry if it detects any emulated drives on your system. It mostly targets SCSI drives because at present they are the only feasible way to emulate a drive. Starforce's search routines can definately be classified as extremely aggressive and that's usually what leads to problems when people try to burn something once the Starforce driver has been installed. Starforce either jams the IDE at the driver level because it thinks it's a virtual drive or it interferes with the proper functioning of a variety of the more popular burning programs.

I tend to agree with you, I value my originals very highly. One of the first things I do when I do purchase a new game, is read the manual and any relevant information in the packaging, then immediately backup the disk. After that, both the game packaging, it's contents and the original CD are placed into storage. I suppose I like the "fresh cardboard" smell when I open my game box. Or at least I used to, until game companies started being stingy on packaging proper manuals and instead decided PDFs would do instead. At any rate, I think the same about buying a game, when I buy it , it's mine. I'm free to do whatever I want with it, aside from copying or distributing it to anyone. It's within my rights to produce as many backup copies for personal use as I so desire.

And your last point, is the most ironic, because as I said before Starforce protected games are now the easiest ones to reproduce for software pirates. It's not unheard of for a game to be floating around on the net the same day it hit store shelves. At least with Safedisc, or Securom, it takes them a few days before it gets to that level of circulation. So in the end, it's not helping stop the game from being pirated, it's only making the problem worse and they are losing that much more sales as a result.

I've watched the various forms of copy protection over the last 15 years or so, give or take a few. From my codewheel for Secret Weapons Of The Luftwaffe, photocopy proof code sheet for Quarantine to Codemasters proprietary difficulty ramping in Operation Flashpoint if one wasn't using an authentic copy. It's all highly amusing. It mirrors every other struggle in law enforcement in this world, such as drugs or prostitution. They develop a brand-spanking new copy protection system, that they paid thousands of dollars for, only for someone smarter then them to come along and circumvent in a few days. It's a losing battle, you can no more stamp out piracy then you could blot out the sun. It simply won't happen. However, they will continue to try and I will be amused to continue to read about the next wonderous protection system they've devised. :roll:

If the game developers were wise, they would realize that no matter what they do, they are going to lose a certain amount of their profits to software piracy. Instead of investing so much money in purchasing new protection systems, that invariably harm the legitimate user as much as the pirate, they could reinvest all that money back into properly testing and developing their titles to make them that much better once they are released.

But we don't live in a perfect world, and I suspect the developers of the various copy protection systems would be very unhappy if a publisher decided to adopt that attitude. They would very quickly be out of business. But then, what else is new? Fear is the glue that holds society together. The gaming industry is no different.

And that's my insight for today, make sure you tune in tommorow, when we'll be discussing Lightning And You, what to do to avoid being struck by lightning and what you should do in the event that you have the misfortune of being hit by a bolt of lightning.... :o :D

[jasondef]

I've got a couple of backup software programs that I use, but every now and then I find games that nothing I try works. What do you use, if such topics are allowed to be discussed in this forum?

And I like nice, printed manuals and documentation support that comes packaged with games as well, rather than just PDF's. How about if game companies make games where not buying the game with its nice packaged goodies takes away from the game playing experience? That would discourage software pirating a bit, and make me happy. That goes against the resource saving digital era though. And it probably would cost more to print the packaged material than it would save from the decreased pirating.

[Gizzmoe]

What do you use, if such topics are allowed to be discussed in this forum?

Sorry, but such topics are not allowed.

[Skybird]

Don't forget #7! That's me, people who don't know enough to know whether they should care or not. I still haven't had any problems, but I've read some reviews lately on many gaming sites who badmouth it, but then they say SF has gotten better lately. Does SF problems have anything to do with running the game on a virtual drive, I wonder? I recently ran my desk chair over a game CD and broke it, and I've been thinking of getting one of the virtual game programs that let you run games without having the CD in the drive once you've installed them, just for protection of my game CD. If that's the case, maybe game companies have a right to have such coded discs, as people could abuse the virtual drive thing, and share games without buying them. I think its unfair that way because I'm from the thought that as an owner of a game, I should have a way to backup my disc somehow should breakage happen or whatever. And I don't like it when companies punish the masses of honest game users like myself just because a few people abuse it. But game companies going under happen more often than I like, so maybe they just have to do whatever they can to ensure maximum sales.

There is also an option 8, (valid for me): people who are critical about SF because they have made their very own experience with negative symptoms coming from SF, that dissapeared when SF was gone, and came back when it was there again, and that were not helped neither by SF updates nor by official deinstallation tools. Usually people of this category argue that if they read other people's comments and observations matching their own experiences, that then it cannot be argued that SF is a fail safe thing.

I also want to point at the highly questionable practice of the developer of SF to have censored, banned and deleted any critical questions on SF from their forums. Haven't been there since a long while, but when I was there months ago, dealing like this with unwelcomed customers having problems did take place on a daily basis. Means: not rarely, but often. This tells something about the developer.

I have reinstalled my system and excluded both SF games that I owned, GT and SH3. For lacking knowledge I then bought a dictionary - which again came with SF, I learned during installation. (another critizism: that it is never indicated that the software you buy is infested with SF, by that you are hindred to make a decision by yourself wether you accept to buy it or not). But the producer, Langenscheidt-Collins, received so many complaints by customers having problems, that they decided to publish a tool by their own that overwrites the engine software with a version that does not need SF anynmore, even better, you can install the software using that tool, and only add the dictionary's content from CD, that way SF never touches your HD. Pressure from customers and loud enough critizism can change things for the better, because your wallet is the most powerful voting billet in business. That's why my understanding for people who blindly defend SF and it's customer-hostile policy (coming from selfish egoism only, to remain present on the market with their product) and who by that prevent this kind of pressure mouting up is limited. customers would be better off without needing to accept the risk of counting as one of SF's victims whenever they buy software.

I also want to point out that as a coinsequence of the shabby quality of SF, people'S willingness to pirate software and accept priatced copies has increased, it seems, not the opposite. Is this what a copy protection policy should be about, encouraging piracy?

[Gizzmoe]

I also want to point out that as a coinsequence of the shabby quality of SF, people'S willingness to pirate software and accept priatced copies has increased, it seems, not the opposite. Is this what a copy protection policy should be about, encouraging piracy?

If that is really the case then those people are just using SF as a really bad excuse for not paying for their software. "Gee, I couldn´t buy the game because it´s infested with SF, so I had to download a pirated version.". That doesn´t make any sense.

People are now much more willing to install cracks or emulators because of SF, or they buy the game and then also download the warez version so they can play SF-free, but both things have nothing to do with piracy.

[Skybird]

My and your view are not exclusive to each other in this detail. SF certainly has raised the acceptance for cracks. If it is a fair thought, or a legal argument, is something different.

But in my example, with that dictionary, that thing costed 95 euros, so it was not cheap. If Langenscheidt wouldn't have corrected the issue, then I would have been wlling to use a crack myself (if it were around, to my knloweldge there is none). I payed for it, and I wanted SF off my HD. Langenscheidt wouldn't have taken it back and pay back my money if I would have argued I want to give it back becasue of SF. Owning that crack myself wouldn'T have done damage by me, I payed for one legal copy in use. If it would have been correct by the law, is something different. What I mean: by my sheer wish to see such a crack I would have helped to influence a climate in favour of such a crack beeing developed. Some people wopuld sue such cracks while having payed for one legal copy of the software (like me) - but the bad guys also would have been around, using and promoting the crack and using illegal copies of the software in question for which they never would have payed a single cent.

That'S why I think it is stupid to have helped a climate growing, in which the use of cracks is tolerated. It swings back on them.

I posted a review of the dictionary-software at amazon in which I mentioned the issue with SF - and praised them for moving away from it:
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3468909934/qid=1139414462/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/028-6733887-3323746

[Wim Libaers]

I've got a couple of backup software programs that I use, but every now and then I find games that nothing I try works. What do you use, if such topics are allowed to be discussed in this forum?

And I like nice, printed manuals and documentation support that comes packaged with games as well, rather than just PDF's. How about if game companies make games where not buying the game with its nice packaged goodies takes away from the game playing experience? That would discourage software pirating a bit, and make me happy. That goes against the resource saving digital era though. And it probably would cost more to print the packaged material than it would save from the decreased pirating.

Well, putting CD's in boxes in shops to be sold also goes against the resource saving digital era. Having publishers at all goes against that. If you wanted maximum efficiency in spreading your software, you'd just put it on open ftp servers. Of course, that is not what the publishers want, they want maximum money. Which is also why you pay approximately the same for a top title today, with a CD in a small box, as for a top title several years ago, with a big paper manual, maps of the game world, and other goodies.