Be watching for an Update on Starforce from Toms Hardware!!!

[Soulcommander]

Here it is:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/






Hello all, Some great news to share.....First of all have you seen this:


http://www.game-overdrive.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=734

Here is the actual Article:

PROVIDENCE, RI -- Game Overdrive today announced that they have added all game publishers using the Starforce anti-piracy program to a blacklist. Making an ultimatum by email on the first of February, Game Overdrive's Press Officer, Ben Halpern, told the publishers "Game Overdrive is extremely upset over your choice to use the Starforce anti-piracy software in your products. We have taken great pride in playing your games as gamers, and some are even reviewed on Game Overdrive. However, because of your choice of using Starforce in your software, we have no choice but to choose not to review your products until the software is removed or replaced with a functioning yet safer anti-piracy software. "

Click "Read More..." for the rest of the press release.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the blacklisted publishers are Ubisoft, DreamCatcher Games, Tri Synergy, The Adventure Company, and many others. When asked to speak about the blacklisting, Game Overdrive founder, Dan Mattia, said, "I hold the utmost respect for publishers, but when software is installed without my knowledge that compromises my system, I get angry. I have no problems with anti-piracy software, but software that can harm my computer is unwanted."

Game Overdrive is indefinitely halting all work associated with these publishers until a satisfactory reply is recevied.

According to the Boycott Starforce website, Starforce is "a software copy protection tool installed by PC game publishers, which is designed to prevent the casual copying of retail CDROM applications. It installs as a hidden device driver, without the end-user's knowledge or consent."

Game Overdrive is actively participating in the boycott Starforce campaign.

Further information will be released when responses are recevied from the blacklisted publishers.


Be watching soon for an article from Toms Hardware!!!!

[Gizzmoe]

Who or what is "Game Overdrive"? I´ve never heard of them before. Do they really matter?

Topic moved to "General Topics".

[bradclark1]

Never heard of them either so I would assume they will just sluff it off.
Interested in the article coming from Toms Hardware though.

[DanMattia]

Hello,

I'm Dan Mattia, founder and co-owner of Game Overdrive. I was forwarded this link by Game Overdrive's Public Relations Representative.

Before I begin detailing our committment to the Boycott, let me first say that Game Overdrive has a zero-tolerance policy for piracy. Piracy is a harmful act against the developers that slave over their work for many hours per day, and really needs to stop. We also can't stand malware and software that can damage our expensive game-review machines, so we have joined in the fight against Starforce.

Game Overdrive is a gaming media company started in April of 2005. With an experienced staff of gamers, writers, and other professionals, we are committed to providing accurate, unbiased news, reviews, and content to our site's visitors.

One thing we do at GO to provide this accurate content is to make sure we are never swayed by corporations whose products we are reviewing. We don't accept bribes for a good review or newspost, and we won't allow any sort of attempted alteration by companies to our content. All companies that we associate ourselves with understand this, and still continue to work with us.

Now, focusing on the topic at hand--our committment to the Starforce boycott.

Acting on the facts provided by gamers and techies regarding Starforce, Game Overdrive has announced (as provided in the link by an earlier poster) its boycott of publishers and developers using Starforce. The page providing a list of these boycotted companies can be seen here (http://game-overdrive.com/site/modules/sfblacklist/), uploaded yesterday. Keep in mind that we had posted the original news of the boycott on February 1st.

We have also emailed every company on the boycott list asking for an explanation on their choice of using Starforce. We have receieved responses and are acting on them, but we are not disclosing the content of the emails we have sent and receieved. We are happy to say that most publishers we have contacted are happy to work with us regarding this controversial topic.

There are also two topics posted by me on Glop.org (http://www.glop.org/forum/viewforum.php?id=11) regarding Starforce and a gamer boycott of it. These two posts can be seen here (http://www.glop.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=163) and here (http://www.glop.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=204).

So before dismissing Game Overdrive, make sure you see all the facts. We're committed to working with the community, so any feedback you give us is greatly appreciated.

[Gizzmoe]

Hello Dan! Welcome to Subsim.com, good to have you here!

I´m simply wondering/questioning if you can make a difference, to me GO seems to be a minor and not very important site. I would really like to see some major sites comment or fight against SF in a professional way.

[DanMattia]

Well, what we're trying to do is gathering a community and organizing them to help a stronger cause--an effective boycott of Starforce. We have received lots of support from those who have seen the posts, and our visitor count has skyrocketed.

The two publishers who have replied to us thus far have mentioned that they are discussing with both Starforce and those in charge of implementing the anti-piracy software of their product about Starforce and its suspected problems.

As you can see in the first forum post I mentioned earlier on glop.org, the majority of the community agrees with and understands GO's work. Some have listened to our requests to email publishers and media professionals.

Both I and my staff have been emailing individuals about Starforce as well. Game Overdrive's boycott information is merely there to provide a centered area for our email and forum campaign, as well as providing information to our visitors.

Any publicity is good publicity.

[SUBMAN1]

Its about time this starts to take hold and people start to protest. I won't play SHIII anymore because I don't want SF on my system. It screwed up my burning, and when I complained to Starforce directly about it, they made me give them a printout of everything hardware and software on my system so that they could try and reproduce the problem in their lab. They eventually got back to me and told me that they were unable to reproduce the problem and that they suspect my anti-virus was the real problem.

So, if it was not 'their' problem, how come when I removed Starforce using their removal program that they provided that everything went back to normal??? They are living in a fantasyland.

-S

PS. I kept all my emails on the subject for future reference. They have some confidential thing attached to them, but I never signed anything - nor do I recall a Starforce EULA in my game!

[DanMattia]

PS. I kept all my emails on the subject for future reference. They have some confidential thing attached to them, but I never signed anything - nor do I recall a Starforce EULA in my game!

Yeah, my research into Starforce prices also had an email with that confidentiality message attached.

[SUBMAN1]

PS. I kept all my emails on the subject for future reference. They have some confidential thing attached to them, but I never signed anything - nor do I recall a Starforce EULA in my game!

Yeah, my research into Starforce prices also had an email with that confidentiality message attached.

Maybe it is time to test my Pre-Paid legal service to see if that even holds any merit by just writing that in an email. I highly doubt it could be enforced.

-S

PS. I pay for it on a monthly basis, so I might as well use it once in a while!!!

[DanMattia]

That'd be a great help. I don't think it's legal for them to do that, however, as nothing was signed between either party.

[Skybird]

So, if it was not 'their' problem, how come when I removed Starforce using their removal program that they provided that everything went back to normal???

Sounds all to familiar for me. Same here. Only difference: In the beginning the removal tool did not work. I had to reinstall the complete HD (3x all in all). Thank God by formatting and copying over an image partition from an external HD that I never infested with SF.

Dan Mattia,
I wish you luck. I doubt that you will find real sympathy with the producers of SF, but I made myself the experience (one time) that at least companies that are using it, eventually change their policies and abandon SF if enough customers voice their critizism and give the feedback that they do not buy their software as long as it comes with SF.

The best vote is that which is done with our wallets.

[DanMattia]

Actually, the response I've gotten from publishers is amazing. They're actually quite understanding when consulting with someone who understands their choice of protecting their software from piracy. I've mentioned using alternatives and the like, and have gotten some excellent responses from them regarding it.

[sik1977]

PS. I kept all my emails on the subject for future reference. They have some confidential thing attached to them, but I never signed anything - nor do I recall a Starforce EULA in my game!

Yeah, my research into Starforce prices also had an email with that confidentiality message attached.

Maybe it is time to test my Pre-Paid legal service to see if that even holds any merit by just writing that in an email. I highly doubt it could be enforced.

-S

PS. I pay for it on a monthly basis, so I might as well use it once in a while!!!

I think you mean you pay a 'retainer' to a law firm/lawyer. The answer to your question/query may depend on the legal system of your country where you made the purchase, and the (applicable) law of the contract.

I am a lawyer myself, but not an expert in the IP field. As far as confidentiality is concerned, it should be dealt with by the contract between parties. Your recieving an email with the confidentiality message attached may not be enough to bind you, as it doesn't form a binding contract between two parties (being a unilateral obligation imposed for no consideration), but your replying to it may have resulted in some sort of implied or express (depending on the wording of the confidentiality message attached) consent to the confidentiality obligation.

Anyhow, if you are serious about it, do get a proper opinion from your lawyer. In any case, consumers usually enjoy a lot of protection (through special consumer protection laws in most countries) and you will not be easily sued for damages even if you breached a confidentiality obligation unilaterally imposed on you in order for you to get support from the seller etc.

[Soulcommander]

Things are happening fellas...I'm just not at the liberty to say.

As usual, we must conduct ourselves professionally. Keep your eye on this thread.


SC

[SUBMAN1]

PS. I kept all my emails on the subject for future reference. They have some confidential thing attached to them, but I never signed anything - nor do I recall a Starforce EULA in my game!

Yeah, my research into Starforce prices also had an email with that confidentiality message attached.

Maybe it is time to test my Pre-Paid legal service to see if that even holds any merit by just writing that in an email. I highly doubt it could be enforced.

-S

PS. I pay for it on a monthly basis, so I might as well use it once in a while!!!

I think you mean you pay a 'retainer' to a law firm/lawyer. The answer to your question/query may depend on the legal system of your country where you made the purchase, and the (applicable) law of the contract.

I am a lawyer myself, but not an expert in the IP field. As far as confidentiality is concerned, it should be dealt with by the contract between parties. Your recieving an email with the confidentiality message attached may not be enough to bind you, as it doesn't form a binding contract between two parties (being a unilateral obligation imposed for no consideration), but your replying to it may have resulted in some sort of implied or express (depending on the wording of the confidentiality message attached) consent to the confidentiality obligation.

Anyhow, if you are serious about it, do get a proper opinion from your lawyer. In any case, consumers usually enjoy a lot of protection (through special consumer protection laws in most countries) and you will not be easily sued for damages even if you breached a confidentiality obligation unilaterally imposed on you in order for you to get support from the seller etc.

It is not written well like other binding emails that I have read - it is all of one sentence and simply says that this letter is confidential and may not be disclosed to third persons. Nothing more.

THanks for the tidbit. I'll see what they say.

-S

[ThirteenthHouR]

Hi Dan, great to see Game overdrive has joined the fight for the right to freely use games/applications which we have purchased in the manner they where intended in the first place.

You may be interested that PCPlus Magazine in the UK are also getting on the bandwagon with a "Hands off our PC's" campaign.

Its about time these 'Trojankits' where dealt with once and for all.

Trojankit:

1. Security Applications installed without end user consent.
2.Software that grants Ring 0 access to Ring 3 (user level) applications.
3. Interferes with other software such as virtual drives, SCSI/SATA etc.
4. Puts its own virtual protection drivers on the system.
5. Interferes with other applications Windows registry settings.
6. Can be exploited with replacement malicious versions to grant Full Ring 0 access

[DanMattia]

Wow, that's awesome. We really need support from big-name companies as well, instead of niche-targeted companies like mine.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Support is there, due to contractual agreements a lot have not gone public yet.

However you can expect more replies over the next few weeks.

NGH, 'my site' does have lot of influence. We have reputation for honest straight forward tech support.

as you can see here some news sites have already taken this onboard.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29429

and here

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060201/1842220_F.shtml

[Soulcommander]

Dan, your company as well as many others combined, hand in hand create a Large Network and I personally thank you for your companies stand. Many here on this forum have been a part of the SF Investigation that was conducted with Ubisoft and we have been informing and helping everyone to understand these Trojankits and what they are capable of.
It's good to see progress being made. It's a start in the right direction!

SC

Definition of Trojankit: http://www.n-gage-help.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=42089#42089

[DanMattia]

That's largely my goal in GO's part in this boycott--inform the public about Starforce and rely on word-of-mouth to generate the rest of the boycott. I must say, I've really enjoyed working directly with the public and publishers/developers, and I'm very pleased with the responses I've been reading.

[ThirteenthHouR]

A lot of magazine reviewers are angry with SF, as it has been messing with their reviews of products. They did not realise it was there when testing other software and hardware.

So the bench tests they published where wrong.

[DanMattia]

Yes, I read about a Gamespot editor who wrote into someone who contacted him about SF. After searching for it on his review rig, he was pretty angry about it and removed it.

The problem with this is that in order to review recent games, we need pretty decent machines that cost at least $1000. To have something ruin a hard drive or DVD ROM or the like means purchasing more hardware and wasting worktime to fix the problem. Granted, not a major problem, but it gets in the way of work.

[ThirteenthHouR]

I get the same problems. My Kit here cost £7000 about $13000, I cannot afford to have TrojanKits taking that down.

I have refused to review anygame that is associated with Starforce licensed users.

Gameloft etc are not happy about that, but they are directly linked with Ubisoft and other major software houses which use SF.

Given that NGH is major force in the N-Gage games market they are getting nervous.

[kiwi_2005]

A lot of magazine reviewers are angry with SF, as it has been messing with their reviews of products. They did not realise it was there when testing other software and hardware.

PCPowerplay magazine game reviewers always warn the reader if the game they reviewed has SF.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Thats good news, at least the IT press are starting to take a responsible attitude.

[GT182]

Great news indeed and good to see GO involved Dan. :up:

May the Force be with us, not with StarForce. ;)

[ThirteenthHouR]

Actually, the response I've gotten from publishers is amazing. They're actually quite understanding when consulting with someone who understands their choice of protecting their software from piracy. I've mentioned using alternatives and the like, and have gotten some excellent responses from them regarding it.

Yep I have had similar positive responses, (from everybody except SF)

I have even proposed alternatives to the use of DRM's which would still be financially viable, plus preparing them for the step into Push technology.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Great news indeed and good to see GO involved Dan. :up:

May the Force be with us, not with StarForce. ;)


As the lead article on my site says

"When you don't want the 'FORCE' to be with you! "


but R-FORCE is here to keep Darkside of the force at bay.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TallyHO]

:D Thank god :) people have started to listen
you guys are the greatest. I was really begging to think i was cursed, With the hassle i have had over the past few years
it wasnt till my beloved GTR came out that sf became a target of my research :o
i kept on suffering the pio mode downgrade and my new pioneer burner went west :(
last year when i removed starfarce my ole 2500xp pc went back to being a lively little beast :lol:
and then i realised

hopefully we will see some publishers rethink there protection
on some imminent release's, since the sysinternals thread is now @43000+views
We should start a thread somewhere about the games We Would Have Bought if they didnt have StarFarce on em,or may be a poll somewhere lots of people won't post but they will click on a poll

maybe we can get some rereleased

Everyone i know who have bought sf games have seen it as a nessasary evil to play the games, others like me have boycotted completly
but they would run out and buy another SF free copy
Silent hunter 3... was i gutted plus loads of others
soul commander ,13thhour,DanMattia
all of you :sunny: thankyou

[Gizzmoe]

Trojankit:

1. Security Applications installed without end user consent.
2.Software that grants Ring 0 access to Ring 3 (user level) applications.
3. Interferes with other software such as virtual drives, SCSI/SATA etc.
4. Puts its own virtual protection drivers on the system.
5. Interferes with other applications Windows registry settings.
6. Can be exploited with replacement malicious versions to grant Full Ring 0 access

Cool, you have invented a new definition for "Trojankit"! What a coincidence that SF fits into your new definition and now that you´ve informed the world about what a Trojankit is everybody can call SF a Trojankit. That´s a nice change actually, calling it "Rootkit", "Virus" or "Malware" was getting old, we really needed a new term to describe it.

:roll:

[Skybird]

A lot of magazine reviewers are angry with SF, as it has been messing with their reviews of products. They did not realise it was there when testing other software and hardware.

So the bench tests they published where wrong.

:lol: Obviously they are not aware that Starforce has nothing to do with it :lol: Maybe they should:
- update their SF drivers,
- or use newer hardware components,
- or use older hardware components,
- or buy a completely new system,
- or they should stop using pirated software for their tests.
:lol: :-j

[Rotary Crewman]

If a starforce free version of SHIII came out i would buy it tomorrow. I did buy it, it made my system crash when playing games and ultimately ended up with me having to format my hard drive due to the fact i could never play anything without my lappy crashing.

Now i've formatted the HDD and started again its running like a dream again and SHIII went straight back on ebay without an install when i heard about SF

[Brentano]

"when software is installed without my knowledge that compromises my system" and "Trojankit: 1. Security Applications installed without end user consent.

Is this really true? Did we have knowledge? Did we consent? I'm sitting here looking at my SH3 box and it says on the back:

Notice: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conclict with some CD-RW, DVD-RW, and virtual drives.
And "Getting Started" in the User Manual reads:

This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conclict with some disk and virtual drives.
I know it doesn't explicitely say "Starforce," but it appears we all did have notice that if we installed the game, something was being installed that might compromise our systems. And we installed it anyway. :doh:

[jumpy]

@Brentano
I believe that was a more recent addition to the packaging after the initial 'concerns' about SF were aired.
I'm fairly sure my copy of SHIII (preordered so I got it the day before/on the day of the release date) has no mention of 'protection technologies which may be incompatible with your system'. It certainly makes no remarks about virtual drive or CD/DVD-ROM conflicts either on the box or in the game manual and I know for a fact that there was FA about it in the EULA I read whilst instaling SHIII.
I could be wrong, but I'm at work so I'll have to check and post back when I get home.

[SUBMAN1]

Your SHIII Box says that? I'll have to look at mine.

-S

[Brentano]

Yes, it really says that. On the box, it's on the back in bright yellow under "System Requirements." It's also in the manual.

I can't remember exactly when I purchased SH3. My first post here was April 12, 2005, and I registered on the Subsim forums after I purchased SH3. So I guess I bought SH3 around the first week of April, 2005.

When was it released? ... March 15, 2005?

[Syxx_Killer]

I bought SHIII from GameStop. I think I got it around the end of March 2005 or the beginning of April 2005. I tried to get the exact date, but GameStop seems to have erased my info. I can't login. :damn: :damn: :x :x Anyway, on the back of my SHIII box, there is a warning at the bottom in a little yellow box. It says:

Notice: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some CD-RW, DVD-RW, and virtual drives.

The same warning is also on the bottom of my Rome: Total War box. RTW, however, uses SafeDisc.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Trojankit:

1. Security Applications installed without end user consent.
2.Software that grants Ring 0 access to Ring 3 (user level) applications.
3. Interferes with other software such as virtual drives, SCSI/SATA etc.
4. Puts its own virtual protection drivers on the system.
5. Interferes with other applications Windows registry settings.
6. Can be exploited with replacement malicious versions to grant Full Ring 0 access

Cool, you have invented a new definition for "Trojankit"! What a coincidence that SF fits into your new definition and now that you´ve informed the world about what a Trojankit is everybody can call SF a Trojankit. That´s a nice change actually, calling it "Rootkit", "Virus" or "Malware" was getting old, we really needed a new term to describe it.

:roll:

It may be convenient to you, but its the fact that SF does fit into those categories, is the alarming thing as they are not nice things to be occurring on your system.

It was important that we had a definition that hits home what this type of software represents. Mark devised the Rootkit term. We devised the broader reach TrojanKits. As in apps that can be used as or converted into Trojan Gateways.

It is purposely named to sound like a hackers tools because in the wrong hands that is exactly what TrojanKits can be, a nasty set of tools already on your system to open access to persons with malicious intentions.

In this way it is clear concise and we do not have ridiculous legal threats being made against bloggers who may have used one or two words out of place.

[Brentano]

sik1977: "I am a lawyer myself"
Cool. I'm graduating from law school this May. This whole starforce thing is very interesting from a legal standpoint. It almost has the scent of a class-action.

It's especially interesting if the developer and publisher, Ubisoft, knew about the problem before they released the game. They did include a lame "disclaimer" on the box and in the manual.

[ThirteenthHouR]

@Brentano
I believe that was a more recent addition to the packaging after the initial 'concerns' about SF were aired.
I'm fairly sure my copy of SHIII (preordered so I got it the day before/on the day of the release date) has no mention of 'protection technologies which may be incompatible with your system'. It certainly makes no remarks about virtual drive or CD/DVD-ROM conflicts either on the box or in the game manual and I know for a fact that there was FA about it in the EULA I read whilst instaling SHIII.
I could be wrong, but I'm at work so I'll have to check and post back when I get home.

Sadly its just a generic warning. It really does not give the end user any information that they need. Exactly same sticker/label applies to several formats of copyprotection.

[ThirteenthHouR]

A lot of magazine reviewers are angry with SF, as it has been messing with their reviews of products. They did not realise it was there when testing other software and hardware.

So the bench tests they published where wrong.

:lol: Obviously they are not aware that Starforce has nothing to do with it :lol: Maybe they should:
- update their SF drivers,
- or use newer hardware components,
- or use older hardware components,
- or buy a completely new system,
- or they should stop using pirated software for their tests.
:lol: :-j

:o oh :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ThirteenthHouR]

sik1977: "I am a lawyer myself"
Cool. I'm graduating from law school this May. This whole starforce thing is very interesting from a legal standpoint. It almost has the scent of a class-action.

It's especially interesting if the developer and publisher, Ubisoft, knew about the problem before they released the game. They did include a lame "disclaimer" on the box and in the manual.

Yep but that is only a recent additionand its a generic warning, it was not on older games and they where fully aware of the issues back then as well.

[Steeltrap]

What I find really amazing in all of this is that the 'disclaimer/warning' is tantamount to saying:

"We're sorry, but we've included software in this product which might screw your drive. We'd tell you more but (a) we can't really be sure just which drives it effects, and how badly, and (b) we deny anything any time a customer encounters a problem and contacts us, so we can hardly admit to these problems in a warning or our position of denial would appear even more ridiculous than it already does"

I really wonder if any of these people actually contemplate life as a customer. Seems perverse to me to produce a game like SHIII with its dedicated audience (i.e. all of us...) not likely to be into piracy etc. It's rather like saying "let's protect our product so thoroughly that we can't sell it because our method of said protection is so punitive to our customers".

Despite being a dedicated wargamer for over 25 years, I have not purchased SHIII - even though I know it is by far the best sim for WWII subs ever released (and I've played pretty much every other one, as have many here).

Dan and others: I'm totally in agreement with your efforts to make it clear to publishers that while responsible gamers want to support future game releases through purchasing games to allow reasonable profits etc, they WON'T compromise their systems or be treated like fools whenever they try to resolve an issue apparently caused by some 'protection' measure.

Cheers

:rock:

[GT182]

I bought SHIII the day it hit the shelves here in the States.

The Generic Warning on the back of the SHIII box was there from day one.

If SF was in SHI and II, I do not think the warning was on those boxes. I don't either one but if someone that does could look and confirm if it is there or not, please do. I did not buy either one because of the bad reviews they were getting.

[Soulcommander]

"when software is installed without my knowledge that compromises my system" and "Trojankit: 1. Security Applications installed without end user consent.

Is this really true? Did we have knowledge? Did we consent? I'm sitting here looking at my SH3 box and it says on the back:

Notice: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conclict with some CD-RW, DVD-RW, and virtual drives.
And "Getting Started" in the User Manual reads:

This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conclict with some disk and virtual drives.
I know it doesn't explicitely say "Starforce," but it appears we all did have notice that if we installed the game, something was being installed that might compromise our systems. And we installed it anyway. :doh:

I have hashed this over long ago on the Ubi forums and with Ubisoft tech too. But there is nothing stating this in the EULA of the game when you install it. Believe me I know I have read it 3 times. Ubisoft long ago when the game first was released addmitted problems with Starforce and some devices. They (Ubisoft) had no clue what the problems were and how they happened. They still don't have a handle on it. Actually, Starforce themselves addmitted in emails that they as well did not test SF on every device and thus they knew there were problems too when the game was released. Thus the warning on the box.

I myself have never used a virtual drive and my cdrw was affected.
And all my software, again for the record, is bought and paid for. And I never use cracks or hacks on anything.

[SUBMAN1]

What I find really amazing in all of this is that the 'disclaimer/warning' is tantamount to saying:

"We're sorry, but we've included software in this product which might screw your drive. We'd tell you more but (a) we can't really be sure just which drives it effects, and how badly, and (b) we deny anything any time a customer encounters a problem and contacts us, so we can hardly admit to these problems in a warning or our position of denial would appear even more ridiculous than it already does"

I really wonder if any of these people actually contemplate life as a customer. Seems perverse to me to produce a game like SHIII with its dedicated audience (i.e. all of us...) not likely to be into piracy etc. It's rather like saying "let's protect our product so thoroughly that we can't sell it because our method of said protection is so punitive to our customers".

Despite being a dedicated wargamer for over 25 years, I have not purchased SHIII - even though I know it is by far the best sim for WWII subs ever released (and I've played pretty much every other one, as have many here).

Dan and others: I'm totally in agreement with your efforts to make it clear to publishers that while responsible gamers want to support future game releases through purchasing games to allow reasonable profits etc, they WON'T compromise their systems or be treated like fools whenever they try to resolve an issue apparently caused by some 'protection' measure.

Cheers

:rock:

I agree. I'd love to play SH3 again, but refuse to put this protection back on my system. My offer to sell my copy of SH3 still stands too. Make me a reasonable offer, and its yours!

-S

[Soulcommander]

sik1977: "I am a lawyer myself"
Cool. I'm graduating from law school this May. This whole starforce thing is very interesting from a legal standpoint. It almost has the scent of a class-action.

It's especially interesting if the developer and publisher, Ubisoft, knew about the problem before they released the game. They did include a lame "disclaimer" on the box and in the manual.

Funny you mentioned class action we have one Attorney that was involved in the Starforce Investigation (actually it was his wife) who also wanted to start a class action. I advised them to please hold off on that untill more knowledge came forth or companies had a chance to look at what was happening.

You have to understand that Ubisoft, although many of you hate them, has no understanding of Starforce. Yes they should be held accountable in some regards for messing with our machines. But truthfully they have been in the dark as much as all of us.

[Gizzmoe]

In this way it is clear concise and we do not have ridiculous legal threats being made against bloggers who may have used one or two words out of place.

Ok, so you´ve made up that definition to avoid possible legal threats. Fine. But I don´t see how your definition could help anybody. Can you give me an practical example? In which way could a blogger or website use your definition to inform people who know nothing or not very much about SF in a way so that the blogger or website don´t get into trouble?

[GT182]

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms. Whether they make them up or not, is NOT important. It's the term they use, pure and simple.

[Gizzmoe]

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms, whether they make them up or not. It's NOT important.

Let me get this right, the 1-6 list and the idea to call it "the definition of a Trojankit" didn´t come from ThirteenthHouR or SC?

[SUBMAN1]

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms, whether they make them up or not. It's NOT important.

Let me get this right, the 1-6 list and the idea to call it "the definition of a Trojankit" didn´t come from ThirteenthHouR or SC?

Nope

[Gizzmoe]

Whose (stupid) idea was it then?

[Soulcommander]

Thats good news, at least the IT press are starting to take a responsible attitude.


Speaking of Press!!

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Toms Hardware article will be released Saturday February 11th!

Thats tomorrow guys.

[GT182]

It seems "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder only.

[Gizzmoe]

Right. So whose idea was it? Just curious.

[GT182]

More than likely... it's none of you business. Leave it at that.

[SUBMAN1]

Right. So whose idea was it? Just curious.

Well, it follows the basic outline of a rootkit since it replaces drivers or changes the way your system interoprates with a said component, and attempts to hide itself in the process, so it is definitely a rootkit. The extra definitions just add up to more evidence is all.

The first people to call it a rootkit on this site were the game developers guys that are also boycotting them (And who give an excellent description of the problems of SF) - you can find that on this forum somewhere. It was about a few weeks back where they give a clear definition on the subject. NG? Forget. Do a search - if I find it again, I'll post it.

Sony recently got in trouble for using a rootkit in a similar manner.

Official description:

Functions of a rootkit
A rootkit typically hides logins, processes, files, and logs and may include software to intercept data from terminals, network connections, and the keyboard. In many instances, rootkits are counted as trojan horses.


Uses of rootkits
A rootkit is often used to hide utilities used to abuse a compromised system. These often include so-called "backdoors" to help the attacker subsequently access the system more easily. For example, the rootkit may hide an application that spawns a shell when the attacker connects to a particular network port on the system. Kernel rootkits may include similar functionality. A backdoor may also allow processes started by a non-privileged user to execute functions normally reserved for the superuser. All sorts of other tools useful for abuse can be hidden using rootkits. This includes tools for further attacks against computer systems the compromised system communicates with such as sniffers and keyloggers. A common abuse is to use a compromised computer as a staging ground for further abuse. This is often done to make the abuse appear to originate from the compromised system or network instead of the attacker. Tools for this can include denial-of-service attack tools, tools to relay chat sessions, and e-mail spam attacks.

A recent example where a rootkit was used on commercial CDs for digital rights management purposes is the 2005 Sony CD copy protection controversy.


Types of rootkits

Basic types
Rootkits come in two different flavours, kernel and application level kits. Kernel level rootkits add additional code and/or replace a portion of kernel code with modified code to help hide a backdoor on a computer system. This is often accomplished by adding new code to the kernel via a device driver or loadable module, such as Loadable Kernel Modules in Linux or device drivers in Microsoft Windows. Kernel rootkits commonly patch, hook, or replace system calls with versions that hide information about the attacker. Application level rootkits may replace regular application binaries with trojanized fakes, or they may modify the behavior of existing applications using hooks, patches, injected code, or other means. Kernel rootkits can be especially dangerous because they can be difficult to detect without appropriate software.


Examples
Rootkit.com hosts examples of rootkits too many to list individually here.
Ambient's Rootkit (ARK) for Linux
Hacker Defender
Sony BMG's use of First 4 Internet XCP (Extended Copy Protection) DRM [1]

[Brentano]

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.

[Soulcommander]

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.
Sir Do as your heart leads you. Do a search here on my name, or Starforce. Then go to Ubisofts forums as well and do the same. Then do a google on Starforce and Soulcommander if you like.

Get all the posts others have said and make your choice.

Personally????? If your asking me... I say Never again on my computer! NEVER! I have seen Starforce act unprofessional and insulting towards the gaming community. I have seen it all.

Even if every game that comes out in the future is laced with Starforce it will never be on my computer ever again unless it gets there by accident!


But you have to make your own choice my friend.

[SUBMAN1]

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.

I am one who also has SH3, yet no desire to install it back on my new reloaded system (Adding more OS's to my boot selection - Gentoo needed 50 GB of the RAID). I really do not want something like that messing up my drives or worse!

-S

[Brentano]

If I run into problems, will a re-install of the Windows OS solve it?

[Soulcommander]

If I run into problems, will a re-install of the Windows OS solve it?

A reformat will get rid of it of course. Or you can use the removal tool from Starforce and trust that. I myself reformatted. If you built your own system then I know you are confident that you can reinstall everything. It's just time consuming is all.
Remember if you break the seal on the game you can't take it back.

If you find you want nothing to do with the game after install...contact me and I will help you with that matter...

Good luck.

SC

[Gizzmoe]

Well, it follows the basic outline of a rootkit since it replaces drivers or changes the way your system interoprates with a said component, and attempts to hide itself in the process, so it is definitely a rootkit.

First of all, it was pointed out a gazillion times that it doesn´t hide itself. I just doesn´t! And it isn´t a rootkit. A rootkit is, strictly speaking, something that *intentionally* helps to hide something or *intentionally* helps to intrude a system. Any other piece of software that does that unintentionally can only be called a shoddy piece of work, there are quite a few examples of software/drivers doing that.

Sony´s DRM software also wasn´t a rootkit. It "merely" used stealth or rootkit-like techniques which unfortunately could be used by malware to hide themselves. SF doesn´t use the any of the stealth methods the Sony protection uses.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, it follows the basic outline of a rootkit since it replaces drivers or changes the way your system interoprates with a said component, and attempts to hide itself in the process, so it is definitely a rootkit.

First of all, it was pointed out a gazillion times that it doesn´t hide itself. I just doesn´t! And it isn´t a rootkit. A rootkit is, strictly speaking, something that *intentionally* helps to hide something or *intentionally* helps to intrude a system. Any other piece of software that does that unintentionally can only be called a shoddy piece of work, there are quite a few examples of software/drivers doing that.

Sony´s DRM software also wasn´t a rootkit. It "merely" used stealth or rootkit-like techniques which unfortunately could be used by malware to hide themselves. SF doesn´t use the any of the stealth methods the Sony protection uses.

Ahh, you're wrong... Last time I checked, it does an admirable job of hiding itself and making itself hard to find! Try and remove it even without 'special' software.

-S

PS. You work for SF or something?

[ThirteenthHouR]

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms, whether they make them up or not. It's NOT important.

Let me get this right, the 1-6 list and the idea to call it "the definition of a Trojankit" didn´t come from ThirteenthHouR or SC?


Lets get something clear here.

Do you use the term Rootkit?

Are you aware that before Mark coined the phrase and or definition. The term did not exist previously?

Now as the person who has been posting fixes concerning a number of these SF related issues on the net. I thought it important that there should be single word which can be referenced, that would not subject peeps to litigation and would be very clear and concise as to what it refers to.

With Marks Rootkit being similar in some respect, the Term Kit was kept, however with this also relating to Ringo 0 access. Trojan Gateway is at the forefront.

Hence 'TrojanKit'.

"This prevents the industry from saying, but our software is not a rootkit" , "Marks definition says so" or words to that effect. In much the same way as you have said in previous posts about SF.

In other words it puts to bed that silly argument.

It may be possible that in future they will say the same about TrojanKits after they have resorted to some other fool idea for copy protection. However we will cross that Bridge when we come to it.

[Gizzmoe]

If I run into problems, will a re-install of the Windows OS solve it?

As SC said, you can use the SF uninstaller. It´s easy to check if the uninstaller really removed SF by checking several things.

[ThirteenthHouR]

If I run into problems, will a re-install of the Windows OS solve it?

As SC said, you can use the SF uninstaller. It´s easy to check if the uninstaller really removed SF by checking several things.

Unless you are using XP64 then it does not work.

Should it go belly up and you have to manually remove.

1. Remove these files:
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfsync03.sys
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfhlp02.sys
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfdrv01.sys

2. Remove these registry keys:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfsync03
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfhlp02
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfdrv01

Should you run into a (Code 41) error in the device manager then follow this howto.

How to cure (Code 41) error in the device manager. (http://www.n-gage-help.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5520)

Should you still have DMA problems then follow this howto:

How to cure DMA step down of DVD/CD rom drives (http://www.n-gage-help.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5519)

[Gizzmoe]

Ahh, you're wrong... Last time I checked, it does an admirable job of hiding itself and making itself hard to find!

It does? It´s visible in the Non-PNP driver section like many other drivers and the three SF drivers in system32 are not hidden.

Try and remove it even without 'special' software.

Never tried to remove it manually, that´s what the removal tool is there for. If I wanted to I could probably remove it manually, it doesn´t look too difficult.

PS. You work for SF or something?

Yes. And I´ve also killed Bambie´s mother and Mahatma Gandhi.

[sik1977]

sik1977: "I am a lawyer myself"
Cool. I'm graduating from law school this May. This whole starforce thing is very interesting from a legal standpoint. It almost has the scent of a class-action.

It's especially interesting if the developer and publisher, Ubisoft, knew about the problem before they released the game. They did include a lame "disclaimer" on the box and in the manual.

You mentioned 'class-action', I take it you are doing your JD from one of the US law schools. I did my LLB and LLM from University of London (UK) and practice in my home country (Pakistan - most probably the only one in my country playing SH3 which I got while in London last year). We have public interest litigation but it is a somewhat different beast then 'class-actions' you may be used to in US.

Anyhow, as far as the 'disclaimer' goes, if it ever comes before a court it will be weighed against whatever consumer protection laws you have in place. In UK for example, we have the Consumer Protection Act (rather complicated and not the best around), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) which deals with, inter alia, such disclaimers and tests them against a Section 11 reasonableness test under UCTA. Hence, any disclaimer which is unreasonable or tries to get away with any and all liability for ones actions, specially against consumers, has a good chance of falling foul of UCTA. Also Sale of Goods Act states that goods must be of satisfactory quality and fulflil the stated purpose to a reasonable extent (can't remember the exact S.14 text, but you can look it up). Any such goods if found to be less then satisfactory quality can be returned to the seller with appropriate claim for damages. If Starforce can be shown to damage hardware then SH3 can also be considered to be of non-satisfactory quality and the disclaimer if falling foul of UCTA won't indemnify UBISOFT.

I for one love SH3 and enjoy it without Starforce, as the laws in my country don't disallow use of third party tools to make backup copies or No-DVDs. The EULA is ofcourse a contractual issue between me and UBISOFT which can be enforced in my country (depending on the applicable law of the EULA ofcourse).

P.s' Check your inbox Brentano... I sent you a disclaimer.... :-j

[SUBMAN1]

Ahh, you're wrong... Last time I checked, it does an admirable job of hiding itself and making itself hard to find!

It does? It´s visible in the Non-PNP driver section like many other drivers and the three SF drivers in system32 are not hidden.

Try and remove it even without 'special' software.

Never tried to remove it manually, that´s what the removal tool is there for. If I wanted to I could probably remove it manually, it doesn´t look too difficult.

PS. You work for SF or something?

Yes. And I´ve also killed Bambie´s mother and Mahatma Gandhi.

Hahaha! Don't make me laugh! You should be nicer to Bambie's mother, but Ghandi - oh well.

Starforce is hidden as well as a rootkit can be hid without physically replacing a physical driver on the system. As far as I know, there is no way to actually 'hide' a driver. Simply looking at Device Manager does not show Starforce. Steps were even taken to make sure it does not appear in the default view - the only way to find it is to stumble across it in connection view (Make sure you turn on Show Hidden Devices - a little clue that it is hidden!!!). It does not show up as a service. It does not show up in add/remove programs. It is hidden so well that the PC Gamer office had no idea it was even there until they were told to look for it!

So, given the above evidence, how can you sit there with a straight face and say "It is not hidden"?

-S

PS. Oh an inkling of how you remove it manually (and this all that is actually known at this point) is posted above. It is not as easy as you describe by any means.

[Gizzmoe]

Lets get something clear here.

Do you use the term Rootkit?

Yes.

Are you aware that before Mark coined the phrase and or definition. The term did not exist previously?

The term "rootkit" existed long before that.

Now as the person who has been posting fixes concerning a number of these SF related issues on the net. I thought it important that there should be single word which can be referenced, that would not subject peeps to litigation and would be very clear and concise as to what it refers to.

You´ve used the term "Trojan Kit" in an intentionally wrong and polemic way and you know that very well. You were looking for a buzzword, very tabloid-style. I do understand why you did that, just as I understand why Mark did that, but I don´t find it good. It´s unjournalistic.

[Soulcommander]

Gizzmoe I ask that you please calm down. I don't see what drives you to do this. Phrases, terms, cliche's...all expressions or ideas to express in one word or two the description or definition of a meaning or idea.

From the dawn of time man has given words to objects. That time has not stood still. In this technology age we live in there are new terms and words popping up all the time.

I would think you would let this go Gizz.... Give yourself and all of us a break please. If you don't like the term your point has been made.

[sik1977]

Gizzmoe I ask that you please calm down. I don't see what drives you to do this. Phrases, terms, cliche's...all expressions or ideas to express in one word or two the description or definition of a meaning or idea.

From the dawn of time man has given words to objects. That time has not stood still. In this technology age we live in there are new terms and words popping up all the time.

I would think you would let this go Gizz.... Give yourself and all of us a break please. If you don't like the term your point has been made.

Touché...

Yes Gizz, stop trolling.... :-j

[Gizzmoe]

Gizzmoe I ask that you please calm down. I don't see what drives you to do this. [...] I would think you would let this go Gizz.... Give yourself and all of us a break please. If you don't like the term your point has been made.

Larry, this is a topic that interests me and I´ve every right to voice my opinion and I have the right to question certain things. I want to understand their standpoint, that´s all. If they cannot make they standpoint clear or if it´s IMO illogical I will continue to ask questions. If some people don´t like that that´s their problem, not mine.

[GT182]

That's your right I agree. But the way you come off with it, it makes us wonder if you're working for StarForce. I'm not the only one that thinks that either... many others are having the same thoughts. So by the way you ask questions and make statements you just confirm what we think.

[Soulcommander]

Gizzmoe I ask that you please calm down. I don't see what drives you to do this. [...] I would think you would let this go Gizz.... Give yourself and all of us a break please. If you don't like the term your point has been made.

Larry, this is a topic that interests me and I´ve every right to voice my opinion and I have the right to question certain things. I want to understand their standpoint, that´s all. If they cannot make they standpoint clear or if it´s IMO illogical I will continue to ask questions. If some people don´t like that that´s their problem, not mine.

Your point has been made and we answer your questions for you as best we can.

My suggestion to everyone is to then just ignor Gizzmoe's questions.


We have answerd your questions.

Let it rest!!!!!!!

I'm sorry Giz but you are upsetting many people here and I don't like getting emails about it constantly...
I get enough just on Starforce alone, you know that.

So for those of you that know me and are sending emails I ask you to write your complaints to the owner of this forum. I don't moderate here.

[Glumrug]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

[Gizzmoe]

That's your right I agree. But the way you come off with it, it makes us wonder if you're working for StarForce. I'm not the only one that thinks that either... many others are having the same thoughts.

I´ve heard that "accusation" quite often. For the umpteenth time, I don´t work for SF, I´m just a curious and skeptical being.

So by the way you ask questions and make statements you just confirm what we think.

Sorry, I don´t get what you mean.

[Soulcommander]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

Have you checked in device manager?
Open it up...go to view, click on show hidden devices, and then click on the + for NON Plug and play drivers. See if you find any Sf drivers listed.

let us know.

[Gizzmoe]

My suggestion to everyone is to then just ignor Gizzmoe's questions.

That´s not very nice.

We have answerd your questions.

Not the questions that came up in the recent days.

I'm sorry Giz but you are upsetting many people here and I don't like getting emails about it constantly...

If I´ve questions or doubts I´ll post them. I´m sorry if people bother you because of that, but don´t blame me for that! I don´t know why they think that you are the right contact person.

So for those of you that know me and are sending emails I ask you to write your complaints to the owner of this forum.

Exactly. For complaints contact the moderators or Neal Stevens. Or me via PM or email, if you like.

[Rotary Crewman]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

Have you checked in device manager?
Open it up...go to view, click on show hidden devices, and then click on the + for NON Plug and play drivers. See if you find any Sf drivers listed.

let us know.

I would DEFINATELY like to know the outcome of this too.

[sik1977]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

I am afraid thats not true. This has been discussed before and it was discovered that the download version also comes with SF, it just doesn't require a DVD check. Please correct me if I am wrong as I have the DVD version and I heard the above here on the forums myself (check for drivers as stated above).

In any case, it doesnt help thousands who have already bought the DVD version, unless UBISOFT offers them all free download as well i.e., if the download is free of SF and they all have super fast internet connection. My 7Kb/sec connection won't cope with it ofcourse even if I was offered a free download of SH3.

[SUBMAN1]

My suggestion to everyone is to then just ignor Gizzmoe's questions.

That´s not very nice.

We have answerd your questions.

Not the questions that came up in the recent days.

I'm sorry Giz but you are upsetting many people here and I don't like getting emails about it constantly...

If I´ve questions or doubts I´ll post them. I´m sorry if people bother you because of that, but don´t blame me for that! I don´t know why they think that you are the right contact person.

So for those of you that know me and are sending emails I ask you to write your complaints to the owner of this forum.

Exactly. For complaints contact the moderators or Neal Stevens. Or me via PM or email, if you like.

But thats the problem - We show you how you are wrong - in my case I showed you that it is even a hidden device driver that modifies IDE calls and is designed for the normal user to not even be able to find it, yet you continue to defend it. By definition - that is a rootkit. Call me crazy, but I think this is VERY weird or abnormal behavior to blindly defend it like that. That is why I asked if you worked for Starforce, and you still never answered the question. Do you work for Starforce?

-S

[Glumrug]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

Have you checked in device manager?
Open it up...go to view, click on show hidden devices, and then click on the + for NON Plug and play drivers. See if you find any Sf drivers listed.

let us know.

It appears you are right, which is strange. It wasn't there after I installed, and restarted, but after playing the game, it is now listed.

[Soulcommander]

I would just like to point out quickly, that there is a version without starforce availible. If you get the download only version from direct2drive, it does not contain starforce.

Have you checked in device manager?
Open it up...go to view, click on show hidden devices, and then click on the + for NON Plug and play drivers. See if you find any Sf drivers listed.

let us know.

It appears you are right, which is strange. It wasn't there after I installed, and restarted, but after playing the game, it is now listed.


Glad you posted and now you know how to find them.
Once you run the game they have to initiate and that's when they get installed.



SC

[Gizzmoe]

in my case I showed you that it is even a hidden device driver that modifies IDE calls and is designed for the normal user to not even be able to find it, yet you continue to defend it.

It´s the responsibility of the publishers to make SF removable, that is what also Mark Russinovich´s said just in case you don´t believe me. Without the removal tool it´s very difficult or almost impossible for the average user to remove it.

Call me crazy, but I think this is VERY weird or abnormal behavior to blindly defend it like that.

I´m not defending it blindly.

That is why I asked if you worked for Starforce, and you still never answered the question. Do you work for Starforce?

I´ve answered that already several times. No, I don´t.

[Soulcommander]

Take a look at this guys:

http://virtual-hideout.net/articles/Copy_protection_pt2/index.shtml

[SUBMAN1]

Take a look at this guys:

http://virtual-hideout.net/articles/Copy_protection_pt2/index.shtml

Sounds exactly like my problems with my Plextor 712A, except after removing SF, I do not notice any write problems anymore, so theoretically, my drive didn't get damaged. Then again, maybe I should run a PIO test in Plextools Pro? I don't think I've done one since I first bought the drive so now may be a good time to check its health.

My other two drives in the system are a crappy Sony DVD-ROM that I use to keep my Plextors from getting worn out, and a Plextor Premium CD burner (Best CD burner ever made!). I can reliably squeeze about 100 minutes of music onto a 80 minute CD. It will do 113 min of music, but playback in a lot of drives is not completely reliable. DVD readers still seem to be able to read the 113 min of music, but junk CD players have issue.

Basically the point is, my Plex Premium still works good. I should check the DVD burner though.

-S

[Soulcommander]

Yeah you may want to check it out. His article sounded very much like what happened to me.

[SUBMAN1]

Allright, messing with the Silent Hunter 3 install program, and it is possible to defeat Starforce and 'never' have it install on your system (This is not a guide to bypassing SF, so don't ask me, and everything I write here has to be legal - This is just a workaround to keep it from installing). I won't say how this is possible other than the fact that Starforces flaw is in how it installs itself - and I discovered it tonight (but had an inkling of before which is what prompted me to try). The key is that SF is 'not' installed upon installing the said software, nor is it installed by patching the said software. It is installed by 'playing' the said software since it is embedded in the exe. That is the key. Don't run it!

To get around the rest, you guys will have to use your own minds because it is against this boards policy to post about bypassing the actual copyprotection.

The point is, if SH3 is your thing to play, it is possible to keep you sys secure and still play SH3. Hopefully SF will be dropped like a hot potato by dev's in the future and we all won't need to worry about it ever again! I'm off to play now, so don't expect me around for a while! :)

-S

PS. I can play SH3 and Sf has never graced the sectors of my HD!!! At least not in this install of XP MCE 2005!!!

[Syxx_Killer]

That's wonderful news! :yep: :rock:

[GT182]

Subman, exactly the same problem with the exact same drive I have. Thankyou for confirming. :up:

[ThirteenthHouR]

Gizzmoe, no offence ment and it is good to be challenged, but most your arguments seem to be about definition.

We now use the term Trojankit, which removes this definition problem.

We fully accept that other issues can trigger these problems, however as with most things in the Computing world, its rarely 100% factual evidence that you deal with as in many cases all you have to work with is the balance of probabilities.

1 person has DMA step down. he/she removes SF and the problem goes away. You can call that coincidence, but when 800,000 people get the same reaction you can safely assume that SF has an issue.

So at that point we set about finding out what it was.

That same thing applies with slow downs, Code 41 errors etc.

Now in the latter case, the mess caused to the filter section of the registry is very easy to observe in a before and after scenario.


So when Soulcommander says you questions have been answered, why do you keep repeating the same things in a slightly different worded format?

I can understanding someone defending SF if they had financial amounts to gain from it, but I am yet to comprehend why somebody would defend shoddy coding just for the sake of it?

Especially when such code actually leave end users systems open for exploitation by persons with malicious intent.

Dude you really should go here:

Starforces Technical Support forum (http://www.star-force.com/forum/index.php?s=71ae0fa37fd186acb244a94901ffdee2&showforum=13) and see how badly they treat people with technical issues.

That is not what the industry thought it was buying into.


to quote from the rules

Remember that moderators have the strict policy regarding the removing of anonymous posts from the board, which contain false or unproved claims.

However that actually includes offering technical support for real issues that end users are having problems with.

I know first hand because they deleted my DMA step down fix and Code 41 error fix. When I challenged the senior SF moderators about this. This is one of the responses I recieved.

I kid you not, This is a word for word copy and paste from the PM I recieved.

Hi again!

I'v forwarded your reauest to our programmer, who make whole drivers work.

Could you plz contact him to research the problem closer together? (if yes i''ll give you his e-mail)

Right now he has no idea whats going on. After we fined any solution or start to understand the problem cearfuly - we could make some forum post on it


I knew they had problems but check this part out "Right now he has no idea whats going on". This is their programmer, he does no have a clue what is happening.

I thought WTF :o this is crazy..............

After offsetting advice I decided to help, but only if the request came through official channels. As they do have such a lousy reputation with peeps that have tried to help them in the past.

As you may have guessed, they will not contact officially.

[Gizzmoe]

Gizzmoe, no offence ment and it is good to be challenged, but most your arguments seem to be about definition.

Indeed. I really wouldn´t care about the whole thing if I knew that you don´t know what you are talking about and that you simply use this term because you´ve heard it somewhere and you think it sounds cool and dangerous. But that´s not the case. You know what you are talking about and it was a concious decision to make up a new definition for "Trojankit" so that SF fits 100% into it and then to use this term in an intentionally wrong way. That´s pretty unprofessional (to put it mildly).

I´ve asked that already: How can this term and the definitions of it be any helpful? There are enough people out there who don´t know about the potentional dangers of SF yet. Do Larry and you from now on answer questions like "What´s Starforce?" only with "Please read the definition of Trojankit at n-gage-help.com"?

[goldorak]

TOMS HARDWARE ARTICLE WILL BE RELEASED FEB 11th!
Link soon to Follow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ok, its the 11th but I can't seem to find the article on TH website (it has an awful layout).
If somebody can post the link to the article it will be appreciated.

[Gizzmoe]

The article isn´t out yet.

[Soulcommander]

Allright, messing with the Silent Hunter 3 install program, and it is possible to defeat Starforce and 'never' have it install on your system (This is not a guide to bypassing SF, so don't ask me, and everything I write here has to be legal - This is just a workaround to keep it from installing). I won't say how this is possible other than the fact that Starforces flaw is in how it installs itself - and I discovered it tonight (but had an inkling of before which is what prompted me to try). The key is that SF is 'not' installed upon installing the said software, nor is it installed by patching the said software. It is installed by 'playing' the said software since it is embedded in the exe. That is the key. Don't run it!

To get around the rest, you guys will have to use your own minds because it is against this boards policy to post about bypassing the actual copyprotection.

The point is, if SH3 is your thing to play, it is possible to keep you sys secure and still play SH3. Hopefully SF will be dropped like a hot potato by dev's in the future and we all won't need to worry about it ever again! I'm off to play now, so don't expect me around for a while! :)

-S

PS. I can play SH3 and Sf has never graced the sectors of my HD!!! At least not in this install of XP MCE 2005!!!


Actually this is old news....But I understand your willingness to help. I can tell your a caring guy as by what you posted to try to help others. First off I would like to say that the Dev team has nothing to do with Starforce. The Publisher does, thats my understanding. Correct me someone if it's incorrect.

Second, although I have a willingness to also help everyone I want all of you to know the kind of individule I am...
Yes there is a crack available for SF. But I have not installed it. Nor publicised it. (Until now I guess :stare: )
Yes I love SHIII and would love to play it again without SF.

But here is what I really want to see happen:

I would prefer the Game Publisher provide it! (Ubisoft)
I will suggest this to Ubisoft. Also on any games that are exceptionally old and have dropped in price, it would also be nice to see Staforce removed and not a part of any future releases of those games as well.

The only problem here is "IDENTIFING" what games have Starforce in them and which ones DON'T! I think it's way past time that if UBISOFT still feels Starforce is such a good thing that they give Starforce CREDIT and list them on the outside packaging of the game box!
If the Publishers are so proud of this copy protection then "Give Starforce some Publicity!"


These are all suggestion's I will bring up to Ubisoft. What do you guys think? Shoot me a pm! I will include your name if you provide it as someone that feels the same way.

Of course it's also possible that Ubi takes an active response and becomes the first company to do away with Starforce...This will show the gaming community that Ubisoft does care about it's consumers.
Go back to Safedisc or some other established protection that is not going to mess up your system and hardware.

[Soulcommander]

TOMS HARDWARE ARTICLE WILL BE RELEASED FEB 11th!
Link soon to Follow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ok, its the 11th but I can't seem to find the article on TH website (it has an awful layout).
If somebody can post the link to the article it will be appreciated.

I will post it as soon as someone alerts me that it's out. Toms Hardware includes many, many companies!

Hosted By © 2006 Tom's Guide Publishing.
TG Daily
Tom's Hardware Guide
Tom's Networking Guide
Mobility Guru
TwitchGuru
DenGuru
TG Forumz
TG Stores

Select a Region: China | France | Germany | Hungary | Italy | Poland | Sweden | Russia | Taiwan | Turkey| UK & Ireland


Did I leave any out?????????

FYI http://www.tgpublishing.net/

[DanMattia]

Actually this is old news....But I understand your willingness to help. I can tell your a caring guy as by what you posted to try to help others. First off I would like to say that the Dev team has nothing to do with Starforce. The Publisher does, thats my understanding. Correct me someone if it's incorrect.

Actually, quite a few publishers I talked to said that the dev. teams choose the anti-piracy software. Other publishers are the ones who do that. So it goes both ways.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Gizzmoe, no offence ment and it is good to be challenged, but most your arguments seem to be about definition.

Indeed. I really wouldn´t care about the whole thing if I knew that you don´t know what you are talking about and that you simply use this term because you´ve heard it somewhere and you think it sounds cool and dangerous. But that´s not the case. You know what you are talking about and it was a concious decision to make up a new definition for "Trojankit" so that SF fits 100% into it and then to use this term in an intentionally wrong way. That´s pretty unprofessional (to put it mildly).

I´ve asked that already: How can this term and the definitions of it be any helpful? There are enough people out there who don´t know about the potentional dangers of SF yet. Do Larry and you from now on answer questions like "What´s Starforce?" only with "Please read the definition of Trojankit at n-gage-help.com"?

I try to be reasonable and held back on my comments and this is what I get in return.

The definition is put together in manner to cover a range of unstable DRM's that have been used lately that do not sit in Mark definition of Rootkits. As explained previously a lot of organisations and people in forums having been saying its not a "rootkit" as if that fact some how made these technical problems go away.

I ask are you now saying Mark was wrong in creating the term rootkit to match with what he was seeing?

As an example would you create the definition of an egg if you where describing an apple?

Yes this description is convenient, convenient for everybody to explain a complex range of software/hardware interactions in a single word. Thus avoiding blurring of the definition of the problems.

In fact that is a very professional approach as it stops incorrect association or misuse of the term. Clear defined criteria are always better than open ended streams of information.

I way to you what isa rootkit?

You can go and look it up

I say to you what is a TrojanKit

You can go and look it up.

That is the difference of using single terms to define a range of processes, rather than having to repeat pages and pages of explanations time and time again.

I really do not know why this needs to be explained to you, given that you appear to be a very intelligent chap.

[Soulcommander]

Good Morning 13th.... Just give up on him please. It's best to let him just figure it out on his own as he is intelligent enough to do it himself. Some things can not be explained to the student.
I'm glad I wasn't his teacher is all I can say, it would have drove me up the wall.

[SUBMAN1]

Allright, messing with the Silent Hunter 3 install program, and it is possible to defeat Starforce and 'never' have it install on your system (This is not a guide to bypassing SF, so don't ask me, and everything I write here has to be legal - This is just a workaround to keep it from installing). I won't say how this is possible other than the fact that Starforces flaw is in how it installs itself - and I discovered it tonight (but had an inkling of before which is what prompted me to try). The key is that SF is 'not' installed upon installing the said software, nor is it installed by patching the said software. It is installed by 'playing' the said software since it is embedded in the exe. That is the key. Don't run it!

To get around the rest, you guys will have to use your own minds because it is against this boards policy to post about bypassing the actual copyprotection.

The point is, if SH3 is your thing to play, it is possible to keep you sys secure and still play SH3. Hopefully SF will be dropped like a hot potato by dev's in the future and we all won't need to worry about it ever again! I'm off to play now, so don't expect me around for a while! :)

-S

PS. I can play SH3 and Sf has never graced the sectors of my HD!!! At least not in this install of XP MCE 2005!!!


Actually this is old news....But I understand your willingness to help. I can tell your a caring guy as by what you posted to try to help others. First off I would like to say that the Dev team has nothing to do with Starforce. The Publisher does, thats my understanding. Correct me someone if it's incorrect.

Second, although I have a willingness to also help everyone I want all of you to know the kind of individule I am...
Yes there is a crack available for SF. But I have not installed it. Nor publicised it. (Until now I guess :stare: )
Yes I love SHIII and would love to play it again without SF.

But here is what I really want to see happen:

I would prefer the Game Publisher provide it! (Ubisoft)
I will suggest this to Ubisoft. Also on any games that are exceptionally old and have dropped in price, it would also be nice to see Staforce removed and not a part of any future releases of those games as well.

The only problem here is "IDENTIFING" what games have Starforce in them and which ones DON'T! I think it's way past time that if UBISOFT still feels Starforce is such a good thing that they give Starforce CREDIT and list them on the outside packaging of the game box!
If the Publishers are so proud of this copy protection then "Give Starforce some Publicity!"


These are all suggestion's I will bring up to Ubisoft. What do you guys think? Shoot me a pm! I will include your name if you provide it as someone that feels the same way.

Of course it's also possible that Ubi takes an active response and becomes the first company to do away with Starforce...This will show the gaming community that Ubisoft does care about it's consumers.
Go back to Safedisc or some other established protection that is not going to mess up your system and hardware.

By your words, I understand that you see what I write as a threat to the campaign - trust me, I will never buy another SF protected game ever again. This workaround only allows me to play that which I already mistakenly purchased - And I tried it because I never remember having to type in that code or wait while the protection loads 'during' the install - only happened after I tried to run the game (It was the first time I saw a SF install, so it caught my eye). If i knew SF was on SH3 (I bought it the day it hit CompUSA), I wouldn't have purchased it at all - even to this day.

As for the old news part, if people already knew about this, where the hell is it posted? It would be nice to see this info more widely available since it allows one who can think through the process to avoid having this ugly SF on their sys! Just a thought.

-S

[Soulcommander]

Sub your right....It has been posted but not enough. ALthough I have been accused as well as others as talking to much about SF. LOL Information is power...
I really have never thought of any of this as a campaign. More of what you were doing. Providing awareness.

What you did was ok in my book.
I just have to watch myself a bit more as I feel I have some responsibility to uphold. Hope you can understand what I mean by that! :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Sub your right....It has been posted but not enough. ALthough I have been accused as well as others as talking to much about SF. LOL Information is power...
I really have never thought of any of this as a campaign. More of what you were doing. Providing awareness.

What you did was ok in my book.
I just have to watch myself a bit more as I feel I have some responsibility to uphold. Hope you can understand what I mean by that! :up:

I understand, but I also look at it from the perspective that I will still have fun with what I purchased already without them taking it away from me over some copyprotection. You can call it my small act of defiance!!! :)

The point is - I am playing their game, fully patch, without their damn protection! It is like me snubbing my nose at them! On the otherhand, I also won't be giving them another penny of my money if they continue to support such barbaric measures in compromising my system.

What I don't really get is that most of us are probably of an age now where we have rather deep pockets and wouldn't pirate in the first place. Why tick us off now? That is stupid marketing!!!

-S

[Soulcommander]

Sub your right....It has been posted but not enough. ALthough I have been accused as well as others as talking to much about SF. LOL Information is power...
I really have never thought of any of this as a campaign. More of what you were doing. Providing awareness.

What you did was ok in my book.
I just have to watch myself a bit more as I feel I have some responsibility to uphold. Hope you can understand what I mean by that! :up:

I understand, but I also look at it from the perspective that I will still have fun with what I purchased already without them taking it away from me over some copyprotection. You can call it my small act of defiance!!! :)

The point is - I am playing their game, fully patch, without their damn protection! It is like me snubbing my nose at them! On the otherhand, I also won't be giving them another penny of my money if they continue to support such barbaric measures in compromising my system.

What I don't really get is that most of us are probably of an age now where we have rather deep pockets and wouldn't pirate in the first place. Why tick us off now? That is stupid marketing!!!

-S

Your right on all points. These are things I already pointed out to Ubisoft. I too have stated on the forums as well as to Ubisoft via Phone conversations as well as email, that my money now stays in my pocket if it involves any software containing Starforce copy protection. Others have taken the same stance and yet others have said we are all fools. That's fine, all I care about is my system and if it means no game oh well then it's no game.

I find it also funny at Ubisoft there is a thread at Might and Magic someone started concerning Starforce........
So the discussion goes on in there about it. But then you have posters coming into the SF thread and posting we should close this thread etc etc. I say this:

You don't have to read it my friend. The Header of the original post is clearly Marked. Just skip over it if it doesn't affect your system. You should be happy...
Ubisoft is aware of it I make sure of all the posts that they are. If you are annoyed then as they say turn it off. No one is forcing you to look.
I might also like to add, we don't go into your posts about the game that have nothing to do with Starforce when your discussing other topics to change the subject to Starforce! So why bother comming here to troll? If all of us would raid your other topics here on the forum then you would have the right to demand action and be upset. Your call for it now is uncalled for!

Well actually you can see what I say here:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&f=1851065692&m=1201072014&r=5751056014#5751056014

It's funny how this happens. I think these fellas have vested interest in the game and are worried about their pockets and if the game is actually going to sell. What else could it be? Its ok for them to troll but if we would do it we would be banned I'm sure of that.

[Soulcommander]

Here the link we been waiting for, I haven't had a chance to read it yet..

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/

It will also be out on the USA site as well same article....

[SUBMAN1]

A thought popped into my head - I still want to play these protected games, yet I refuse to fund the games that are protected in this manner:

Are they turning me into what it is that they are trying to (foolhardily) protect against? :arrgh!:

[SUBMAN1]

Here the link we been waiting for, I haven't had a chance to read it yet..

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/

It will also be out on the USA site as well same article....

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new. Also, it seems to only be on the UK version of Toms Hardware, and not anywhere else! It is just more press that SF probably won't like I guess.

-S

[Soulcommander]

Here the link we been waiting for, I haven't had a chance to read it yet..

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/

It will also be out on the USA site as well same article....

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new. Also, it seems to only be on the UK version of Toms Hardware, and not anywhere else! It is just more press that SF probably won't like I guess.

-S

Well it will be out on the USA Toms soon too. Also...Ubi just banned me from the forums for NO reason! Se how this goes? Even the Ubi moderator that had SF issues GT182 was told off on the forum. Obsurd!

[SUBMAN1]

Here the link we been waiting for, I haven't had a chance to read it yet..

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/

It will also be out on the USA site as well same article....

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new. Also, it seems to only be on the UK version of Toms Hardware, and not anywhere else! It is just more press that SF probably won't like I guess.

-S

Well it will be out on the USA Toms soon too. Also...Ubi just banned me from the forums for NO reason! Se how this goes? Even the Ubi moderator that had SF issues GT182 was told off on the forum. Obsurd!

Sign up again with the handle - GhostOfSC :P Tick them off some more!

[Gizzmoe]

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new.

Yes, that´s too bad. Well, at least now we know SC´s and ThirteenthHouR´s real names. :88) <Edit: No, this of course wasn´t a threat, I don´t have a reason to threaten anybody!>

[SUBMAN1]

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new.

Yes, that´s too bad. Well, at least now we know SC´s and ThirteenthHouR´s real names. :88)

That sounds rather threatening to me.

[Soulcommander]

The article doesn't really bring to light anything new.

Yes, that´s too bad. Well, at least now we know SC´s and ThirteenthHouR´s real names. :88)

yeah Giz that does sound threatning to me too!
you already knew my name and phone number so YOU better just be careful anything that happens to me will go right to YOU!

[Gizzmoe]

Don´t be paranoid! :) Subman pointed out that the article doesn't really bring to light to anything new and all I´ve said that at least we now know your names, so the article contained at least some new informations. Geez, guys, lighten up! :)

[Soulcommander]

Don´t be paranoid! :)
Im not but you better watch youself!

About signing up again it would be easy to do but they use the IP to ban. It would be pointless. I will be talking to Ubi anyway on Monday. LOL It's very funny how these game developers worry about all of the posters on the net that have had issues with SF.

They worry from the pocket book and think banning will stop this! Funny!

[Gizzmoe]

Im not but you better watch youself!

Wow, Larry, calm down, it seems you´re in a very bad mood!

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah, watch yourself, Gizzmoe.....'cuz if you don't..........**fist shaking**

Unrelated: Ever notice how people use 'LOL' in sentences that you know that they are not laughing about? Strange.

[Rotary Crewman]

LOL yeah...


How come everyone is getting so wound up? Remember, arguing on the internet is pretty pointless as neither of you will win. Just chill out, accept that you think the other person is wrong and get on with life.

Now, lets get back to looking at getting rid of Starforge so i can play SHIII

[SUBMAN1]

Don´t be paranoid! :)
Im not but you better watch youself!

About signing up again it would be easy to do but theyuse the IP too to ban. It would be pointless. I will be talking to Ubi anyway on Monday. LOL It's very funny how these game developers worry about all of the posters on the net that have had issues with SF.

They worry from the pocket book and think banning will stop this! Funny!

They can't keep you out (it is impossible) Use a proxy - or release your IP if you have a dynamic IP address. But you must do what you must do.

-S

[Soulcommander]

Its all over this thread that I didn't even start. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=1851065692&m=1201072014&r=8741074014#8741074014
Now Im sure Giz and a few others here find it hilarious I got banned.
Actually it will be a releaf for me as I have been going at it for a long time getting the word out.

Let them Ban me it just fuel's the fire even more.

I too was disappointed with Aarons article but only because I thought Ubi and SF would have comments and be interviewed.
But being a journalist and broadcaster myself I know how this works!
We haven't heard the last of this yet and I give Toms Hardware and Aaron credit for writing this and again bringing it to more peoples attention!

Hats off to Aaron!
:rock:

[Gizzmoe]

Now Im sure Giz and a few others here find it hilarious I got banned.

I don´t find it hilarious, just not very surprising. Sooner or later it had to happen, some Ubisoft guys certainly didn´t like what you were doing there. Well, as Subman said, just get a new account.

[Soulcommander]

I wanted all of you to know here just what occured. Lucky I document everything......
As you know I was banned at the Ubisoft Forums


The reason they say is: Posted by Thunak on Mon December 19 2005 10:20 Active StarForce basher. Hijacks threads and
is generally disruptive. Has been warned to stop this behaviour or be banned. Well, that note says it all.
Soulcommander is back and keeps posting SF-things. Also he promotes a site against SF so I also removed that from
his signature as part of the ban.


This statement above is not all true...Yes Thunak wrote me on Dec. 19 and said I was suppose to be gathering info
for Ubi and told me to stop posting. At that time I PMed him back asking him what was offensive to him and I will
remove it. He never PMed me back! I never Hijack threads, you can see in the links below how I say I never do that!

And I am never disruptive either! Ubisoft knows everything I do as I call them and email them! I have all this
documented thank goodness!

They Banned me for the reasons below:

Then the other day I was told to go to this thread that someone started and interject:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=1851065692&m=1201072014&r=8741074014#8741074014

If you go to the above link you will see what I wrote. I wrote: there is no need to lock this thread. We don't go
into normal threads to post things about Starforce. This thread was started by someone and is labled correctly
involving Starforce and if you don't like the fact we are talking here about it, don't come into the thread and
disrupt it. Ignor it. I can't tell you guys exactly what is there as I have been baneed so I can't see it but you
can! Take a look!

Even another Ubi moderator GT182 who found out he had Starforce problems posts...Look for his post and see what
other moderators have to say to him.
IT'S appalling! A prime example of how Ubisoft treats customers! Even moderators that all of a sudden have the
same experiences we had with Starforce are insulted and threatened!

I didn't even start the topic in the forum, it's not until I go there that I get banned.

As you can also see they don't like the fact that I posted this the headline that went something like this:

NEW ARTICLE FROM TOMS HARDWARE ON STARFORCE

The moderator posts that Im shouting... I gave him another example of an all caps headline. This is biased and
unfair.

But I did write Ubisoft before I was banned about this moderator. Ubisoft always knows what I have been doing I
call and write them on almost every move I make.
Be sure to click on the bottom link so you can see the moderators lame reason for locking the post!

I also give another example of a post that was in caps. At the time of this writing his post was not locked. Who knows if it
is now?


Here's The PM I sent the moderator and also to Ubisoft before I got banned:
What you did was wrong. This is a Headline! Why would you lock this post? How childish? You are worried about the
game making money is all this amounts to isnt it? It's freedom of speech.

I will be reporting this to Ubisoft!

I suggest you be a moderator, do your job appropriatly.

Better lock this one too.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/1851065692/m/7641071804
All caps there as well.

Unlock the thread!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/1851065692/m/1441053014


So it was soon after I sent this when Aarons article hit the net.. that I was banned from the forum.
See what happens when you go into a thread that contains devs worried about pocket $$$ from a new game that is
coming out with Starforce on it! They ban you.

Ubisoft needs to Moderate their moderators I guess!

I hope all of you take the flag now and run with it!

My anti-Starforce banner in my profile was also deleted. I am a threat to them I guess! Little ol me.

Go figure!

It's far from over!
:up:

[SUBMAN1]

So is this Starforce thing turning anyone into a pirate yet? All of these games are easily obtainable without purchase, so is that what needs to be done to turn some heads and say - the protection is turning these people into pirates? Just thinking here since from what I can see, SF is a protection to make the problem worse, not better since wouldn't you rather have a cracked non SF game on your sys than one that compromises your sys?

Maybe I am thinking too much.

-S

PS. An example is Dangerous Waters. It doesn't have any protections on it that could damage my system, so I wait till I have time to go purchase it (IF I can find it in a store around here - that would help too!). I will not play it, get it, or install it till I own it. With these other games that are SF protected - I don't want the store bought copy, yet I may still want the game!

[SUBMAN1]

What stores carry DW? I can't find it in Washington. I refuse to support Steam too, so a DL is out of the question.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

So is this Starforce thing turning anyone into a pirate yet?

That´s not a very good question to ask here on Subsim.com.

I will not play it, get it, or install it till I own it. With these other games that are SF protected - I don't want the store bought copy, yet I may still want the game!

That´s a flawed logic. I´ve commented on this earlier:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=453339#453339

What stores carry DW? I can't find it in Washington. I refuse to support Steam too, so a DL is out of the question.

Amazon.com

[SUBMAN1]

So is this Starforce thing turning anyone into a pirate yet?

That´s not a very good question to ask here on Subsim.com.

I will not play it, get it, or install it till I own it. With these other games that are SF protected - I don't want the store bought copy, yet I may still want the game!

That´s a flawed logic. I´ve commented on this earlier:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=453339#453339

What stores carry DW? I can't find it in Washington. I refuse to support Steam too, so a DL is out of the question.

Amazon.com

How is that flawed logic exactly? It is accurate logic in more ways than one.

Now I am almost convinced you have something to do with SF. Now that begs me to ask the one question you never answered yet, but in what I would call, a more accurate way - are you in anyway employed or affiliated with Starforce?

Failure to say either yes or no will confirm my thoughts on this one. There is no other answer like your beat around the bush answer you gave before.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

How is that flawed logic exactly? It is accurate logic in more ways than one.

Read the link I gave! Here it is again: http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=453339#453339

Generally speaking, people pirate games because they can, not because they have to! There is no justification for piracy, not intrusive copy protections, not high prices, not low income. If someone would tell me that he´d turned into a pirate because of SF I would tell him in no uncertain terms what I think.

Now I am almost convinced you have something to do with SF. Now that begs me to ask the one question you never answered yet, but in what I would call, a more accurate way - are you in anyway employed or affiliated with Starforce?

I have answered this question twice in this thread and dozens of times in other threads.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=455029#455029
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=454989#454989

[SUBMAN1]

I'd have to say your logic is flawed Gizzmoe. I do not pirate games because I can - never have. I however will probably pirate games because of the copyprotection, which I feel is a justifiable cause. THis is where our opinions differ and I beleive mine is more correct, and yours just follows an Orwiellian society.

Quite frankly, the word pirate is one of those words you should despise, but I see you are brainwashed too. Like Trojan Kit or Rootkit, Pirate is out of context because before the games and music industry gave it a twist, it was meant strictly for 'monetary' gain. Playing or copying a game you did not pay for would not fall under that definition.

So, I see you have a double standard to add to your (growing) list of faults as well!! :88)

And, no - you have never answered that SF question to a 'satisfactory' answer. Always trying to answer it indirectly to leave room for doubt. Just say yes or no - are you employed or anyway affiliated with Starforce?

-S

[DanMattia]

Why don't you all knock off the bickering? If he works for Starforce, there's not much we can do about it. In fact, if he does work for them, good--they'll have read what we've been speaking about.

We need to stay united in order to keep this boycott going successfully. Bickering amongst one another is not what we need to do.

[Gizzmoe]

I'd have to say your logic is flawed Gizzmoe. I do not pirate games because I can - never have. I however will probably pirate games because of the copyprotection, which I feel is a justifiable cause.

Illegally downloading games from the Internet or getting them from another source and not paying for them just because you want to avoid SF isn´t justifiable. Period. It would be understandable if you buy the game and then use "certain methods", but what you suggest just isn´t acceptable.

And, no - you have never answered that SF question to a 'satisfactory' answer. Always trying to answer it indirectly to leave room for doubt.

"For the umpteenth time, I don´t work for SF" and "No, I don´t" aren´t indirect answers.

[Gizzmoe]

We need to stay united in order to keep this boycott going successfully. Bickering amongst one another is not what we need to do.

I don´t boycott SF, so I can bicker as much as I want! ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Illegally downloading games from the Internet or getting them from another source and not paying for them just because you want to avoid SF isn´t justifiable. Period. It would be understandable if you buy the game and then use "certain methods", but what you suggest just isn´t acceptable.

Correction - It isn't acceptable to 'you' would be the correct answer.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Why don't you all knock off the bickering? If he works for Starforce, there's not much we can do about it. In fact, if he does work for them, good--they'll have read what we've been speaking about.

We need to stay united in order to keep this boycott going successfully. Bickering amongst one another is not what we need to do.

There is no 'United' with Gizzmoe. He is of an Orweilian society and against the removal of SF from his games. He thinks it is good for us, the control factor that is (Which there isn't - just a damage factor). That is why I continue to test him.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

There is no 'United' with Gizzmoe. He is of an Orweilian society and against the removal of SF from his games. He thinks it is good for us, the control factor that is (Which there isn't - just a damage factor). That is why I continue to test him.

:88) :doh: :dead:

[John Channing]

Illegally downloading games from the Internet or getting them from another source and not paying for them just because you want to avoid SF isn´t justifiable. Period. It would be understandable if you buy the game and then use "certain methods", but what you suggest just isn´t acceptable.

Correction - It isn't acceptable to 'you' would be the correct answer.

-S

Correction. It isn't acceptable here is the only answer.

Period.

Full Stop.

End of Debate.

Adios.

Sayonara.

The Fat Lady Has Sung.

Do I make myself clear?

Neither is taking shots at Gizzmoe (or anyone else) simply because he may not conform to your way of thinking. Gizzmoe has shown admirable restraint regarding some of the insinuations that have been made here.

Anyone want to suggest that I work for Starforce and have a hidden agenda? I promise you the results would be very different.

Now let's get the discussion back on track and in the realm of the respectable.

JCC

[John Channing]

That is why I continue to test him.

-S

This would be a good time to stop.

JCC

[DanMattia]

Piracy is wrong, no argument against that. Piracy, for whatever means, is wrong. The best thing to do is to boycott the company with Starforce rather than pirating the game.

[SUBMAN1]

Piracy is wrong, no argument against that. Piracy, for whatever means, is wrong. The best thing to do is to boycott the company with Starforce rather than pirating the game.

Granted, it is not the accepted answer, and I'll admit that, but neither was the Boston Tea Party.

-S

PS. I apologize if I ticked anyone off, but just arguing for arguments sake to see what the outcome is. Is SF right? No, and if someone wants to challenge that, that is what I am challenging. I am not saying - go out and pirate X game because it has Starforce - that is the logical thought pattern for rebellion to the system however and that is what I am saying.

[bradclark1]

Anyone want to suggest that I work for Starforce and have a hidden agenda? I promise you the results would be very different.
JCC

Well, I did hear a rumor. :-j

[SUBMAN1]

Anyone want to suggest that I work for Starforce and have a hidden agenda? I promise you the results would be very different.
JCC

Well, I did hear a rumor. :-j

Don't even get me started! :D

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing - This article was never posted on Toms USA - I just looked again. It is only on the UK version of the site.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

One more thing - This article was never posted on Toms USA - I just looked again. It is only on the UK version of the site.

It´s on http://www.tgdaily.com, an affiliate site. The link to the article also appears on the main Tomshardware.com site.

[Soulcommander]

One more thing - This article was never posted on Toms USA - I just looked again. It is only on the UK version of the site.

-S

Subman...First off... I perfectly understand your frustration and how you feel. I have emails from loyal UBI customers saying they have already began thinking of doing what you suggested. And what people do in their own living rooms and bedrooms or basements is no concern of mine. And you nor I nor any moderator can stop them... Maybe the Internet police can? LOL

As far as the article... Aaron told me it will be located in the USA as well.
I will ask him for more detail on this for you. The article will not change at all...Same article.

HA here it is: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/13/starforce_revisited/


SC

[John Channing]

One more thing - This article was never posted on Toms USA - I just looked again. It is only on the UK version of the site.

-S

Subman...First off... I perfectly understand your frustration and how you feel. I have emails from loyal UBI customers saying they have already began thinking of doing what you suggested. And what people do in their own living rooms and bedrooms or basements is no concern of mine. And you nor I nor any moderator can stop them... Maybe the Internet police can? LOL

As far as the article... Aaron told me it will be located in the USA as well.
I will ask him for more detail on this for you. The article will not change at all...Same article.

HA here it is: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/13/starforce_revisited/


SC

Perhaps not, but I can sure as hell stop the discussions about it here!

Wanna see?

JCC

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing - This article was never posted on Toms USA - I just looked again. It is only on the UK version of the site.

-S

Subman...First off... I perfectly understand your frustration and how you feel. I have emails from loyal UBI customers saying they have already began thinking of doing what you suggested. And what people do in their own living rooms and bedrooms or basements is no concern of mine. And you nor I nor any moderator can stop them... Maybe the Internet police can? LOL

As far as the article... Aaron told me it will be located in the USA as well.
I will ask him for more detail on this for you. The article will not change at all...Same article.

HA here it is: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/13/starforce_revisited/


SC

Perhaps not, but I can sure as hell stop the discussions about it here!

Wanna see?

JCC

No need to test your powers here though - "I agree!" "I agree!" Is that good enough? :D

-S

[Skybird]

Guys,

make your votes with your wallets, and Starforce either will stay (then all discussions are useless), or it will not trigger discussions anymore, for it will be gone.

I know of two companies at least in Germany that have kicked it out due to losses in sales for their software products. Probably there are more. The wallet-method works, and very well so.

The generalization that all customers complaining about SF are just hallucinating or have a system-typical problem or are potential pirates or do not know nothing, cannot be defended seriously, and that the producers of SF have censored, deleted, banned even polite questions and critical feedback is obvious fact for everyone who has visited their forums in the past and saw this kind of things happening - like me. The ring 1 - ring 3 issue I cannot judge, for I am not technically competent to do so, but the arguments that describe it sound reasonable for me. It also was repeatedly mentioned and illustrated in various boards now, that SF actively tries to manipulate the general anti-SF-atmosphere on several boards, by sending their "agents" there and making according postings, nevertheless hide their identity of having relations with SF. I do not say by that that this is taking place in this forum, too, but I would advise both critics and defenders of SF to formulate their arguments accordingly. Else you can easily get misunderstood.

Last I say: I had problems whenever I had SF beeing part of my installation. probelems did not pop up if i made sure that SF was gone. multiple experience like this, on two different systems. I do not need more arguments.

Again: make your votes with your wallets. That is the only language business does understand. Petitions will not change anything , if the wallet-vote shows a different result, so spare your time for something more precious.

[Soulcommander]

On the question of who chooses the copy protection...
I just got a reponse from Ubisoft.
They choose it.
I actually knew this as they told me in the past they had a contract with SF. :yep:

SC

[DanMattia]

A Note:

I was just interviewed for a radio show regarding Starforce. More details to be posted as they come in.

[SUBMAN1]

A Note:

I was just interviewed for a radio show regarding Starforce. More details to be posted as they come in.

Cool. Is it an internet friendly radio that streams their broadcast?

-S

[DanMattia]

Cool. Is it an internet friendly radio that streams their broadcast?

-S

Yeah. It'll go live February 22. I'll give details then.

I didn't do a stellar performance, personally, but I got the point across, I think.

[ThirteenthHouR]

Some of you may be interested what I have done, given the way that some Ubisoft have been treating the users in the Ubi forums in the past few days.

I have issued this notice:

Under the Sale of Goods Act in the United Kingdom I am now calling on Ubisoft to prove that these errors that are occuring are not caused by a known fault prior to manufacture (Namely technical issues with Security Technologies, Starforce Virtual Protection driver). .

Under European law it now falls upon Ubisoft to prove that these issues where not known, are not being caused by software installed with their games.


Simple guide to the sale of goods act on the Department of Trade and Industry site.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

[John Channing]

Some of you may be interested what I have done, given the way that some Ubisoft have been treating the users in the Ubi forums in the past few days.

I have issued this notice:

Under the Sale of Goods Act in the United Kingdom I am now calling on Ubisoft to prove that these errors that are occuring are not caused by a known fault prior to manufacture (Namely technical issues with Security Technologies, Starforce Virtual Protection driver). .

Under European law it now falls upon Ubisoft to prove that these issues where not known, are not being caused by software installed with their games.


Simple guide to the sale of goods act on the Department of Trade and Industry site.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

I thought it was a logical impossiblity to prove a negative.

JCC

[Soulcommander]

Some of you may be interested what I have done, given the way that some Ubisoft have been treating the users in the Ubi forums in the past few days.

I have issued this notice:

Under the Sale of Goods Act in the United Kingdom I am now calling on Ubisoft to prove that these errors that are occuring are not caused by a known fault prior to manufacture (Namely technical issues with Security Technologies, Starforce Virtual Protection driver). .

Under European law it now falls upon Ubisoft to prove that these issues where not known, are not being caused by software installed with their games.


Simple guide to the sale of goods act on the Department of Trade and Industry site.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

I thought it was a logical impossiblity to prove a negative.

JCC

I thought it was very illogical to also prove that SF copy protection was flawed with Starforces rules of their contest.

These UK laws are written by and for the consumer.
Not by people that are playing games with contests.
Did you read the guide John?

If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

[Onkel Neal]

Can you point me to some top tier journalists who have tested and evaluated SF? I've found one: StarForce Interview and Piracy Discussion http://www.firingsquad.com/features/starforce_interview/

It gives an interview with SF and their replies to questions.

Have there been any other independant reviews of SF?

thanks.
Neal

[ThirteenthHouR]

I wish that article was unbiased.

However its based upon 80% Security Technologies Marketing spiel and 20% industry issued hype.

Those of us in the industry (That do not listen to marketing spiel, only genuine facts) are fully aware that the markets are barely affected by Software piracy. The reality is that although people are purchasing more than they ever did the market has not grown enough to compensate for the saturation/Diversity of platforms.

Sadly what could have been a good balanced article representing both sides of the argument ends up being yet more of the standard issue media spiel.

Most of the media are to reliant upon being at press conferences to risk losing that position to their rivals. So rarely these days do we get members of the press going that extra mile to report what is really going on.

Gone are the days when we could trust the press to supply us real untainted information.

If you want real reports, search on the blog sites. There data is so raw that even Governments try to silence them.

Lets look at Rootkits, did any top tier journalist test for Rootkits and publish it before the class action was brought?

Its the same with TrojanKits, they are all aware of them, however nobody will risk going to press with the entire story until they have the legal assurance of litigation being in place.

Realistically does not take a Top Tier Journalist or somebody like me that has been in the industry for over 1/4 of Century to tell you that this is a time bomb of issues just waiting to go off.

DRM's fail, Service packs kill them. How long do you think it is going to be financially viable to support older versions. When SP3 hits your systems do you think the likes of Ubisoft etc will be willing to still fund updates for a DRM on what is by then a seriously bargain bin game?

So wave bye bye to your favourite games.........

btw its good to see you up in this section taking an interest.

[TteFAboB]

I get it, we can only trust information that comes with a "Boycott Starforce" tag.

[jumpy]

hehe, probably the same as we can only trust information that comes from SF itself...

(you can trust that, 'cause I got a 'boycott SF' tag)

Sry, sarcasm off. 'Vested interests' as it were on both sides of the argument, but I'll say this; neither Soulcommander or ThirteenthHouR have made my ROM drive spin up endlessly by their talk. But SF's words have not fixed my problems, and since certain drivers are now gone from my system so is my spinning drive issue.

[SUBMAN1]

hehe, probably the same as we can only trust information that comes from SF itself...

(you can trust that, 'cause I got a 'boycott SF' tag)

Sry, sarcasm off. 'Vested interests' as it were on both sides of the argument, but I'll say this; neither Soulcommander or ThirteenthHouR have made my ROM drive spin up endlessly by their talk. But SF's words have not fixed my problems, and since certain drivers are now gone from my system so is my spinning drive issue.

Hey Jumpy,

Can you enlighten me to what your sig says? I don't understand that all your base belong to Islam thing - does that mean all of us belong to Islam? Or what? Sounds ominous!

-S

[ThirteenthHouR]

I get it, we can only trust information that comes with a "Boycott Starforce" tag.

That is not precisely the case, many other independents are prepared to stick their necks out and produce a balanced article on these issues.

Personally I was shocked by just how biased the Firing Squad response was. They did have the means to produce a well balanced and informative article, but instead chose to take a cracker/pirate bashing stance which really does detract from the real technical issues that are involved (A real cop out in most peoples eyes).

As I said nobody (Other than sales executives buys into that junk), however the problem is that it is sales executives who decide what DRM's they are going to use onf software. If they had actually run the complexity of SF's driver past the engineers they would have pointed out that although it is extremely clever in concept. With the complexity of the verification process it is just a catalogue of errors waiting to happen.

In the case of the Demo or Free game versions, the only way it can protect is to attack the ATAPI filter section of the registry to prevent 3rd party apps like Kernel debuggers and drive emulators from working. If this only occurred whilst the game was running nobody would have any problems with that, however these are permanent changes which mostly result in Code 31, Code 32, Code 19, Code 39, or Code 41 errors within windows.

This includes, the illusion that your CD/DVD drive has failed (Unless you own a plextor, LC, Liteon or Samsung in which it can be actual physical failure, Ubisoft already paid Soulcommander in kind for the damage caused to his Plextor drive by SF's Virtual IDE protection Driver, they gave him 4* latest title PS2 games as compensation, so it shard to understand how they can deny this is happening when they have already accepted liability). Problems with burning apps, unable to run many programming IDE's (because according to Security Technologies, because you program code you must be a cracker or a pirate), you cannot use Alcohol120% or any other virtual drive in their eyes either as you must be stealing the software (Although those 3rd party applications actually have many legitimate uses).


Before you jump on me about this, go back and look at that rather biased article Security Technologies openly admit to blocking those applications.

Do you really think Security Technologies should be deciding what you can or cannot run on your system when the game is not running?

[jumpy]

hehe, probably the same as we can only trust information that comes from SF itself...

(you can trust that, 'cause I got a 'boycott SF' tag)

Sry, sarcasm off. 'Vested interests' as it were on both sides of the argument, but I'll say this; neither Soulcommander or ThirteenthHouR have made my ROM drive spin up endlessly by their talk. But SF's words have not fixed my problems, and since certain drivers are now gone from my system so is my spinning drive issue.

Hey Jumpy,

Can you enlighten me to what your sig says? I don't understand that all your base belong to Islam thing - does that mean all of us belong to Islam? Or what? Sounds ominous!

-S

lol np, scroll down the page in the following link for posts by TteFAboB and myself.
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=48205&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=base+belong+islam

It's a comment from TteFAboB playing on this (http://protos.dk/2005/06/22/all-your-base-are-belong-to-us/), at the time I thought it was particularily funny and was ideal material for a sig, as I mention further down the page in the subsim link.
Not meant to be overly sinister, just an amusing reflection on things given the current trend of middleast topics here on Subsim ;)

[TteFAboB]

If I think anything, it is that Starforce has already received so much negative publicity, and completely failed to give a satisfactory response, that it shouldn't be chosen to protect anything for that reason alone.

"Darling, it is not enough to be honest, you have to seem honest" - said Caesar, even if Starforce was harmless, they failed to address the public and answer the accusations properly, that interview was very superficial, I take good care of my discs but I once had a CD-ROM scratch deeper than that.

[John Channing]

These UK laws are written by and for the consumer.
Not by people that are playing games with contests.
Did you read the guide John?

If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

Couldn't be bothered. But your quote above is quite a bit different from the description of the law you provided, a description which struck me as amusing.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Things don't actually work that way in real life.

JCC

[Onkel Neal]

I'm not jumping on the anti-SF bandwagon until I see some credible testing done by reputable sources. I have not experienced any problems with SF encoded games.

[ThirteenthHouR]

An off topic note, should anybody be aware of who is calling and making Death threats against Soulcommander and his family.

Please report information here: http://www.fbi.gov

The most recent call occured on his landline during a conference call on SKYPE. So it was overheard by myself and GT182. 03:57 Hrs GMT 16 February 2006.


Guys we know feelings are running high about this , but threatening a disabled guy and his family with phone comments like

"There will be dire consequences if you do not stop posting on the net" (That is the milder part which I can post here). is not the way to go about things and is a Serious Federal offence in the United States.

Just to remind peeps here Soulcommander has been trying to help end users and the companies involved with SF issues. To reach some sort of amicable compromise. I do not honestly believe that anybody here would condone these sort of actions against him or his family.

[Gizzmoe]

:o

I´m sorry to hear that. I hope he had the opportunity to record the call.

[ThirteenthHouR]

I believe so.

Heck many of us disagree with each other over SF but this is a serious situation. We are not just talking about flames or heated arguments on forums anymore. These are real death threats.

As some of you know, I know personally what it is like to be set up for assassination by Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and was very nearly killed back in October 2002. So I know just how scary threats on your life can be.

I just want to add that our thoughts and support are with you Soulcommander.

[jumpy]

@ ThirteenthHouR and his last two posts.

That's despicable, truely. :down:

Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[lesrae]

I'm not jumping on the anti-SF bandwagon until I see some credible testing done by reputable sources. I have not experienced any problems with SF encoded games.

Ditto

[Rotary Crewman]

Terrible news about Soulcommander :(

On a side note, if i run SHIII, use the SF removal tool, will SF reappear next time i run SHIII? Sorry if this is already explained in the thread.

[Gizzmoe]

On a side note, if i run SHIII, use the SF removal tool, will SF reappear next time i run SHIII?

Yes.

[Rotary Crewman]

Bugger, sod that then.

[Gizzmoe]

The most recent call occured on his landline during a conference call on SKYPE.

I´ve just noticed that it apparently wasn´t the first time he was threatened by phone in regard to his anti-SF activities. How often had this happened before? When did it start? Was it always the same guy?

By the way, you should also post something on the Ubisoft forums, where he was undoubtedly much more active than here, and also on Glop.org and your site. There´s no information about this on these sites yet.

[SUBMAN1]

An off topic note, should anybody be aware of who is calling and making Death threats against Soulcommander and his family.

Please report information here: http://www.fbi.gov

The most recent call occured on his landline during a conference call on SKYPE. So it was overheard by myself and GT182. 03:57 Hrs GMT 16 February 2006.


Guys we know feelings are running high about this , but threatening a disabled guy and his family with phone comments like

"There will be dire consequences if you do not stop posting on the net" (That is the milder part which I can post here). is not the way to go about things and is a Serious Federal offence in the United States.

Just to remind peeps here Soulcommander has been trying to help end users and the companies involved with SF issues. To reach some sort of amicable compromise. I do not honestly believe that anybody here would condone these sort of actions against him or his family.

That is rediculous!!! Do you have the time they called? I'll you have to do is have your phone company find out who called you at that time and then relay that information on to the FBI.

-S

[GT182]

Whoever made the calls will be found. They'd better be worried too as the authorities are now involved.

[Gizzmoe]

How many calls from how many different people were there?

[GT182]

As it's in the authorities hands and a part of the investigation, it can not be given out. So do not ask.

[SUBMAN1]

It would seem SF is the cause of stuttering in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=99729

-S

[GT182]

Funny thing is there is nothing said about any copy protection being in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. And, I have the box right here in front of me. Not installed but I do have it.

[SUBMAN1]

Funny thing is there is nothing said about any copy protection being in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. And, I have the box right here in front of me. Not installed but I do have it.

There isn't. Starforce was loaded by another app - its mere presence is what is causing the stuttering. Falcon 4 is copyprotect free. It is just that if Starforce is installed, you get some major stuttering problems when playing F4. Remove StarForce and all your problems go away.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Now this is a classic - pulled form one of the mods on StarForces board. Notice that no one is allowed to say anything negative about SF, and if they do have something bad to say, the mod tells them they are not allowed to post a link to outside websites that validate or back up that information - Lets all just bury our heads in the sand now!


Repost from StarForce website:

DG
Nov 8 2005, 04:52 PM
QUOTE(ccap16 @ Nov 8 2005, 01:04 PM) *

Simple- Starforce messes up your SATA drivers.


ccap16,

Please don't post false and insubstantial claims on these forums. While constructive criticism is appreciated - ungrounded and false claims are not. Please also refrain from posting links to web sites that back such information up. StarForce messes up no SATA drivers.


bunnie,

I could advise you to try the following:

1) Install the latest StarForce drivers. You may download them from the following location: http://www.star-force.com/support/sfdrvup.zip

2) Install the latest drivers for your motherboard's chipset. In order to provide you with the relevant link, please tell me what model/brand your motherboard is.

Have a nice day!

[GT182]

Typical and shows they want to suppress the issues. Sounds like a communistic plot to me. You do know where S-F is made don't you? ;)

[sik1977]

Typical and shows they want to suppress the issues. Sounds like a communistic plot to me. You do know where S-F is made don't you? ;)

Lets not politocize starforce. The communists wouldn't have much need for a DRM anyway.

Its all about money.

[SUBMAN1]

Typical and shows they want to suppress the issues. Sounds like a communistic plot to me. You do know where S-F is made don't you? ;)

Lets not politocize starforce. The communists wouldn't have much need for a DRM anyway.

Its all about money.

It is all about money - and probably all about the Russian mob the way I read the death threats as described in this thread.

[Wim Libaers]

Typical and shows they want to suppress the issues. Sounds like a communistic plot to me. You do know where S-F is made don't you? ;)

Lets not politocize starforce. The communists wouldn't have much need for a DRM anyway.

Its all about money.

Oh, a very restrictive DRM could have been useful. No copying at all, of anything, without permission (to stop anti-communist messages). More intrusive DRM can also be expected here.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

(some acronyms have changed since that document was made)

[GT182]

And to further add to what Wim Libaers is saying, check here.... http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html

Remember George Orwell's book "1984"? Well, it is coming soon to a computer near you. Key word being Fritz-Chip.

This is scarry and everyone should be very very afraid. Computers and the internet will change drastically in the near future. Especailly when Windows Vista hits us. "Big Brother" will really be watching everything you say and do. You will not be able to protest anything. If you do you will face fines and prison. All software will be licensed, nothing free will be able to be run at all. Your cohones will not be yours anymore. As if they are now. LOL

And for the nay sayers, read everything you can on this. This is no joke as it will affect everyone world wide. Even your phone will be a part of it, especially for those with VoIP, PDAs and cell phones.

Enjoy what you have now. ;)

[DanMattia]

The interview with me and a few others, including Starforce's PR, will be in Cyber Shack's episode 317, coming the 22nd of February.

This week, however, Cyber Shack had a SHORT segment about Starforce. You can hear episode 316 here (http://cybershack.com/radio_archive.asp). Keep in mind that four more interviews will be coming on next week's episode.

[Soulcommander]

Hello all, I know alot of you are wondering what has been going on?
Well yours truly and 13thhour have been getting info to you as best we can. Now Cyber Shack brings you some info from:
Dennis Zhidkov (StarForce Technologies)
Steven Levy (Newsweek magazine)
Dan Mattia (Game-Overdrive.com)
Larry Freese (Consumer Rights Activist)

I also want to add that alot of the interview with myself was deleted for length requirements I'm sure. My interview was approximately an hour. I want to add that I do NOT use nor have I ever used Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120% and yet I still had a CDRW drive fail! That did not get on the interview your about to listen to. Among many other facts.

Listen to it several times to get the full affect of people like Steven Levy and what they have to say.

The web page:
http://cybershack.com/comments.asp?id=453

Direct feed click here (http://downloads.cybershack.com/CyberShack-Features/StarForce-Feature-full-US-112k.mp3)

[Onkel Neal]

Thanks.

[Onkel Neal]

"Why should I have this (SF) on my computer, I'm not a pirate".

Really pointless. Maybe the installation menu should let the user check [x] "I am not a pirate, I will not make copies of this game" and then it will skip installing SF.... :-?

[Onkel Neal]

"Why should I have this (SF) on my computer, I'm not a pirate".

Really pointless. Maybe the installation menu should let the user check [x] "I am not a pirate, I will not make copies of this game" and then it will skip installing SF.... :-?

And one guy says the blame goes to both the publisher and SF.... forgeting someone?

Very good summary by the host, though. :up:

[Soulcommander]

"Why should I have this (SF) on my computer, I'm not a pirate".

Really pointless. Maybe the installation menu should let the user check [x] "I am not a pirate, I will not make copies of this game" and then it will skip installing SF.... :-?

And one guy says the blame goes to both the publisher and SF.... forgeting someone?

Very good summary by the host, though. :up:

Yes I agree very good summary. This sort of stuff brings up ratings. I'm a Radio Announcer myself. Plus as you well know Media is suppose to take a neutral stance until the the story comes to an end.

:up:

[Soulcommander]

"Why should I have this (SF) on my computer, I'm not a pirate".

Really pointless. Maybe the installation menu should let the user check [x] "I am not a pirate, I will not make copies of this game" and then it will skip installing SF.... :-?

And one guy says the blame goes to both the publisher and SF.... forgeting someone?

Very good summary by the host, though. :up:
I believe Dan made that comment. Is there anything you would like to add to it?

[DanMattia]

And one guy says the blame goes to both the publisher and SF.... forgeting someone?

Very good summary by the host, though. :up:

The question I was asked was who is at blame for the problems Starforce is causing.

Yes, the hackers are the #1 reason, but a) that's kind of obvious, b) there's alternative methods, as I also detailed.

The publishers have known about the problems for at least a year. They have done nothing to fix these problems, even going so far to ban those against Starforce from their forums. And Starforce openly calls everyone who has a problem with Starforce "beginner-level hackers".