Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cdre Gibs
Same can be said for the new copy I have of SH3, No Protection on the disk, pry tell whats to stop some1 from doing the very same thing with this disk - Nothing. Thats the point I'm trying to make, but your not getting it. Its NO LONGER PROTECTED, so why should ppl be penilized for trying to find a SOLUTION to known issues regards to XP64/Vista, ect ect. If Ubisoft have seen fit to remove the Software protection, what right have you to enforce this malicious software protection onto any1. As far as I can see, none.
|
People shouldn't be penalized. But the point you're not getting is that subsim isn't the place to be discussing, or seeking, those means. Gizzmoe has been patiently and politely trying to explain that Neal has spent a great deal of effort and time, as he stated:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gizzmoe
Over the years Neal has built up very good relationships to numerous developers and publishers. They know that Subsim is a reputable forum, they know that there is a zero-tolerance policy regarding cracks, they trust Neal and the forum. This has advantages for the whole community. They listen to our feedback, and Neal gets feedback from them.
|
Neither Gizzmoe, nor subsim, is 'enforcing' 'malicious software protection' on anyone. They
are enforcing a zero-tolerance policy regarding cracks; linking to them, sharing them or even talking about them. Because they can't control what even discussing them might result. And because that could possibly seriously damage the relationship Neal --and thus subsim-- has with gaming companies.
I would think that, if anyone has a serious issue with Ubisoft over their now-excluding SF from re-issues of a game that previously had SF, Ubisoft's forums would be the proper venue for such.