Any chance of a non-SF version of SH3?

I noticed a few posts poping up every now an then about SF, XP64, Vista and what not. The usual reply's get ppl in trouble. Now it accoured to me that if Ubisoft has done away with SF from further releases of SH3 (bargin bin sets / online D/L's) and for the new SH4 release, is said removal of SF and its related issues any longer a cause for thread closers.

Personaly I think not since Ubisoft has see fit to dump all SF software from the current D/Lable and bargin bin release's and basicly told SF where to get off. So why should we be penilised for doing more or less what Ubisoft is doing / has done?

Oh btw, this post is NOT about how to or where to get the 'fix'. Its about double standards being applied to those who have only followed what Ubisoft has now done. Pls stay on subject or this 1 will be locked as well

[joea]

Good post Gibs, I agree 100%. I was under the impression though that the bargain bin versions of SH3 still have SF, or is that not the case? :hmm:

[The Noob]

There is a special version of Silent Hunter III availible in Germany, included in the "Gold Games 9" pack i think, wich can be played without the DVD, fully network functional and everything. So i think SF has been removed from it, otherwise it would not work this way.

[joea]

Originally Posted by The Noob

There is a special version of Silent Hunter III availible in Germany, included in the "Gold Games 9" pack i think, wich can be played without the DVD, fully network functional and everything. So i think SF has been removed from it, otherwise it would not work this way.

Excellent news for those who don't have SH3 yet!!

I already bought SH3, in fact soon after it came out. I don't have any more problems with SF though as I...*banned*

[Gizzmoe]

Moved to "Comments to SUBSIM Review".

It´s none of our business what you do with your copy of SH3 at home. But this is a private forum and there are forum rules. And they make perfect sense!

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.

It would seriously harm those relationships if Neal would allow people to posts links to cracks. He will never allow that, not without a written permission of the publishers.

If you now say "Hey, I didn´t even say that it should be allowed to post links to cracks" please don´t forget that basically every time someone even mentions a crack there´s the question "Where can I get it?", or this person will contact the poster via PM. Do we know what he will do with the crack? No. Perhaps he´ll then makes copies of SH3 for his friends after he got the crack. Perhaps not. That alone is reason enough not to allow this.

So in conclusion: Don´t discuss cracks here. Please.

[The Noob]

I am getting SH3 again in the Gold Games 9 pack just to get rid of Starforce and the DVD issue. I can only reccomend this to everyone.

[Pants]

SF should of been tested properly before shipping

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Ok, please explain how it would be possible to rule out that the crack won´t be used for illegal purposes, ie. making illegal copies. If you say it can´t be ruled out please explain why Neal should support illegal behaviour.

It's not possible to rule this out, however, these are freely available via certain search engines. Do the manufactures hold these engines directly responsible for supporting cracks/hacks?

Although Neal maybe seen to be indirectly supporting this behavior by allowing this to happen on his forum there will be transparency regarding who is passing these files around. As such, accountabilty will lie with the supplier/end user.

I also understand why it is a good idea to maintain a good working relationship with the developer/manufacturers.

I don't condone cracks/hack but I do understand why legitimate owners want to use them. Some manufacturers even release official patches which negate the need for the CD/DVD to be used.(this is not the case with SH3, but other UBI titles work this way)

It is a difficult problem, however this is Neal's Forum and as such he has made the rules, we must abide by them.

(OT. BTW do you get my PM?)

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by danlisa

It's not possible to rule this out, however, these are freely available via certain search engines

Yes, but many apparently don´t even know what Google is or how it works, that´s why they ask here.

Do the manufactures hold these engines directly responsible for supporting cracks/hacks?

Yes, they do, there are several examples for that. Like several Bittorrent sites that were forced to close. They had no illegal content on their site, only the Torrent files, but they directly supported piracy. Or even a pure Bittorrent search engine that didn´t even Torrent files...

Although Neal maybe seen to be indirectly supporting this behavior by allowing this to happen on his forum there will be transparency regarding who is passing these files around. As such, accountabilty will lie with the supplier/end user.

Allowing people to post a link to a crack site would be more than just indirect support.

I don't condone cracks/hack but I do understand why legitimate owners want to use them.

Me, too. But Subsim is not the place where they will find them, not even a link to them. One of the reasons is, like I already said, that it´s not possible to control who downloads them and for what reason.

(OT. BTW do you get my PM?)

Yes.

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:

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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse

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:

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.

Well said, Gizz and Von Hesse.

Cdr Gibbs, I see your point. I have e-mailed Ubisoft and will see what they think about circumventing SH3 with SF. It's possible they agree with you. Will let you know what I find out.

Neal

[Dowly]

I agree that the cracks should be left out of this forum, but I also agree that a crack for SHIII that circles around the SF is "legal". As ubi have dumped the SF, they should have released some tools to remove it from the installation. Without any official tools, ppl have to rely on illegal tools to get something out of their installation that should not be there and what is already "un-supported" by the game developers.

Just my 20000108,00 cents.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I agree that the cracks should be left out of this forum, but I also agree that a crack for SHIII that circles around the SF is "legal". As ubi have dumped the SF, they should have released some tools to remove it from the installation. Without any official tools, ppl have to rely on illegal tools to get something out of their installation that should not be there and what is already "un-supported" by the game developers.

Just my 20000108,00 cents.

Exactly Dowly, after all UBI already provide a no-cd dll for people with the FB/PF flight sim and have problems with the cd. Totally legal, if not publicised.

[Dowly]

And to add to my previous post, everyone have the right to make one copy of their CD/DVD for personal use/backup. Starforce doesnt allow that, so ubi really should release tools to get rid of the SF.

[The Noob]

Anything new from UBI, Neal? :hmm: