So rather than blame thier design, company model or just the fates, they blame pirates.

Amen. Moo3 *shudder* there's a piece of work that was a huge surprise to its fans. A bad surprise at that. No amount of copy-protection could stop people trying to get their money back at the retailer.

Let's provide another example, shall we? Might and Magic 9. While I liked the M&M Rpgs(and the HOMM TBS games). Nine was rushed out the door, literally. Jon Van Caneghem was forced to put it out and provided little to no input. I really felt that after 7 they just started changing names... the monsters are the same, the dungeons.. who knows, same old spells.. wait lets make them use 4 characters instead of 6. Ubisoft now has the copyrights, despite what NWC Ceo said about the matter, "I'll never sell them Ubisoft. "

I bought almost every title with "Might and Magic" in it (Pc titles ). I drew the line when it crossed into FPS. I like many others would want to play the new titles HoMM 5, and Messiah of Might & Magic but not if its coming with Starforce.

I think the poster is a little confused about the "boycott" thing all together. There is no way gamers can boycott StarForce because none of us buys StarForce in the first place. We only choose not to buy games that utilize StarForce, so we are blaming the people that use the guns and not blaming the gun manufacturer as you put it.

I want to make another point here as well. StarDock success in GC2 is an eye sore for StarForce. They fear StarDock in that this success could convince the rest of the PC gaming industry into following the same approach. If it does turn out that way, StarForce's business would collapse. Hopefully this would bring some console gamers back to the PC market.

@dmcccdmn: I'm confused?
The thing is, people are attacking the company starforce, instead of the companies that utilize Starforces products.

I found an awesome site with some information about StarForce, including a list of games using it. http://www.glop.org/starforce/
I don't mean to pull anyone away from this site, but I thought that everyone should take a look.

StarForce supplies a product which publishers want, and it works better than the rest of its competitors.
And It's stupid to blame StarForce for that GalCiv II torrent link since it wasn't the company that did it but one of their employees!
I'll have to ask you something though: If a copyprotection would emerge which would couldn't be emulated or cracked (Everything can be reverseenginered, lets say it takes too long) and which wouldn't damage any soft- or hardware, would you still complain then??

And I consider the "privacy" argument concering the StarForce drivers as bogus since many other programs install drivers that gets lvl0 access. (Saw a list somewhere. Was over 30 programs, many of them anti-viruses and firewalls).

Shouldn't have to type this last things but I feel kinda forced to do it as some people would surely insunate something about it otherwise....no I don't like software that can damage my soft- or hardware.

@Campaigner:

The difference is that, when you install a AntiVirus application, you expect it to be installed with the necessary rights to remove viruses.
When you install a Firewall, you expect it to be installed with enough access to both avoid being fubared by other apps, as well as protecting your network reasonably well.

Both of these application types are installed with the full knowledge of the user, and believe me, I'd get pretty pissed if a game demo I installed came with a firewall piggybacking that installed itself without my knowledge or consent and proceeded to mess up my computer configuration, and even more so when it did not even have a uninstallation or a entry in add/remove programs.

the company Starforce are to blame for incompatilibty issues, bad support, PIO Stepdown and broken DVD+/-RW drives, BlueScreens, slow loading, not-loading at all.

The Publishers of software that utilizes Starforce restriction are to blame for installation not informing you, readme/faq/text not informing you, uninstaller not removing it, using Starforce, having some support themselves - and moving some support to Starforce in russia where many of the support engineers have a "Unique" way of communicating with their users, incompatibility issues with updated windows versions (x64, vista).

And the customer is to blame for purchasing software with the knowledge of it being infected with starforce, thus supporting its future.

I'd complain as long as restriction software is used on games, it affects the performance of the games, and it requires me to use a dongle (the cd in drive) to play the game. Both of which are detriment to the gaming enjoyment.

One good example, which was the end of me buying games (not related to starforce):

Playing Raven Shield required Cd-in-Drive. So you insert the CD, then connect to a server to play. Well, this sucked, disconnect, maybe I should play Battlefield 1942 - Desert Combat instead. Remove CD, find BAttlefield CD, Insert battlefield CD, connect, authentication, checking cd, playing for 15 minutes... new map, checking cd, Maybe I should play Flashpoint instead. Exit Battlefield CD, Find Flashpoint Cd, Insert Flashpoint CD, Launch game, Check CD, connecting, oh darn - game already in progress, check other servers, no servers available with gametype wanted (CTI), exit game, remove cd, maybe play Morrowind, find morrowind CD, insert morrowind cd, Hey, I bought morrowind on Launch date - lucky I am to get the SafeDisc Performance Issues, Crash.

So, the games are old, but the system of having a dongle to play - e v e r y - f u c k i n g - g a m e - I - o w n has not changed.
GIVE ME a "#&"... Let me AUTHENTICATE the CD ONLINE, GIVE ME a "LICENSE KEY", let me put it as a file. Have the game check that file and not require the CD. If they ABSOLUTELY have to check something, I mean.

Even better: Follow the Stardock model of not fucking over your Customers.

I agree that switching cd:s isn't fun and that the StarDock way (easy to pirate, hard to get updates) is great, but even those updates aren't that hard to get for non-legitimate buyers it seems

That "license key" thing also seems like a good idea, but it has been cracked in every iteration so far.

And it seems copyprotection does help according to Warlords V producer Steve Fawkner.
Link

Quite sad really

instanst: I agree that switching cd:s isn't fun and that the StarDock way (easy to pirate, hard to get updates) is great, but even those updates aren't that hard to get for non-legitimate buyers it seems

That "license key" thing also seems like a good idea, but it has been cracked in every iteration so far.

And it seems copyprotection does help according to Warlords V producer Steve Fawkner.
Link

Quite sad really

Campaigner:

Not really.

Mr. Fawkner seems to be saying that he released his first games with no CP, and when he released the sequels with CP they sold 3-5 times as much.

*However*, GalCiv1 was released with no CP (on the game itself, anyway), and GalCiv2, also released with no CP on the game itself, has already sold something like 3 times as much and still going.

Obviously there's other factors at work here. I.E. it's apparently *not* the addition of CP that increased sales, since GC2 didn't add CP, yet is also selling better than its predecessor.

Peace & Luv, Liz

@Jeysie: I think they would earn more by removing CP on games, as its only a nuisance to those who purchase the "licensed" product. And it does'nt actually "PROTECT" against anything.
But they are honest and they say that the objective is to Ensure high sales on launch date, before the "pirates" (Not like those who recently attacked US Navy Ships outside Somalia)
If the objective is to delay launch date piracy, once the game has been out for 2 weeks, they should release a patch that removed it, since their "objectives" have obviously been met.
If not, they are lying sons of birches and deserve to be keel-hauled by real pirates.

@Campaigner: Regarding the license key, it was just a suggestion for "If they really have to do something to feel secure"..

Regading feeling secure, I found a nice article on the Starforce web page regarding Starforce v4.x.. Which I tried to find back to, but could not.
The interesting comment came at the end.. "With starforce 4.0 our customers can once again FEEL secure" (the original text might have been somewhat different, except for the keyword feel). So they are at least honest there. Starforce is not about making your product more secure vs copyright infringement, its about making you FEEL more secure.

Instant:

Erm. If I read your post right, you're preaching to the choir... I was trying to tell Campaigner that I think Mr. Fawkner perhaps made a mistake in attributing his extra sales to adding CP, since GC2 is also getting extra sales (and at launch date, for that matter) *without* adding CP.

Peace & Luv, Liz

Oh, might have misread something then, or miscommunicated it.
I'll blame it on spending 5 hours in Blackwing Lair today, additional 30 minutes on Onyxia, and topping it off with not having slept since... I cant remember, Friday. :-]
WOW is hard work.

There is one side of this SarForce debacle that does bare thinking about and it goes in hand with the big publisher ego and their business models. It goes something like this:-

Publisher a uses developer b to make game c. Now developer b is a small independant developer working on their first title.

Publisher a has a reputation for using Starforce and other draconian anti-piracy mesures. Developer b produce a AAA game so SF is slapped onto it by publisher a to 'protect' their investment.

The games buying public boycot the game because of SF and for no other reason. Publisher a cannot accept that it is SF that is effecting sales of game c, so it has tobe the game. Either the developer is penalised by publisher a for not producing the game that they (Publisher a ) thought that they would and move on to developer x for the next project.

Developer b still has to pay the excess of the developement costs back to publisher a, this bankrupts developer b.

The other thing that happens is that publisher a then switches it's developement over to the consoles because, the custopmer (as a rule) has to buy the game to be able to play it therefor maximising profits. Then pc developement of games gradually dies because there is not the quality games, that the players want. So publisher a stops/minimalises developement of games for the pc because it is not a profitable platform.

The thing is though that publisher a does not accept that the fault of the above is their fault, it is just a declining market.

For that Stardock deserve all the sucsess that they get. The relasionship between a supplier and it's constomer is a two way interaction, built on mutual trust and respect. For that reason I bought 2 copies of GC2 one electronic and one hard copy.

Those companies that treat ther clients (us) as criminals or stupid (by pushing out the same game just tarted up for full price) deserve to go under, it is just a shame the amount of developers that will go under with them.

I think the problem is when people see piracy as a global issue, when it's actually a regional issue. In certain places, MOST of the copies of a game being sold are manufactured by pirates. In certain places, MOST of the market either can't afford a legitimate copy or are just used to pirating. I think that's how StarForce sees everybody everywhere.

That said, StarForce punishes legitimate buyers, and feels okay doing that because it assumes MOST people everywhere are pirates. Their general PR strategy seems to bear this out, "What? People are complaining we're destroying their CD drives? Most people are pirates, so those people must be pirates. GRR! StarForce II will fire the CD from the computer and remove their testicles, let's see what the pirates think of THAT!"

Okay so maybe a bit of an exaggeration. But the moral problem is that they're punishing legitimate buyers. If even one legitimate buyer has a problem because of a copy-protection scheme, then that's a bad scheme. StarForce doesn't see it that way at all.

And what the hell happened to our RIGHT to make a legal backup copy of our software for our own personal use? Companies who employ Starforce and other copy protection schemes are deciding that most people who want their game won't pay for it(even if they could), and would rather pirate it; they're assuming most people are bad people, essentially, so they're restricting everybody's rights to use their software as they wish(making personal backups, playing without the CD in the drive, not having constant cd-checks that hurt performance etc).

Cynicism by and large does nothing but breed the very thing the cynic is afraid of. StarDock went with the optimistic route of figuring if they make a good game then lots of people will buy it, and that's what happened.

edit: And just to make sure, note I didn't say anything about people pirating it. There may be very few pirated copies, there may be tons, 1% of installed copies may be pirated or 99.9% may be pirated. For all we know there's a Sectoid satellite up in space beaming out copies to all corners of the universe and less than one-millionth of one-percent of installed copies are legitimate copies... But umm... Galactic Civilizations got really good sales, here on Earth. And that's what matters. And tommorow the Sectoid president's going to open a commchannel and ask for the next patch in exchange for warp drive technology. Hey it could happen. Let's be optimists here!

I believe that GalCiv II has the serial that is required for updates to thank for some of its sales as many people tries to get most stuff for free but in order to get a better product they'll have to buy this game.

And back in the day of Warlords II & III, cd-burners and empty discs were expensive. And most people didn't know how to get free games since there didn't exist any P2P software. Today, any 10-year old can download DC++, UTorrent or some other client and download every game he wants.


I split this computer era in three parts.

Settler days
The day of computers up to the 486 as the "settler" time where things have just started development and were hard to use (DOS, BBS, 28.8K modems)

Wildwest
the day of the Pentium up to Windows Vista as the wild west where there were some lawenforcement (copyprotections, early DRM & MPAA and RIAA) but if you're a cunning computer user you can still do almost whatever you want.

Todays USA
Windows Vista with early TCPA and forward. This is today were cops are patrolling everywhere (Fritz chips in the cpus which will monitor everything you do!) and will fine you if you break a rule or throw you in jail if you do something worse (up- or downloading copyrighted materials).

Not really relevant but I wanted to say it I think it's a great comparsion.