Online Activation: What're your thoughts?

[CyDoN 0]

On-line activation means cheating accounts are banned? Then yes!!!

[Litos 10]

Yeah that would be cool. Unless it'll be like far cry 2. I had to call ubisoft to revoke my key after I ran out of 5 activations.

[LJF 0]

I think at best you are giving a very one sided view of the matter - did you consider that the huge press coverage of the game and the whole Sims heritage might have contributed to demand?

Had to laugh at that one after what is on the wiki for spore, a remark by will wright:

"We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players. Spore has more depth than, let’s say, The Sims did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for Sims 2, which was around ninety, and something like Half-Life, which was ninety-seven, and we decided — quite a while back — that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of Sims 2 than the Metacritic and sales of Half-Life."

With that kind of attitude, can you really still wonder why people pirated it rather than paid money for it?

For some "1337 hax0rz" yeah. I won't deny it. However, the average Joe Soap on the street doesn't pirate games for the sake of it, or because he wants to crack the latest version of Securom. They just wan't games because they've seen it and it looks cool. DRM system or otherwise is not really a contributing factor here.

That is entirely true, what a good point ... however, you missed the important part: yes, for the average gamer cracking the copy-protection is IMPOSSIBLE! They couldn't do it if they worked away for a year. BUT! Cracking/hacking whatever they're called groups, will jump at the chance to do that, and then do you know what they do? They put the CRACKED game into a nice neat little package and THEN your average gamer will probably be able to install that pretty easy I'd say.

Of course people will get around the security, but what you ignore is that the fact that a well protected game can end up with is rather elaborate and confusing cracks that put off the average PC user (ie. about 80-90% of the demographic that downloads games illegally) who probably don't want to go through all the hassle. Even if the copy right protection is only a hinderence to preventing widespread piracy of the game, then it has worked. The keyword is deterrence. No one said that copy protection will get rid of pirates, like just about every other precaution in life, it's about risk management. At the end of the day, if you are a game developer/publisher, something will have to be done to prevent people stealing your game. Some methods of doing this are better than others. I completely agree that some of the more draconian ways are completely unnecessary, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that they are all bad. So let's get over the idea that copy protection is going to disappear overnight because you couldn't reinstall Bioshock ten thousand times or whatever.

OK, a few points, here, number one of course is that piracy "isn't" stealing. It is copying. If you snuck past the security and made a copy of the mona lisa then is THAT stealing? This doesn't make piracy right by any means, but "stealing" is a little bit sensationalist. The only thing you "steal" from them is your "potential" to buy the game. Just because someone pirates a game doesn't mean the game devs instantly lose the price of the game from their pockets. Most of the time they wouldn't have paid money for it anyway!

Yes, devs have a right to try to prevent people "copying" their games, but at the same time, the end user has the right not be treated like a pirate.

Bioshock? So you think that 3 installs is enough? How many times have you installed OFP? I've done it so many times I've almost MEMORIZED MY CD KEY!

It ignores the fact that one is more costly than the other. If anyone could pirate your game without any effort whatsoever, you wouldn't stand a chance, especially in this wonderous "Bit-torrent" age that we live in. A small company like BIS especially can't afford to take chances.

Sorry, so if there was no panalty for murder/rape/stealing then you would walk down the street and comit these crimes JUST becuase you could get away with it? I think it's rather naive to think that everyone is a bad person and would steal if they could. Sure, there probably should be SOME protection, but what's wrong with a CD key? I'd bet you that someone were to get an illegal copy of a game (with online activation) it would probably be just as easy to install than one without, all the work's already been done.

Why oh why does everyone assume the worst case scenario? There are some perfectly alright online activation systems - eg. GTA4 and Fallout3 and Steam (Yes, I know, you all probably hate steam with a vengeance, but I think it's good) that work fine and cause no problems and have no arbitrary limitations on them. If BIS or 505 games or whoever made some DRM system like Spore, believe me, I'd be really pissed off about it. It's just that online activation and idiotic DRM systems are not always interlinked, no matter what raving showers of Steam haters would have the world believe. Besides - if disc-based copy protection continues going in the Starforce direction, then you'll have real problems...

Sorry, I'm not sure why you did. You just said that if there were no deterance that everyone would pirate games didn't you?

Here again, we assume that BIS and it's associated publishers all out to get us. This is the company that let us use OFP and ArmA without a disc about a year or two after they are released. I don't think they're going to arbitrarily cut short the amount of times we can reinstall the game.

I would hope that they wouldn't use online activation at all, but no, I am afraid I'm not with you there about all publishers being out to get me ... it's just EA and Steam:D

Once again, we assume that all online activation systems are evil and require you to activate everytime you play the game.

Well some have, it'd be stupid to assume everything was going to be good, that'd be like saying assuming that spore was going to be a good game.

Very wise suggestion - I mean, how many people have a nice big shiny gaming PC, but absolutely no way to access the internet? Even if there are a tiny amount of such people, should the whole world design software around them? I think not.

Well, me actually. At least, me up until a month ago when I was finally forced to choose the 1 single ISP able to give me broadband (which is LEGAL somehow, don't ask how, I was sure myself that it was a monopoly). They shouldn't have to design everything for the minority, but they should at least take them into account.

... I live in australia btw, a 3rd world country.

Really, what it boils down to is enough FUD to fill several Olympic-sized swimming pools, combined with the usual Steam bashing and "Spore's DRM screwed me over, ergo all online activation systems are evil" type nonsense. There's no real alternative solution being provided here, other than getting rid of copy protection entirely, which is just idiotic, and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

First off, I think everything posted so far is quite legitimate and STEAM bashing? Just because someone doesn't like it and expresses their opinion doesn't mean they are "bashing" it.

No alternative? Have you read the thread? What about using ordinary methods? CD/CDkey and let people enjoy the product they've paid for without being labeled a pirate? In australia there is an internet filter being brought in (HOW I don't know), whenever anyone criticises the scheme to censer the internet for all australian citizens, he calls them a pedophile, because defending freedom of speech is defending child porn isn't it?

But I think the underlying problem here isn't the practical side of things, I know, it's easy to activate online. The problem is the IDEA itself:

To play the game YOU PAID FOR, you have to come crawling to THEM and ASK PERMISSION. That is just wrong. I pay for a game, I play the game. I refuse to go crawling to them and put in my CD key so they can say, "OK we believe you now, you're not a pirate and can play the game".

Like has been said already, it's nothing but a power trip.

I appologize if at any point there I sounded like I support piracy, I don't. I also don't support treating gamers like criminals until they've proven they're not. Innocent until proven guilty?

The absolute worst way you can make someone do something for you is to make them feel like you distrust them and regard them as the enemy. Please, can't they have some trust?

Edited May 9, 2009 by LJF

[echo1 0]

Had to laugh at that one after what is on the wiki for spore, a remark by will wright:

"We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players. Spore has more depth than, let’s say, The Sims did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for Sims 2, which was around ninety, and something like Half-Life, which was ninety-seven, and we decided — quite a while back — that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of Sims 2 than the Metacritic and sales of Half-Life."

With that kind of attitude, can you really still wonder why people pirated it rather than paid money for it?

That's my point. Lots of hype over the game, people wanted it, alot of people didn't want to pay money for it. I have no idea what that has got to do with copy protection and online/offline activation, other than the fact that EA needs to design a better one.

That is entirely true, what a good point ... however, you missed the important part: yes, for the average gamer cracking the copy-protection is IMPOSSIBLE! They couldn't do it if they worked away for a year. BUT! Cracking/hacking whatever they're called groups, will jump at the chance to do that, and then do you know what they do? They put the CRACKED game into a nice neat little package and THEN your average gamer will probably be able to install that pretty easy I'd say.

Now that wouldn't have been necessary if you had read what I was saying it its entirity. I have seen some of these "nice packages" (on other people's PCs, not my own). The installations and cracks seem to be getting progressively more difficult, and there's always the lingering threat of viruses. Prime example is Windows Vista - there was a lot of hubub over the fact that when it was cracked before it was released. However, the method used wasn't exactly straightforward, and would have only been used by those with technical knowledge and dedication. My point is - that if you design a system that holds out for for the crucial first few weeks of the release, or is so cumbersome to overcome that it scares people off cracking it, then you have a winner.

OK, a few points, here, number one of course is that piracy "isn't" stealing. It is copying. If you snuck past the security and made a copy of the mona lisa then is THAT stealing? This doesn't make piracy right by any means, but "stealing" is a little bit sensationalist.

Ever hear of copyright theft?

The only thing you "steal" from them is your "potential" to buy the game. Just because someone pirates a game doesn't mean the game devs instantly lose the price of the game from their pockets.

You make that sound as if it isn't a bad thing.

Most of the time they wouldn't have paid money for it anyway!

Problem with that argument arises when nobody is prepared to cough up money because piracy is so widespread.

Bioshock? So you think that 3 installs is enough?

Definitely not, and this was probably the main point in my little rant - some online activation systems are bad, but not all of them are. I have trouble with this notion that people have that all online activation systems are bad by virtue of the fact that Bioshock's devs screwed up.

Sorry, so if there was no panalty for murder/rape/stealing then you would walk down the street and comit these crimes JUST becuase you could get away with it? I think it's rather naive to think that everyone is a bad person and would steal if they could.

There are peope who will do bad things. There would be more of them if there is no laws to ban it. Think about it, that's why we have the laws in the first place. If you think everyone can be trusted to do no wrong, you are a very naive person.

Sure, there probably should be SOME protection, but what's wrong with a CD key?

CD key on it's own is not protection. All I have to do is distribute my CD key along with the copy of my disk and then anyone can use it. If you have CD key validation, you tend to make people scared of giving away their codes, and one of the most effective ways to do that is with an online activation system that has some kind of centralized database of all the keys.

Sorry, I'm not sure why you did. You just said that if there were no deterance that everyone would pirate games didn't you?

Not sure what that has got to do with what I said. Again, the question here is what is the most painfree copy-protection method. An obtrusive online system is better than something like Starforce, wouldn't you think?

Just because someone doesn't like it and expresses their opinion doesn't mean they are "bashing" it.

Maybe not in this particular thread, but in other threads on this subject there was a lot of Steam bashing based on arguments that made little to no sense.

But I think the underlying problem here isn't the practical side of things, I know, it's easy to activate online. The problem is the IDEA itself:

To play the game YOU PAID FOR, you have to come crawling to THEM and ASK PERMISSION. That is just wrong. I pay for a game, I play the game. I refuse to go crawling to them and put in my CD key so they can say, "OK we believe you now, you're not a pirate and can play the game".

I think you are putting just a little bit too much thought into all this. Nobody in BIS or 505 or whoever is going to be sitting around the activation server laughing manically when someone activates their copy of the game. In a nice ideal world where the sky is always blue and the grass always green it wouldn't be necessary. But it is in this world so live with it. If it bothers you that much, grow your hair long and switch to Linux...

The absolute worst way you can make someone do something for you is to make them feel like you distrust them and regard them as the enemy. Please, can't they have some trust?

Have you ever seen the Pirate Bay? If I was a publisher, I wouldn't trust the general public either!

Edited May 9, 2009 by echo1

[versus 0]

dear ch_123,

i guess there will always be people like you who for some reason like to lie

down on their backs and give up rights they have previously enjoyed.

why is it so hard for you to understand that some people don't want their

OFFLINE games to be dependent on being ONLINE? especially since there is

no more or less "protection" if online activation is used instead of a simple

cd-check. many people who don't buy the games because of drm/activation

will download/copy them because they want to play them anyway.

that's not rocket-sience it's a simple fact. and it's something developers and

publishers should start thinking about when considering to push that garbage

on their customers.

elaborate and confusing cracks? you obviously have no idea what you are

talking about, but i guess that actually speaks for you.

gtaIV has an "alright" online activation? seriously what planet are you from?

it was so bad and annoying that even the magazines reported negatively

about it this time.

Once again, we assume that all online activation systems are evil and

require you to activate everytime you play the game.

try reading the posts you respond to instead of just skimming them and you'll

see that i was talking about installing the game.

Very wise suggestion - I mean, how many people have a nice big shiny

gaming PC, but absolutely no way to access the internet? Even if there

are a tiny amount of such people, should the whole world design software

around them? I think not.

copy protection has nothing to do with game design. and yes, i think the

"world" would do good to think about potential customers who don't have

access to the internet. after all, those are "automatically lost sales". if you

follow the logic of the game publishers, that is. you know, just like every

"pirated" game is a "lost sale"...

why are you so "pro-online-activation" anyway? it's funny really, with all your

ranting and ignorant replies you haven't really provided even one good

argument for online-activation.

here's a little challange for you:

finish the following sentence

"online-activation for offline-games is a good thing because..."

the first person to finish that sentence satisfactorily gets a free copy of arma2.

oh, and "...you don't need your disc in the drive" is not the right answer.;)

[LJF 0]

I guess it comes down to priorities to a certain degree.

The Pirate Bay, I suppose that's it isn't it? There ARE a lot of people who will pirate, there are also a lot of people who will rape and steal. The laws are there for them, not the vast majority who are law abiding citizens.

Honestly, if I were a game developer I wouldn't be wasting my time worrying about the people who will rip off my game, they're going to do it anyway aren't they? Then why give them so much satisfaction? I'd put my efforts into making a good game and giving the people who WILL buy the game a good experience. Treat everyone like real people, **** those who'll pirate. If EA did this I'm sure they'd produce something that the word "good" could be loosely applied to.

It makes me quite angry that when I pay for a game, I have to sit in a longer cue than those who pirate, hell, they've got an express ticket!

I do'nt know about you, but I get great satisfaction in paying for a game I like, it's as though I'm adding energy to the great ... ah ... the great ... something that is that developer. I'm helping them in the ongoing battle that is the industry. And if it is a good game (which A2 no doubt will be), I take great satisfaction in giving up my $100AU. It's when they turn around and betray my trust that grit my teeth. It kills it. It kills that sense of wanting to be a part of it all. I no longer want to help them, they just asked me if I was a pirtate! I've just given them something, helped them, and then they do that! Now, this that may have come off as seeming a bit OC there, but that's just my own feelings.

But it's not just that, I'd like to use a word from the above post, "dependent", because that is what you are with online activation. You are completely dependant. Upon them. They get to tell you whether you can play your game. It's like having a crazy mother, "mother, can I play my game now?" ... "hmm ... OK dear, off you go." I don't want to have my mother tell me what I can and can't play (and no, I'm not 15 or something by the way), and I don't want anyone else to for that matter.

I being one of those who'd do the right thing would like to be treated with some respect, it is, after all, my money. Online activation just has that dystopian smell to it, where "everyone's a pirate" and the publishers don't really give a damn about whether they're producing quality games, so long as they get money for it. But perhaps this bleak future is creeping up faster than we thought. The thing is, if you always look over your shoulder and worry about pirates then you'll just end up angering them and losing the attention of the people who are doing the right thing. In the end, who do you really want to encourage? The pirates or your customers?

Edited May 9, 2009 by LJF

[Mr_Tea 0]

As long the activation is not limited to 3x, or something like that it would be ok.

It would not bother me if only i can activate the game, and personal data would be required. There should be no limitation to install ArmA 2 only on one PC. One installation at a time is logical, but if i build an new rig, i must be able to make a new installation and activate it again. On the next PC`s i`ll build, it stands the same.

[Lou Montana 101]

How many times have you installed OFP? I've done it so many times I've almost MEMORIZED MY CD KEY!

Same here... he he he !

But not for ArmA. I admit, I bought the game, and first wanted to take off this disc of my drive

The problem is the IDEA itself:

To play the game YOU PAID FOR, you have to come crawling to THEM and ASK PERMISSION. That is just wrong. I pay for a game, I play the game. I refuse to go crawling to them and put in my CD key so they can say, "OK we believe you now, you're not a pirate and can play the game".

Yes, some are like that, "prove you're not a pirate"... err, excuse me, but...

finish the following sentence

"online-activation for offline-games is a good thing because..."

the first person to finish that sentence satisfactorily gets a free copy of arma2.

oh, and "...you don't need your disc in the drive" is not the right answer.

...

What about "...it will force people without internet to buy internet access/RJ45/wifi/whatever ?" no, thanks. If I buy Left4Dead for solo or LAN, I play it without net activation. I am absolutely not against web checking if it is an internet game.

Nobody in BIS or 505 or whoever is going to be sitting around the activation server laughing manically when someone activates their copy of the game.

Not even Maruk ?

[echo1 0]

finish the following sentence

"online-activation for offline-games is a good thing because..."

Because it may be the best AND most unobtrusive way to prevent people pirating the game. You now owe me €50. Kktanxbye.

In fact, it's debatable whether the OFP/ArmA series counts as an offline game. I mean, you've got -

1. Big emphasis on Multiplayer

2. Great online community

3. Huge amount of user-created downloadble content

I really think the distinction between offline and online is blurring these days. So far you haven't really given any reason why this is bad other than "Oh noes, they're taking away my rights!" which doesnt stand up under any scrutiny because -

1. There's no guarntee that your offline copy protection system is going to respect your rights.

2. There's no guarntee that your online copy protection system is going to take away your rights.

Which is a fact that neither you or LJF seem to be able to comprehend because you seem to automatically link bad DRM systems with online ones, and good ones with offline ones. And to that line of logic, I say (once again) - Starforce.

Actually, here's a simple question for you; Which would you prefer - an obtrusive offline system like Starforce, or an un-obtrusive one like the one used on GTA4 or even Steam (if you RTFM and make sure the offline mode is set up that is)

i guess there will always be people like you who for some reason like to lie

down on their backs and give up rights they have previously enjoyed.

If the system is designed well, it won't take away from the user's rights. It's that simple. If the thread was about "Should BIS use the exact same DRM system as Spore or Bioshock"you'd have a case. But it isn't so you don't.

By the way - do you use Windows? Some of the anti-piracy stuff that does makes EA's stuff look like a child's toy. Leaving aside games, I'd willingly bet that due to the fact that I run almost no Microsoft or othersuch proprietary software, except for Windows on a single machine to play games, I enjoy far more rights with my software than you do in the long run.

elaborate and confusing cracks? you obviously have no idea what you are

talking about, but i guess that actually speaks for you.

As much as I'd love to explain further, the forum has some strict rules against talking about cracking software. :)

why are you so "pro-online-activation" anyway?.

That would be an innacurate way of summing up my position. The truth is, I'm pro-effective and unobtrusive copy protection systems. (and for the record, there have been several games I've refused to buy because of their copy protection system, whether it be offline, online or whatever) I've never had any problems with Steam any of the other online activation systems I've used. On the other hand there are plenty of dodgy disc-based systems out there.

There's also the fact that I quite happen to like BIS, and I wan't to see them protect their investment. If they (or the publishers) believe that online activation is the way to go, and they can make a good system that doesnt screw up, I'm all for it. If they can make a good offline system that suits their needs, I'm all for that too. Unlike you, I have an open mind about these things. And some of the alternatives (or really lack to be honest) don't inspire confidence. If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

it's funny really, with all your

ranting and ignorant replies you haven't really provided even one good

argument for online-activation

I'll make it simple for you - to prove me wrong, you're going to have to prove that online activation systems are inherently evil/bad/destructive to rights etc. If you can do that then I will agree with you. Till then.

Edited May 9, 2009 by echo1
Left a sentence half finished.

[LJF 0]

I'll sum up my position on the matter here:

1. [some] people will steal/rape/murder/pirate, but most won't, so making them feel like a pirate by having to prove to the server they aren't isn't fair, they've given the developers/publishers money while the pirates (who paid nothing and have no respect/loyalties) are NOT "checked".

2. To a degree I'm a bit of a control freak, I really don't like others exherting their power over me, and with online activation it just has that "walking through the big gates up to the lord of activation and groveling before him to ask for the right to play your game" feel to it.

3. You are entirely dependant on them. You play your game because they say you can (not litterally of course), which is just plain wrong. You know that every time you reinstall your game you will have to go back to them to make it work again, and me being a ridiculously "independant" sort of a person (in a ideaological sort of way), find that to be quite infuriating. I like to be independant. I pay money and that's it, until I buy something else I shouldn't have to have anything to do with them and whether or not I do is my choice. I suppose I like to be free.

4. It is centralised power and seems to me to be leaning more toward the fascist or communist ideals. It's something I could imagine china doing.

5. Despite your (and everyone's, including mine to a degree) dislike of Starforce, it has actually caused me less trouble than online activation, and doesn't bother me half as much. I have had no trouble with it in the past (besides Xpand Rally on Vista) while online activation frustrates me to no end. Mount & Blade is an indie game and I proudly paid for a CD key, so you can understand that if I was going to be accepting of any online activation, that would be the first. However, still I have the issue, there have been many occasions I've had to reinstall it and then realized that where I'm at I don't have the internet. I couldn't play it for sometimes days at a time (and know others with the same problem). Secondly, there is the fact that I was forced to put my computer back on the internet so they could varify my game, which is just wrong, even for a game I love and want to support.

6. Also, the developers would be spending money to stop people from "copying" something they probably wouldn't have paid for anyway. In effect they are neglecting the people that trust and support them, putting them through unnecessary hardship (OK, overdramatic there but meh) that the pirates won't be subjected to, just to "attempt" to stop the pirates from playing the game they may or may not have paid for anyway. It seems they have their priorities wrong to me, support your fans who pay you money, or discourage those who don't like you and fuel their dislike for you?

I realize that some people don't really care all that much about this sort of thing, but then I must fall back to my favourite line of argument ... "but 7 million people play World of Warcraft ..." In the end, if I had to choose between buying a game that had online activation and one that didn't, I would not hesitate to buy the former. Can you say you would rather activate your game online than just play it? Can you say you like to be chained to the "lord of activation"? Can you say you enjoy prostrated yourself before them so they may activate your game?

Edited May 9, 2009 by LJF

[echo1 0]

(Points 1-3)

Same principle applies when you install Starforce. You have to prove that you are not a pirate, and are at the mercy of the system. Hell, even when you put in a CD key you are in effect being challenged to prove your innocence. You just don't see it that way with an offline system because you are so used to doing it. Alot of your arguments seem to be arguments against copy protection systems themselves, as opposed to issues unique to online activation. And I think we have established beforehand that there has to be some sort of protection system somewhere.

(Point 4)

There's a lovely latin phrase for that kind of thing. Do you have the same ethical qualms when you log into your Gmail or hotmail account? Or activating Windows after a reinstall?

Also, the developers would be spending money to stop people from "copying" something they probably wouldn't have paid for anyway

I've said this before but I'll say it again. This is a really naive argument. Talk about putting the cart before the horse - the reason why many people don't want to pay is because they know they can get it for free. If you make it really easy for people to steal your game, you increase the amount of people who are no longer prepared to buy the game. Real fans will have no problem paying for the game, but for the average gamer (ie. 95% of the target audience) it's hard to compete with free.

Can you say you would rather activate your game online than just play it?

Not sure where you are going with that. I personally like to activate my game (whether it be an online or offline system) and then play it. But hey, I'm a pretty crazy guy!

Edited May 10, 2009 by echo1

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Well said ch_123,

1. [some] people will steal/rape/murder/pirate, but most won't...

...but if the world was lawless, more people would do such things.

Metal Detectors, Security cameras, ID cards, door locks, they're all there for the exact same reason software protection/activation is in place. Keeping the honest people honest. Dishonest people will do those things regardless.

2. To a degree I'm a bit of a control freak, I really don't like others exherting their power over me, and with online activation it just has that "walking through the big gates up to the lord of activation and groveling before him to ask for the right to play your game" feel to it.

Just like you drive up to the lord of border crossings and beg and grovel for entry into a foreign country, let's not mention the lord of all the places that require you to show your ID to enter, and as CH_123 mentioned, the lord of all the online activities that require you to have an account and a password, like these forums.

Imagine if these forums worked only on username basis, no password, or when withdrawing money from your bank account, and they took only your word that you're genuine holder of that account.

In the end, if you really don't want the hassle of online activations on games and dealing with copy protections, grab a console and you're set.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Sniperwolf572

[LJF 0]

(Points 1-3)

Same principle applies when you install Starforce. You have to prove that you are not a pirate, and are at the mercy of the system. Hell, even when you put in a CD key you are in effect being challenged to prove your innocence. You just don't see it that way with an offline system because you are so used to doing it. Alot of your arguments seem to be arguments against copy protection systems themselves, as opposed to issues unique to online activation. And I think we have established beforehand that there has to be some sort of protection system somewhere.

I don't even notice starforce, it just runs, my game is still independant, I know starforce isn't the nicest program in the world, and it is made by people with questionable morals but I can install my game and play it, I don't have to go to the server, I have the power, not them. I'm in my house and If I want to play my game they don't even know it. There does have to be some sort of copy protection, but you said yourself that most gamers can't crack a copy protection system right? If so then how are they going to crack a serial and a CD check? They aren't, not until they go to the lengths of getting cracks and hacks from various online groups, ie, illegally downloaded versions of the game. So by following this logic, why then make them go to the server? The only way the vast majority of pirates will crack a game is to get tutorials/packedgames from the "pro" pirates. And yes, I would prefer to put my CD in the drive (or get a NOCD fixed EXE) than activate online.

(Point 4)

There's a lovely latin phrase for that kind of thing. Do you have the same ethical qualms when you log into your Gmail or hotmail account? Or activating Windows after a reinstall?

I fail to see how that has anything to do with online mail, but to answer your question, no, I do not, because they are a service given to me. It probably seems stupid but it's not exactly the same thing. It's "here's something online you can use for free" as opposed to "you must come here in order to play your game".

I've said this before but I'll say it again. This is a really naive argument. You're basically putting the cart before the horse - the reason why many people don't want to pay is because they know they can get it for free. If you make it really easy for people to steal your game, you increase the amount of people who are no longer prepared to buy the game. Real fans will have no problem paying for the game, but for the average gamer (ie. 95% of the target audience) it's hard to compete with free.

I'm not sure of the exact figures, but they're around 10%. That's 10% "losses" for the company, they work this out by the estimated number of pirated games however, there isn't a real method for working out the actual "damage". I'll agree, it is hard to compete with free, but firstly, a game without online activation is not "free" (and that's what ArmA/ofp were), and secondly, just because someone takes a "free" copy of a game doesn't mean that they would otherwise have forked out 100 dollars for a game.

I could make a simple flash game and put it on the net right now and charge $100 for it. I could even put online activation on it, now, if 500,000 people copied my crappy game, pirated it, does that mean that I'm $5,000,000 poorer? Would you pay $100 for my crappy flash game? I sure wouldn't.

There are cracked games with online activation that are just as free as those without remember, to bring up Spore again, 1.7 million people got that for free.

Not sure where you are going with that. I personally like to activate my game (whether it be an online or offline system) and then play it. But hey, I'm a pretty crazy guy!

What I meant was, if for example, there was a game you wanted to buy and so you walked into a shop and there were not 1 but 2 versions of the game. They are priced at the same, contain the same content, are identical in every single way. The only difference is that one requires online activation and one does not. Now, what would you buy? Disregarding of course, any bias that may come about due to any external beliefs etc, on a purely "I'd rather activate my game online first" or "I'd rather not have to activate online first" basis.

Well said ch_123,

...but if the world was lawless, more people would do such things..

You mistake me, I am in no way suggesting the world be lawless. There should be copy protection, but I still find it difficult to support online activation.

Imagine if these forums worked only on username basis, no password, or when withdrawing money from your bank account, and they took only your word that you're genuine holder of that account.

Damn you ... you actually make quite a good point there. But once again, as with the online mail issue, it's different ... well ... a little anyway:D This forum is a free service, I'm not coming here because I have to, I'm here because I choose to.

Metal Detectors, Security cameras, ID cards, door locks, they're all there for the exact same reason software protection/activation is in place. Keeping the honest people honest. Dishonest people will do those things regardless.

I hope you're not suggesting we have "Thought Police" and a "Ministry of Truth":( You can go too far you know ...

I just really don't see the need to do anything other than what most games use, eg: CM DiRT, GRID, etc. They work fine, are unobtrusive and ... why not?

Oh, this has gone a bit off topic, does anyone know whether ArmA2 will use online activation? Somewhere along the way it turned into a OA vs NOA thread, probably because of the poll. It was originally about whether or not A2 will have online activation, I can't seem to find any info on it anywhere.

Edited May 10, 2009 by LJF

[echo1 0]

I have the power, not them.

No you don't, the copy protection system does. It decides whether you play the game or not. Same logic applies whether it's something on the disc, or a server somewhere else.

If so then how are they going to crack a serial and a CD check?

It's very easy to post a serial key on a website. Once you start enforcing the serial keys, the game changes.

if 500,000 people copied my crappy game, pirated it, does that mean that I'm $5,000,000 poorer?

If it cost you several million to develop the game, and you needed all those sales to break even, then yes it would.

I'll agree, it is hard to compete with free, but firstly, a game without online activation is not "free" (and that's what ArmA/ofp were), and secondly, just because someone takes a "free" copy of a game doesn't mean that they would otherwise have forked out 100 dollars for a game.

I never said that they were free, so I don't get what you mean by that. As for the second bit - it's an issue of conditioning. Yes, there are some people that will never cough up that money anway, but when you create an attitude whereby software piracy is normal and easy to accomplish, you're going to end up with a load of more people that aren't going to pay up that might have paid otherwise, just because they can feel like they can get away with it. What happens when everyone thinks this way?

There are cracked games with online activation that are just as free as those without remember, to bring up Spore again, 1.7 million people got that for free.

I have no doubt about this, but as I have said before, if it so happens that the publishers/devs believe that an online activation system is the way forward, and they don't pull a Bioshock on it, I'm all for it.

What I meant was, if for example, there was a game you wanted to buy and so you walked into a shop and there were not 1 but 2 versions of the game. They are priced at the same, contain the same content, are identical in every single way. The only difference is that one requires online activation and one does not. Now, what would you buy?

In that case, I would go for the one without the activation, but only because it involves an unnecessary extra step, not because of the online aspect of it. The problem with that analogy is that the circumstances you've given are so narrow and unrealistic that it becomes completely meaningless and doesn't prove anything. I have said it before - what I want is some simple system. If it's an online one, I don't give a shit, just as long as it works.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I hope you're not suggesting we have "Thought Police" and a "Ministry of Truth":( You can go too far you know ...

What I'm saying with that point is that most people would rather hassle with keys and everything to lock our house and feel that our possessions in the house are safe and will be there when we come back, rather than keeping the house unlocked and hope that someone will not come and take all your things away. Door lock or an burglar alarm would dissuade an honest individual from even attempting such an act, while a dishonest one would find a way to circumvent it because he wants the stuff inside.

That's basically the way most copy protection works, for an honest individual, it's easier to buy the game and activate it online knowing it's going to work rather than hassle with bypassing the copy protection.

As for will A2 have online activation/reactivation/whatever, I doubt anyone will be able to tell you that until the game reaches the shelves, and potentially it might depend on the region like with A1.

[LJF 0]

. Door lock or an burglar alarm would dissuade an honest individual from even attempting such an act, while a dishonest one would find a way to circumvent it because he wants the stuff inside.

... and then the burgler sells the stolen items on the black market.

Well, if anything is clear by now, it's that we're not going to change each other's minds. Perhaps I think too deep into things and should just go and conform. Perhaps I shouldn't mind that my government is imposing a mandatory internet filter on me, because as the old saying goes, "only criminals have to fear the law". I don't like online activation, and if nothing else, I hope that ArmA2 doesn't have it. I don't know, maybe online activation isn't so bad after all, but then, although I've reconsidered my views on the subject after getting broadband, I still don't like it, I still hope that ArmA2 doesn't use it (and Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising for that matter). But then, as was said, my opinion won't do anything to effect the outcome, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

[LJF 0]

Hmm, well I did a bit of searching and found the answer. I can't say it was the answer I was hoping to find, but I found it nonetheless. arma2 is to use securom, and utilize online activation. Well, that settles it for me unfortuneately. I wouldn't have minded were it Starforce actually, that system worked fine in ArmA1, but I won't go with online activation.

I must say that I am rather disapointed in this decision, as no doubt many others will be. I just hope this trend ends, and that other upcoming games such as Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising don't use similar methods.

[ultimateflashpoint 10]

Sniperwolf572.

I would like to remind you that as an honest customer, that things such as SecuROM, punish me, an honest customer, and because I get punished, I deal out punishment of my own. Such as not paying for the game. The only reason I decided to buy ARMA1 was because of the 1.14 patch with removed securom. Otherwise I would not have bought it.

BIS is making a huge mistake using securom, but I would not have a problem if it was something less intrusive and did not have rootkit features. BIS is cutting their throats by putting securom in here as it will only be toppled by some cracker that has nothing better to do, and because of its rep, people will turn to the other method to get it rather than being punished for doing the "honest" thing because BIS thinks they might get cheated.

[DrSnow 0]

Copyprotection is ok for me when it's done properly and don't cause problems to everyday use of your own pc, or compromise data stored on pc in any manner. Some time ago i was in this kind of situation..

Copyprotection system blocked my dvdburner so badly that i couldn't burn my photos on dvd's anymore. Situation got even worse when i learned that my burner is not compatible with this system and could cause permanent jamming of the burner. (which it eventually did) ...and the company first denied that it would not do this, just like they denied existence of a rootkit..

Finally they released unistallation kit so that i could finally get rid of the game and the copyprotection for good. Now i have practically unplayed sub sim and a broken burner (don't know if it can be fixed).

Securom in arma has not caused this bad problems even it has acted sometimes a little weird, so i have somekind of positive expectations from arma2.

I will follow closely how things work before i buy my copy because i wont allow same nightmare happen again. Whatever the system might be.

[versus 0]

Because it may be the best AND most unobtrusive way to prevent people

pirating the game. You now owe me €50. Kktanxbye.

there you go again, just skimming posts instead of reading them. i wrote

satisfactorily. you weren't supposed to fill in some nonsense. the

sentence was supposed to make sense in the end. frankly i'm getting tired

quickly of trying to make clear to you why online activation is far from the

"best and most unobtrusive way to prevent people from pirating", so i'll just

skip it.

In fact, it's debatable whether the OFP/ArmA series counts as an

offline game.

rubbish. if i want to install arma2 to play offline and there's no internet i

want to be able to do that. period.

Which would you prefer - an obtrusive offline system like Starforce,

or an un-obtrusive one like the one used on GTA4 or even Steam

lol, and what part of starforce do you think is more intrusive than securom 7?

actually these days i'm having more trouble with securom 7 protected games

than starforce games.

second, you calling gta4's activation system "unintrusive" makes me question

your ability to form logical thought.

If the system is designed well, it won't take away from the user's rights.

maybe you'd like to share with us what this well designed system will look

like in your opinion?

The truth is, I'm pro-effective and unobtrusive copy protection

systems. I've never had any problems with Steam any of the other online

activation systems I've used.

maybe some rainy sunday you'll want to install arma2 or any of your games

using your beloved steam system and for one of the many possible reasons

you'll not be able to connect. maybe then you'll finally "get it".

you're going to have to prove that online activation systems are

inherently evil/bad/destructive to rights etc.

next you'll want me to prove that the sky is blue. this isn't only about "rights".

it's about functionality. if you still don't understand how online activation

limits functionality compared to a disc-check then i can't help you.

Edited May 11, 2009 by versus

[versus 0]

...and as CH_123 mentioned, the lord of all the online activities that require

you to have an account and a password, like these forums.

[...]

In the end, if you really don't want the hassle of online activations on games

and dealing with copy protections, grab a console and you're set.

you're not actually comparing games to online-forums are you? come on...

there's a HUGE difference and you know it. up till now games always were fine

without connecting to the internet. and now all of a sudden companies tell

people that it's absolutely neccessary to protect the game from piracy.

and it is not. this is what people are complaining about.

...most people would rather hassle with keys and everything to lock

our house and feel that our possessions in the house are safe and will be

there when we come back, rather than keeping the house unlocked and hope

that someone will not come and take all your things away. Door lock or an

burglar alarm would dissuade an honest individual from even attempting such

an act, while a dishonest one would find a way to circumvent it because he

wants the stuff inside.

that comparison lacks a few parallels. here's one from me:

i'm an illustrator by trade. imagine i sell you a print of my work and you hang

it up in your house. but now i'm worried. you might make copies of it and give

it to other people. so I lock your house and post guards on all doors

and windows to make sure you're not taking any copies of my print with you.

to open the door of your house the first time you'll have to ring me up so i

can give you the entrance code. if you go on a vacation however i'll change

the code and once you come back you'll have to ring me up again.

oh, but now my phone's not working. too bad. guess you'll have to sleep on

your lawn until my telephone is repaired. hey, but at least i protected my

work and i don't really care about your needs

it's easier to buy the game and activate it online knowing it's going

to work rather than hassle with bypassing the copy protection.

unfortunatelly that's no longer true. especially with systems like the one gta4 used.

As for will A2 have online activation/reactivation/whatever, I doubt

anyone will be able to tell you that until the game reaches the shelves, and

potentially it might depend on the region like with A1.

hm...i thought it was pretty clear ever since deadfast translated that video.:confused:

[echo1 0]

second, you calling gta4's activation system "unintrusive" makes me question

your ability to form logical thought.

Let's see.

1. A dialog box tells me that the game needs to activated.

2. I click ok.

3. A few seconds later I'm able to play the game.

I have done this process three times (reinstallation due to going through different versions of the Windows 7 Beta/RC), and each time it worked just as above. Now, could you please explain how this makes me mentally deficient, or are you just trolling?

there you go again, just skimming posts instead of reading them. i wrote

satisfactorial.

Obviously your definition of "satisfactorial" (don't think that's actually a word btw) involves someone who agrees with everything you think. And since all you do is call people idiots rather than actually explain why they are wrong, I can't really help you.

maybe some rainy sunday you'll want to install arma2 or any of your games

using your beloved steam system and for one of the many possible reasons

you'll not be able to connect. maybe then you'll finally "get it".

Ok, so if we're going to talk worst case scenarios - Maybe some rainy Sunday when you want to install one of your games, you'll find that Starforce or the like has damaged (sometimes irrevocably) your installation of Windows and/or your hardware. I prefer the option where my internet dies (which is extremely rare for me, and I live in a country with the second worst broadband in Europe) and I go off and do something else with my time. Wouldn't you?

maybe you'd like to share with us what this well designed system will look

like in your opinion?

I already did, except you called me an idiot as a consequence (without explaining why I was an idiot). Even if I couldn't give an example, what I'm saying would be valid until you could explain why such a system never could exist. Which you haven't done.

Edited May 10, 2009 by echo1

[Lou Montana 101]

What if you buy the game and need to activate online...

...and the server is down ? Is the game deciding client-side you are locked until you can validate ? Or will it allows you to play ?

...and the activation company stopped ? Well, your game is valid only while the company is alive... sorry, but no. I paid for a product, not a part of the company.

---> so online activation can be "cracked" by blocking internet access to serial check program (or hosts file, etc)... and if you can't play your game offline (yes, some people still don't have internet ! but they can say it here...) then you have some useless 12cm-diameter disc to go under your beer.

[Placebo 29]

The thread's about online activation, why's copy protection being discussed? Not only is it off topic it's also contrary to the forum rules.........

[Binkowski 26]

It honestly doesn't matter to me, both are good.