It makes me puke....

(baff) #21

For online distribution systems I am a big fan of of Direct2Drive.
You need a new email address for each copy you wish to download which is a pain, but otherwise it works fine. Once you have paid for it, you can re download it as often as you like.

Anti piracy for these kinds of games is easier as it includes no cd checker nonsense.

I can and often do have a LAN party everyday. Games with online key checkers are inherantly less value than others without as I must then buy a seperate copy for each terminal.
Spawn copies for LAN as you used to see in the Delta Force, Rainbow six or Diablo series games for example are much better. Games that provide more than one CD key per box (such as City of Heroes) are also well recieved.
The thought of having to buy 6-8 copies to play over LAN (Steam stylee) is financially off putting to say the least. And even having to buy 6-8 copies to play online still isn’t a purchase to be considered in any way lightly.

I have had less technical problems with online key checking than I have with softwares such as Securerom, which frequently block me from playing my legally owned games.
In the end my gut feeling towards Anti Piracy is that it’s sole purpose is to force me to buy extra copies of the game.
I usually require pirated versions to make it playable anyway. From now on if the AP forces me to uses cracks or workarounds I shall be returning the games. enough is enough.
The idea of paying to use pirate software is a little too rich.

(Dazzamac) #22

I believe we’ve been over the point of buying multiple copies before. By law, if you have friends round and install the games on their machines you need a multi user license for the game. I assume direct2Drive don’t intend the multiple downloads for multiple users. Therefore installing the game on multiple machines without paying for the multiple installs is piracy. So yes in your case, anti-piracy is there to make you buy extra copies of the game, In everyone elses case its to ensure they buy the game in the first place instead of freeloading it off someone else.

(EB) #23

I hope “id” strays away from any similarity to ‘Steam’, because ‘Steam’ is annoying and downright annoyingly annoying. :bash:

-I am all for the copyright protection in every facit.

(SniperSteve) #24

I do not use Steam. I Hate Steam.

I Do not own/use HL or HL2 or any of the Steam Games/Mods.

This is all because I hate steam. I want to put in my stinking CD, (If I have to) hit my desktop icon, and have the game launch. If they want to have a login think like BF2 does, thats not soo bad. But having this other crappy program running in the background just annoying me to death for no good reason is uncool.

This is why I will never buy a steam game untill I have no other choice, and then I will be forced to hack the software so I can run the game without steam. So yeah, Steam can die in fire.

/end rant.

Oh yes I also am for copywright protection, find some other more efficent way to do it that doesn’t sit there and annoy me, and I’m all for it. :smiley:

(SCDS_reyalP) #25

AFIAK, previous id games default to allowing you to play if the server can’t contact the CD key auth server. That means (among other things) you can play on LANs that can’t access the internet. Of course, there is not guarantee that ET:QW will do the same, but it is a logical solution. It still prevents large scale piracy, because the vast majority of internet servers will be in touch with the master.

IMO, online distribution is the only thing that makes sense for PC games, and using online accounts is one of the few forms of copy protection that can actually work.

Just because steam sucks doesn’t mean the whole idea sucks.

(baff) #26

believe we’ve been over the point of buying multiple copies before. By law, if you have friends round and install the games on their machines you need a multi user license for the game. I assume direct2Drive don’t intend the multiple downloads for multiple users. Therefore installing the game on multiple machines without paying for the multiple installs is piracy. So yes in your case, anti-piracy is there to make you buy extra copies of the game, In everyone elses case its to ensure they buy the game in the first place instead of freeloading it off someone else.

For what it’s worth my friends don’t bring their PC’s round, I have enough to go round.
The software I buy is for my own personal use.
I do not distribute copies to other people.

Nice of you to assume I am a software pirate though. Says more about you than it does me I believe

I kind of feel much like Sniper Steve the concept of copywright protection is good as long as it doesn’t annoy me. Find a good way of doing it and I’m up for it too.

(Nail) #27

This seems to be Microsofts plan for the future, Bill Gates has said for a while online distribution, with client and server side software is the way they’re headed. All programs run on servers and people have a client interface for them, I’m pretty sure Adobe et all will follow suit

(Joe999) #28

you aren’t allowed to do that either. you can install it on one pc at a time and you alone can play it there. but in the case that your friends come by and you all play then the situation is different. then it’s no longer for your own personal use. theoretically you need to buy licenses for all your friends. so in that case: yes, what you’re doing is piracy :smiley:

i bet it’s somewhere in the disclaimer. anyone read the half life 2 disclaimer? i did, the only thing i missed was “your soul belongs to us”. they even write that i’m not allowed to sell the game to a friend. erm … what if i don’t like it? there was no demo … lol?

i add one to piracy: guess what all the germans do when they are forced to see green blood and disabled ragdoll physics …

(baff) #29

you aren’t allowed to do that either. you can install it on one pc at a time and you alone can play it there.

Er righto, so you think it is illegal for someone else to use windows on your computer?

Show me the law.

i bet it’s somewhere in the disclaimer

What disclaimer? They haven’t even made the game.

Creating a copy and selling it. This is the act most people refer to as software piracy. This is copyright infringement in most countries and is unlikely to be fair use or fair dealing if the work remains

Piracy is distributing software illegally.

Allowing a friend to use your computer is not distributing software.

“do you mind if I use your computer to checkout ebay?”
“hang on I just need to buy a new lisence for Windows for you.”

really.

NB

If you own a software, you may install it on as many machines as you wish for your own personal use.
You may not, install it on someone elses computer. You may not copy and sell it. You may not copy and rent it out. You may not copy and give it away.

Ownership of a computer is not defined by who is currently operating it.
In the case of friends using your computer, the computer and all the software on it, still belongs to you.

If you lisence a software you may use that software as per the lisence agreement. Remembering that Fair use laws still apply and supercede any lisence agreement.
Lisencing a software is not the same as buying a software. I have never heard of anyone lisencing a computer game. (Maybe rental companies?)
In order to lisence a software an agreement must be signed between the two parties, before the bill of sale.

Clicking I agree halfway through an installation of a game you already own, is not lisencing a software. (Fair Use laws for those in the U.S., The unfair Contract Act for those in the EU).

Unsurprsingly playing Halflife 2 does not mean that Valve owns everything except your soul. And you are allowed to sell the game.

Reselling the original software.
Licenses often say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition.

(leifhv) #30

Well, noboyd said it was. What is not allowed is to buy one copy of a game, install it on 100 computers and let 99 of your friends play it at the same time as you. Who owns the computer if of no consequence. If your going to arrange a LAN and own 10 computers you’ll most likely have to buy 10 copies of the game (depending on the licence of course…some games might allow simultanous use but most don’t afaik).

You can whine and stamp your foot all you want but online authentication is the furture for PC games, and if it in any way can hinder games piracy I welcome it…and so should you unless consoles are your preferred plattform.

Whats much worse is that there are people out there that wants hardware DRM on the PC plattform which might in effect turn the PC into a glorified console where you need to have every application signed by MS/Intel before it will run. This should give us pretty good protection against piracy but would also kill ‘hobby’/Open source/small scale development.

(EB) #31

(Joe999) #32

not really. best example: windows. or why do you think the license is bound to the hardware so that you have to activate it on every machine?

say, do you have a licensed copy for each of your machines?

according to what you write i think: no. :smiley:

and you can dream of whatever you want. you aren’t allowed to let your friends play the games for which you paid only one license.

and besides: EB, this icon is awesome. short and it says it all :slight_smile:

(baff) #33

my windows is not hardware bound.

i have made no lisence agreement with microsoft, and neither have you.

I’ve pointed you in the direction of the relevant laws in your country.
The rest is up to you. If you wish to continue to be a “consumer victim” thats your affair.

(baff) #34

What is not allowed is to buy one copy of a game, install it on 100 computers and let 99 of your friends play it at the same time as you. Who owns the computer if of no consequence. If your going to arrange a LAN and own 10 computers you’ll most likely have to buy 10 copies of the game (depending on the licence of course…some games might allow simultanous use but most don’t afaik

please Re-read

In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses,

there is no lisence agreement.

In the EU? please refer to the Unfair Contract Act

clicking “I agree” to a EULA agreement is not the same thing as lisencing a software.

a lisencing agreement is made between two parties in person before any bill of sale.

(Dazzamac) #35

Technically you are wrong. It is a licence agreement. You buy a peice of software you are buying the licence to use it. I will not speak further on this as it is more fun to do this :banghead:

(leifhv) #36

Whats your point? You don’t want any kind of software protection because you see any limits to your use of software as unfair? No wonder the the market for PC games is in trouble.

I’ll also be leaving this discussion now since I’d only be repeating myself from now on ("…whine and stamp your foot all you want…").

(baff) #37

In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses,

How many times do you need to read this to understand it Dazz? I don’t make the laws, games manufacturers don’t make the laws. You don’t make the laws. Congress and Parliaments make the laws.

This is the law. Denying it won’t make it go away.

@ lief my point is the same as others in this thread, I don’t want any kind of software protection that interferes with my usage of a game.
in order for this to be a better product, I have identified some of the more frequent problems that I hope can be avoided and offered practical workarounds that have been successful with other titles in the past.

FYI Where I come from the PC game market isn’t in any trouble. It is a growth industry. Year upon year. But I suppose you will dispute that too, rather than actually looking it up. You mind seems especially resistant to gaining knowledge.

(Nail) #38

Short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes (e.g., most EULA’s of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else).

Not every EULA is the same. Some contracts stipulate acceptance of the agreement simply by opening the shrink-wrapped package; some require the user to mail back to the manufacturer a signed agreement or acceptance card; some require the user to accept the agreement after the application is installed by clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user’s monitor.

:expressionless:

(Joe999) #39

lol baff, weren’t you the one who insisted so much on bots in QW? this brings up a whole new light on the thing. you want bots so that you and your friends can play the game locally while you only pay the price of one single license.

and please, don’t tell me you would buy the game for every computer you have.

(baff) #40

Some contracts stipulate acceptance of the agreement simply by opening the shrink-wrapped package; some require the user to mail back to the manufacturer a signed agreement or acceptance card; some require the user to accept the agreement after the application is installed by clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user’s monitor.

But the only one that is legally binding is the one that you agree to before you hand over your money.

A contract enacted after the bill of sale is considered to be under “duress”.
You are not agreeing to it out of deliberation but merely because you have to in order to get your legally owned product to function.

This is covered in the EU by The Unfair Contract Act 1977 and 1999 regulations.

A contract my “stipulate” what it likes, but anything it stipulates beyond the law is not binding.
This does not mean all subjects covered by a EULA are not legally binding.

Lets use your example.

(e.g., most EULA’s of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else

This is legally binding, not because you clicked “I agree” or opened the shrink wrap, but because it is international Copywright Law. regardless of any EULA it is illegal to do this with a copywright protected software.