PDA

View Full Version : What sort of copy protection are we talking?



slyboots
8th Sep 2009, 00:57
I'm a little.. shocked that buying a game has actually come to this, but..

Anyone have any idea what sort of copy protection Batman on the PC will have? I've heard rumblings on SecurROM which is the same one used in Bioshock right? (with the limited installs and online activation and all that other crud.

I've looked about but not really got an answer and after getting stung with Bioshock Im concerned about pre-ordering it without knowing for sure.

So.. whats the deal? :)

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 03:16
Yes, it's SecuROM.

There's a chance the Steam version won't be using it, but that's always a little iffy until the game has been released on Steam in full, AND people have specifically asked (3rd party people tend to forget to mention SecuROM to Steam, and thus Steam fails to put the 3rd party DRM warning on the game page.)

Laokin
8th Sep 2009, 03:25
I'm a little.. shocked that buying a game has actually come to this, but..

Anyone have any idea what sort of copy protection Batman on the PC will have? I've heard rumblings on SecurROM which is the same one used in Bioshock right? (with the limited installs and online activation and all that other crud.

I've looked about but not really got an answer and after getting stung with Bioshock Im concerned about pre-ordering it without knowing for sure.

So.. whats the deal? :)

I hate install limits as much as the next... but you guys all using Bioshock and Mass Effect as examples obviously don't know what they are talking about. Both removed securom entirely within the first week of release. Why? Because people who paid legitimate money couldn't play the game and they were threatened and SUED with a class action suit.

Furthermore... there is only one publisher left still using install limits and that is Atari. But they come with a revoke tool as well... so you get your installs back.

If you want to see a legitimate issue for you to complain about see this thread.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1168945&postcount=20

As I have broken down the FACTS not opinions behind piracy.


P.S. Completed AA on PC already. 100% Paid in full Pre-order makes it legal software on my computer.

Sorry all you "Your a loser" people... but I'm not waiting almost a whole extra month to play a game my friends beat already just because it's a "Cracked" version.

Cracked software IS NOT illegal if you own the software that has been cracked.... Which I do. It just a matter of when I can pick up the box... but they already have my money.

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 04:35
I hate install limits as much as the next... but you guys all using Bioshock and Mass Effect as examples obviously don't know what they are talking about. Both removed securom entirely within the first week of release. Why? Because people who paid legitimate money couldn't play the game and they were threatened and SUED with a class action suit.

Furthermore... there is only one publisher left still using install limits and that is Atari. But they come with a revoke tool as well... so you get your installs back.

If you want to see a legitimate issue for you to complain about see this thread.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1168945&postcount=20

As I have broken down the FACTS not opinions behind piracy.


P.S. Completed AA on PC already. 100% Paid in full Pre-order makes it legal software on my computer.

Sorry all you "Your a loser" people... but I'm not waiting almost a whole extra month to play a game my friends beat already just because it's a "Cracked" version.

Cracked software IS NOT illegal if you own the software that has been cracked.... Which I do. It just a matter of when I can pick up the box... but they already have my money.

Hate to say it, but you don't know what you're talking about. SecuROM is far more than install limits, etc, and my Mass Effect and Bioshock discs still install SecuROM when the game installs, AND it's still required to be on the machine in order to play those games.

mikelocks
8th Sep 2009, 06:32
there using SecuROM v7 + PA (v7.40.0006 / v1.0.1.12) + Windows LIVE - Plus DVD Checker And CD-Key

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 06:34
And how exactly do you know this?

Phaid_Min6Char_Sigh
8th Sep 2009, 08:28
As long as it's the DVD-check form of SecuROM - like the one Street Fighter IV uses - so I can insert the DVD into the drive, install and play... I'll be very happy.

No internet connection and install limits = win on Eidos' part.

procrastinator
8th Sep 2009, 09:48
I hate install limits as much as the next... but you guys all using Bioshock and Mass Effect as examples obviously don't know what they are talking about. Both removed securom entirely within the first week of release. Why? Because people who paid legitimate money couldn't play the game and they were threatened and SUED with a class action suit.

Furthermore... there is only one publisher left still using install limits and that is Atari. But they come with a revoke tool as well... so you get your installs back.

If you want to see a legitimate issue for you to complain about see this thread.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1168945&postcount=20

As I have broken down the FACTS not opinions behind piracy.


P.S. Completed AA on PC already. 100% Paid in full Pre-order makes it legal software on my computer.

Sorry all you "Your a loser" people... but I'm not waiting almost a whole extra month to play a game my friends beat already just because it's a "Cracked" version.

Cracked software IS NOT illegal if you own the software that has been cracked.... Which I do. It just a matter of when I can pick up the box... but they already have my money.

As far as I'm aware circumventing copyprotection systems is at the very least, against the EULA therefore invalidating your license, and at the worst simply illegal. I know its illegal in the US, dunno about the UK/EU though.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 10:05
This is from the EULA of UTIII:

You may not publish the Software for others to copy, or electronically transmit the Software from one computer to another or over a network.

I bet that something like that is mentioned in the licence of Batman AA too, which means that indeed what the OP did is illegal and it's not his "right".

lampuiho
8th Sep 2009, 10:34
This is from the EULA of UTIII:

You may not publish the Software for others to copy, or electronically transmit the Software from one computer to another or over a network.

I bet that something like that is mentioned in the licence of Batman AA too, which means that indeed what the OP did is illegal and it's not his "right".

The one downloading it does not violate this law. As long as he is downloading it from rapidshare, he is not breaking this rule. But in Canada, even using torrent is legal.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 10:52
The simple fact is if you are playing the game and havent paid for it then you are breaking the law in most countries of the world. The EULA states that you have paid for the right to play the game, but not distribute it yourself or do anything to tamper with the files supplied as we still `own` those.. Things like modding are the exception but they only change the content within the game, not the ability to play the game itself.

Downloading from rapidshare makes it legal? erm.. right...

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 10:54
You might not violate the EULA but you definitely violate the law.

At least till 2007 you were breaking the law in Canada too. That's why they tried to close Demonoid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonoid#In_Canada

I don't this changed since then.

matches81
8th Sep 2009, 11:17
I hate install limits as much as the next... but you guys all using Bioshock and Mass Effect as examples obviously don't know what they are talking about. Both removed securom entirely within the first week of release. Why? Because people who paid legitimate money couldn't play the game and they were threatened and SUED with a class action suit.
Ouch... both titles still use SecuROM. For Bioshock, the removal of the activation limit took well over 2 months, not a week. For Mass Effect, AFAIK, the activation limit is still in place. If the activation limit in Mass Effect actually was removed, someone tell me, so I can finally play the game.

Sorry for the slight off-topic, just had to correct this.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 11:22
There is so much misconception and `blind` rage about copy protection that people dont like to hear they are wrong.

There is so much negative press when its done badly that when its done `efficiently and effectively` ie protects our IP for as long as possible and DOESN'T cause legitimate users any additional issues to play the game, no one seems to care as they just see the bad.. :(

slyboots
8th Sep 2009, 12:15
Uh.. Actually they just upped the install limits, they never actually REMOVED the online-check or limits completely in Mass-effect and Bioshock.

My issue with that sort of thing is your not really buying the game anymore, you just "Rent" it since when the activation servers go down your screwed. Same thing happened with some Music servers.

But anyway, Does anyone actually know what features os SecuROM is going to be used? or it just a case of waiting till someone else gets stung when its released.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 12:41
I wonder if anyone actually reads what i write.. I've said on quite a few occasions what copy protection i use :)

slyboots
8th Sep 2009, 12:46
Not to be rude, but if Im going to fork down £30 for this game, I would like to know what copy-protection it uses. Its a very simple and straight forward question and the constant evasion only suggests its going to be heavy and excessive.

Which is a shame, the reviews for the game are supposed to be execelent. I'll just have to wait or not get it at all.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 12:52
*sighs* i have stated on MANY occasions i dont use DRM for disc based products.. so what does that tell you. No DRM means no install limits etc.

There is a key for the games for windows part, but thats nothing to do with Securom.

slyboots
8th Sep 2009, 12:53
So its just a simple disk-check. No online activation, no install limits.. nothing but a simple disk-check when you run the game on Batman on the PC?

If thats the case, fantastic. I'll put my pre-order in now.

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 15:10
*sighs* i have stated on MANY occasions i dont use DRM for disc based products.. so what does that tell you. No DRM

You're telling me there's no DRM in BAA? At all? No SecuROM installation, no GFW, no Steam, no disc-check, nothing?


There is a key for the games for windows part, but thats nothing to do with Securom.

Oh. Hey. To quote Princess Bride "I do not think that word means what you think it means." DRM is far more than install limits and internet based checks. It encompasses all forms of copy-protection. A truly DRM free game would be, for example, Galactic Civilizations, or Demigod, or the latest version of Diablo 2 or Starcraft. If you're using SecuROM, even if it's for a disc check, it's a game with DRM.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 15:15
You're telling me there's no DRM in BAA? At all? No SecuROM installation, no GFW, no Steam, no disc-check, nothing?

Please tell me you read his post before asking that...

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 15:17
Please tell me you read his post before asking that...

My post managed to drop half of itself. I was in the middle of editing it.

Rockatansky
8th Sep 2009, 15:22
Has anyone here played Hitman, Commandos, Tomb Raider, Battlestations from disc?
If you have, have you ever had any problems with the security?
You might want to check who published these titles.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 15:28
A disc check is NOT DRM.. if it doesnt actually store anything on the users machine to do the check then there is no DRM involved.. DRM is a `digital` rights management ie something digitally is checking permissions.. Disc check is not digital its physical only.

As i also said the game is Games For Windows Live so there is a registration required for that, but thats NOT related to starting the game as you can play offline without a profile (but not able to save) this is a MS product not ours.

Steam is NOT a disc based product so will have some DRM to manage the permissions, ALL online purchased games have this..

Copy protection is the ALL encompassing term, DRM is a part of it.. not the other way around. You can have copy protection without DRM but you cannot have DRM without it being copy protection. If you see what i mean.

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 15:28
Has anyone here played Hitman, Commandos, Tomb Raider, Battlestations from disc?
If you have, have you ever had any problems with the security?
You might want to check who published these titles.

No, no, no, and... no. I keep telling myself I should check out Hitman, apparently it's good, and I think I did once try the... seventh? Tenth? Whichever one was the remake of the first Tomb Raider, but that was through something like Game Tap.

Last Eidos published game I played? I think maybe Final Fantasy 8? Man, I wish they'dve published 9 on the PC. Or maybe it was Deus Ex 2. Not sure, since it's been so long.

Henke123
8th Sep 2009, 15:31
there using SecuROM v7 + PA (v7.40.0006 / v1.0.1.12) + Windows LIVE - Plus DVD Checker And CD-Key
Source?

Or maybe jaycw2309 can confirm?

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 15:34
They would have got the encrypted exe from the pirated version to get the Securom version details.

Game For Windows Live is a given, handles the leaderboards etc..

Disc check have already confirmed for disc based users.

CD key - this is actually the Games for Windows Live key.

Moleculor
8th Sep 2009, 15:40
I'm betting his 'source' is the leaked beta torrenty thing. There was some hubbub about Sims 3 having SecuROM in their leaked-before-release thing, but not in the full game, which surprised a lot of people. I wouldn't be surprised if EIDOS did the same thing.


Steam is NOT a disc based product so will have some DRM to manage the permissions, ALL online purchased games have this..

I'll bug you in this thread here too because I'm really dying to know the info as I really want to buy this game but haven't yet (and the answer will determine where I buy the game from)... Steam's version... Steam DRM only? Or Steam + SecuROM? I ask because while I like Valve, and like supporting them, I dislike SecuROM and dislike supporting them, and will intentionally go out of my way to try and purchase SecuROM-less versions of games. I realize it probably doesn't directly affect SecuROM's bottom line one way or another, but if I support companies that don't carry SecuROM products, maybe that might make a difference. *shrug*

Henke123
8th Sep 2009, 15:44
They would have got the encrypted exe from the pirated version to get the Securom version details.
So it's saying PA because it's from the leaked D2D version, but the disc based version will not have it?

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 15:47
Yes disc based versions will use the disc for authentication, not PA.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 15:48
@jaycw2309


There is so much misconception and `blind` rage about copy protection that people dont like to hear they are wrong.

Well, to be brutally honest, all modern "copy protection" (fine,I'll use the loose PR friendly term if it'll keep you happy) causes problems for paying users. Hence the "blind rage". If Eidos is the first company to figure out how to use modern 'copy protection' and NOT cause trouble for their users, then that's great and I fully support you! However, the lack of official statement on the copy protection leaves many concerned.


*sighs* i have stated on MANY occasions i dont use DRM for disc based products.. so what does that tell you. No DRM means no install limits etc.

Well, to be blunt, (and referencing your sig on here), that's only what you have to say and not an official statement by Eidos. Or do you have the authority to make an official statement?

I've also noticed (and this has had me worried) that people have asked you multiple times on multiple threads if there will be online activation. You've never even acknowledged that they've asked, yet alone answered with a yes or no. All you've ever talked about is activation limits. Fine, I'll take your word that there will be no activation limits. What about online activation?

I WANT to buy Batman because the demo was amazing and the PC version has much better graphics. But I, and many other posters on this forum, don't want to pay for something unless I'm 100% sure of what I'm getting into because I've been burned in the past.

A simple update to the FAQ (if there even IS a FAQ, I don't recall seeing one) with a definitive "There will / will not be online activation. There will / will not be activation limits". Then all of the threads on if there will be activation limits or online activation are no longer necessary and you no longer have people getting angry. :)

Henke123
8th Sep 2009, 15:48
Yes disc based versions will use the disc for authentication, not PA.

OK, thank you for clearing that up.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 16:08
@jaycw2309



Well, to be brutally honest, all modern "copy protection" (fine,I'll use the loose PR friendly term if it'll keep you happy) causes problems for paying users. Hence the "blind rage". If Eidos is the first company to figure out how to use modern 'copy protection' and NOT cause trouble for their users, then that's great and I fully support you! However, the lack of official statement on the copy protection leaves many concerned.


Well, to be blunt, (and referencing your sig on here), that's only what you have to say and not an official statement by Eidos. Or do you have the authority to make an official statement?

I've also noticed (and this has had me worried) that people have asked you multiple times on multiple threads if there will be online activation. You've never even acknowledged that they've asked, yet alone answered with a yes or no. All you've ever talked about is activation limits. Fine, I'll take your word that there will be no activation limits. What about online activation?

I WANT to buy Batman because the demo was amazing and the PC version has much better graphics. But I, and many other posters on this forum, don't want to pay for something unless I'm 100% sure of what I'm getting into because I've been burned in the past.

A simple update to the FAQ (if there even IS a FAQ, I don't recall seeing one) with a definitive "There will / will not be online activation. There will / will not be activation limits". Then all of the threads on if there will be activation limits or online activation are no longer necessary and you no longer have people getting angry. :)

The game uses Games For Windows Live, this has a serial key, which is linked to an profile on the LIVE servers. Offline profiles can be created too however so no internet needed.

So IF the user has a DISC as they bought it in a shop they could play offline without having to be online at all (so no online activation there)

Online purchased versions have their own store key system to replace the authentication check as performed by the disc.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 16:23
Just curious.....why use Games for Windows Live at all? What benefit does it give?

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 16:24
Just curious.....why use Games for Windows Live at all? What benefit does it give?

Not something i can answer am afraid.. :( not my area to discuss if u see what i mean..

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 16:56
It supports features such as leaderboards and most importantly DLC.

That means that if Eidos plans to make say new challenge levels, gfw live gives them the opportunity to be able to sell them to those interested in them.

jaycw2309, thanks for the confirmation. It's good to hear that your company hasn't used restrictive DRM before and apparently won't use it in the (near) future either. :thumb:

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 17:00
It supports features such as leaderboards and most importantly DLC.

That means that if Eidos plans to make say new challenge levels, gfw live gives them the opportunity to be able to sell them to those interested in them.

jaycw2309, thanks for the confirmation. It's good to hear that your company hasn't used restrictive DRM before and apparently won't use it in the (near) future either. :thumb:

GFWL does provide us with that, as does Steam.. ;)

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 17:04
Yes, Steam / SteamWorks is a good solution too (though it DOES need online activation, but no one is forced to buy the Steam version, right? They can always buy the version found at stores.)

Phaid_Min6Char_Sigh
8th Sep 2009, 17:08
A disc check is NOT DRM.. if it doesnt actually store anything on the users machine to do the check then there is no DRM involved.. DRM is a `digital` rights management ie something digitally is checking permissions.. Disc check is not digital its physical only.

As i also said the game is Games For Windows Live so there is a registration required for that, but thats NOT related to starting the game as you can play offline without a profile (but not able to save) this is a MS product not ours.


OK, so the retail version uses a simple disc check. That's fantastic to hear.
Moreover, it utilizes Games for Windows LIVE for future DLC and achievements.

That's all I needed to know, thank you. You've just sold a copy of the PC version of Arkham Asylum.:thumb:

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 18:26
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Games for Windows Live require you to activate online? I've never used it, so I'm just going by what I read online.

Also, companies like Bethesda (with Oblivion) and Atari / Bioware / Obsidian (with Neverwinter Nights) did DLC that was paid for without using a system like Games for Windows Live.

If it's an optional thing, like how Baldur's Gate had an online system but it was optional to install / use, then that's perfectly fine. I just read somewhere that in order to save your game for Batman, you HAVE to have a Games for Windows Live account (which would be the same as online activation).

I may be wrong on that, which is why I'm asking, since I've never used Games for Windows Live.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 18:32
On the games I've used that have gfw live (if I remember well) you can create an offline profile without using the internet and saves work just fine.

Perhaps DLC can be supported by using other platforms as well, but you pretty much need an internet connection.. to download the DLC. The activation that you are talking about (if I remember well, again) is not really an activation, is more of a registration (like registering an account to post here) to create an online profile.

BTW today it was revealed that Eidos will release FREE (yay!) DLC for the game: http://kotaku.com/5354514/new-free-content-coming-to-batman-next-week

(It's probably the Dem-Bones map)

Though it doesn't mention the PC, I believe we will get it as well. Can you jaycw2309 confirm this?

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 18:42
The activation that you are talking about (if I remember well, again) is not really an activation, is more of a registration (like registering an account to post here) to create an online profile.


So in order to save the game, you have to go online and register an account (even if you set the account to offline mode)........explain how this is different from online activation?

Neon25
8th Sep 2009, 18:45
So in order to save the game, you have to go online and register an account (even if you set the account to offline mode)........explain how this is different from online activation?

You got it wrong.

You do not need internet connection of any kind to create an offline profile in GFWL.

Offline profile grants you the ability to save the game.

HOWEVER using an offline profile restricts you from downloading DLC, achievements, leaderboards.

I really don't see the fuss of using online activation, even South Africa has internet now.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 18:46
BTW today it was revealed that Eidos will release FREE (yay!) DLC for the game: http://kotaku.com/5354514/new-free-content-coming-to-batman-next-week

(It's probably the Dem-Bones map)

Though it doesn't mention the PC, I believe we will get it as well. Can you jaycw2309 confirm this?

Drazar confirmed this in the General Discussion forum earlier this afternoon. PC will get DLC :)

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 18:48
If that's the case (not needing to get online to create an offline profile), then it's acceptable.

As for why online activation sucks? It's because the company can revoke your ability to play the game you paid for at any point in time with no warning and you get no refund.

Some people would say "oh, but it's MS -- they're so big they'll always be around". Well first, never say never. Second, MS used to have a music store and then they decided to shut it down and everyone who bought music from them lost everything they paid for.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 18:48
You got it wrong.

You do not need internet connection of any kind to create an offline profile in GFWL.

Offline profile grants you the ability to save the game.

HOWEVER using an offline profile restricts you from downloading DLC, achievements, leaderboards.

I really don't see the fuss of using online activation, even South Africa has internet now.

That's right! :thumb:

@Nemesis296: That's GREAT news! :D

Gersen
8th Sep 2009, 18:54
If that's the case (not needing to get online to create an offline profile), then it's acceptable.


Don't worry, I have several games using GFWL like Fallout 3, SFIV, Lost Planet Colonies, etc... and I never ever registered online all works perfectly with an offline account.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 18:55
If that's the case (not needing to get online to create an offline profile), then it's acceptable.

As for why online activation sucks? It's because the company can revoke your ability to play the game you paid for at any point in time with no warning and you get no refund.

Some people would say "oh, but it's MS -- they're so big they'll always be around". Well first, never say never. Second, MS used to have a music store and then they decided to shut it down and everyone who bought music from them lost everything they paid for.

Are you saying you don't ever buy music from Apple Music Store because of this too? What if Apple suddenly went bankrupt (highly unlikely, but nonetheless...) Seriously, I don't know how you accomplish anything in life because you don't sound like you enjoy taking risks for the sake of enjoying life. Why is it that you and Coca Cola care so much about the protection put onto this game? I really am failing to understand that. When you buy software, you aren't buying the game, you are purchasing a license from the company to allow you to play the game. This is true with CD-keys, DRM, SecuROM...everything. There is only one exception to my "never had a problem with SecuROM" statement, and that is with KOTOR 2, because it doesn't run with Vista. I think you guys are both getting your panties tied up in a bunch over nothing.

By the way, if you notice you haven't gotten direct answers about the security specifically with SecuROM, that's probably because they aren't allowed to say. The pirates would go ape over the knowledge of how to crack the game. :wave:

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 19:01
Don't worry, I have several games using GFWL like Fallout 3, SFIV, Lost Planet Colonies, etc... and I never ever registered online all works perfectly with an offline account.

That's good then. My concern with buying a game is being able to reinstall it any time I want without having to rely some companies servers to let me install it.

I upgrade my system a lot and play around with new operating systems a lot, so I'm reformatting a good 3-4 times a year.

chip5541
8th Sep 2009, 19:03
I still have a dongle somewhere for one of my Amiga games :D

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 19:08
Why is it that you and Coca Cola care so much about the protection put onto this game? I really am failing to understand that.

Absolutely not. I'm only avoiding DRM that limits the number of installations because I KNOW FOR A FACT that I'm going to exceed that limit. I'm not against online activation and definitely not against any type of disc check or cd key. Also as I said before I own a pretty large number of titles on Steam. I even bought BioShock when they released the revocation tool (also later they removed the need to use the tool) and I plan to buy Dead Space (Game of the Year 2008, IMO) now that such a tool is available for that title as well.

So far in these threads I have repeatedly stated that IMO non obtrusive DRM is not bad, and yes it DOES help the sales. (To everyone: Do not flame me please, you are free to disagree as long as you can respect my opinion. I have provided enough reasons already to support my thesis)

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 20:03
Are you saying you don't ever buy music from Apple Music Store because of this too?

No, I don't. I don't buy mp3's, I buy the cd and then rip the mp3's myself. That way I have a physical backup and I know that my mp3's are truly mine to use on any device I choose.


Seriously, I don't know how you accomplish anything in life because you don't sound like you enjoy taking risks for the sake of enjoying life.

I take plenty of risks. What I won't do is throw away money. When you allow a corporation to control something that YOU LEGALLY PAID FOR, that is throwing away money.


Why is it that you and Coca Cola care so much about the protection put onto this game?

See above. I'm not going to buy a game if the publisher can revoke my right to play the game I paid for at any time.


When you buy software, you aren't buying the game, you are purchasing a license from the company to allow you to play the game.

Wrong. You're buying the right to use that software on whatever computer you please (as long as they are YOUR computers) and re-install it as many times as you please, and use it with whatever hardware you please. Things like online activation and activation limits take away your rights and leave you at the mercy of the company.


I think you guys are both getting your panties tied up in a bunch over nothing.

How old are you? I'm mid-20's and have had a job since I was 10. I work hard for my money and as such, I only buy things that last. I don't waste my money on something that is designed to break. It tends to only be those who are too young to have worked for a living who don't care about getting a quality product for their money.


By the way, if you notice you haven't gotten direct answers about the security specifically with SecuROM, that's probably because they aren't allowed to say. The pirates would go ape over the knowledge of how to crack the game.

Possibly. Or possibly if they say that there will be activation limits / online installs, potential customers will go ape and boycott it.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 20:09
Absolutely not. I'm only avoiding DRM that limits the number of installations because I KNOW FOR A FACT that I'm going to exceed that limit. I'm not against online activation and definitely not against any type of disc check or cd key. Also as I said before I own a pretty large number of titles on Steam. I even bought BioShock when they released the revocation tool (also later they removed the need to use the tool) and I plan to buy Dead Space (Game of the Year 2008, IMO) now that such a tool is available for that title as well.

So far in these threads I have repeatedly stated that IMO non obtrusive DRM is not bad, and yes it DOES help the sales. (To everyone: Do not flame me please, you are free to disagree as long as you can respect my opinion. I have provided enough reasons already to support my thesis)

I respectfully disagree. Online activation IS obtrusive when the company decides the game is too old to bother supporting anymore or if the company goes bankrupt. The game you paid for is then a useless coaster, unless you find a crack.

I also think that your claims that DRM helps sales are wrong. A good game sells well even if it is pirated. Spore had DRM, was cracked and pirated to Hades and back and STILL sold an insane number of copies. Blizzard games are also pirated mercilessly and Blizzard has more money than God.

The claims of "pirating made my game fail" is the hubris of those who do not make games worth buying. The same goes for movies. Hostel II wasn't a very good movie and as such, people didn't want to see it. It ended up mainly only being seen by pirates because word of mouth got out that it was so bad that no one bothered to see it.

There are two kinds of pirates. The first kind is the kind who refuse to pay for it and would literally steal a copy off the shelves if downloading it online wasn't an option. You will never get money from the first kind, so there's no point in trying. The second kind of pirate is a "try before you buy" person. These people see a game / movie and say "I dunno, I'm not really sure if it's worth buying.." and then obtain a pirated copy, play / watch it, and if it turns out to be good, they will go buy a copy. The only want to get money from those people is to make a quality game and in that case, the piracy acts as a free promotion for the game.

If you add DRM and successfully stop piracy, the first kind of pirate will resort to taking a physical copy off the shelf at the store. In that case, the company actually DOES lose money as opposed to failing to make more money. The second kind of pirate will simply not play the game at all and, if it's a good game, then that IS in fact a lost sale and the company loses money. DRM increasing profits is a lie told to businesses and sold by the people who created the DRM.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 20:16
We shouldn't talk about piracy and DRM anymore, because the other thread was closed. However you should know that I respect your opinion. But we should stop this discussion right here, since we are already repeating our points, it gets boring and we were asked to do so. :wave:

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 20:20
Actually it was the person attacking and claiming that if you didn't post your personal name and accomplishments, then your point is invalid that caused them to close the thread.

SteMot
8th Sep 2009, 20:30
Yes disc based versions will use the disc for authentication, not PA.

That's good enough for me. I think I actually love you. I now await my Collectors Edition with great anticipation. :D

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 20:41
No, I don't. I don't buy mp3's, I buy the cd and then rip the mp3's myself. That way I have a physical backup and I know that my mp3's are truly mine to use on any device I choose.



I take plenty of risks. What I won't do is throw away money. When you allow a corporation to control something that YOU LEGALLY PAID FOR, that is throwing away money.



See above. I'm not going to buy a game if the publisher can revoke my right to play the game I paid for at any time.



Wrong. You're buying the right to use that software on whatever computer you please (as long as they are YOUR computers) and re-install it as many times as you please, and use it with whatever hardware you please. Things like online activation and activation limits take away your rights and leave you at the mercy of the company.



How old are you? I'm mid-20's and have had a job since I was 10. I work hard for my money and as such, I only buy things that last. I don't waste my money on something that is designed to break. It tends to only be those who are too young to have worked for a living who don't care about getting a quality product for their money.

.

Possibly. Or possibly if they say that there will be activation limits / online installs, potential customers will go ape and boycott it.

I'm too lazy to multi-quote your post...I'm about the same age as you, and while my tone may have taken a lesser route, the point still remains: I don't get why you wont experience the entertainment for the price that it costs. Let's take the example of "limited time support" for software and compare to to something else that's limited time: theatre. When you goto the theatre, you pay a premium price for a one-night show, and see the entertainment. After the tour is over, the show can never be watched again. With your logic, you wouldn't ever buy a ticket to this type of entertainment, because you can't have access to it whenever you want. I'm not trying to flame you, but it really sounds like you have a mentality of someone who only takes what is for absolute-certain in this world. I understand how you don't like the company telling you when you can use the software, but it's THEIR software! It's not YOURS. You aren't spending $50 or $60 on the software. You are spending that money on the right to ACCESS it. If my company were to tank, and we stopped supporting the software we make, you can be damn well sure that we certainly wouldn't be allowing new customers to somehow access it. We don't have DRM/etc but it just makes logical sense.

You can pose the same argument about compatibility with computers. If you are upgrading your computer 3-4 times a year (what are you possibly buying that is going 'out of style' that quickly...)...that to me sounds like you're wasting more money doing that, than a couple of $50 games would. I just spent $400 on a new power supply, video card and RAM which was the first upgrade I had in 2 years. I didn't have to re-install any programs, and I don't really have a fit over whether or not the game I'm running has copy-protection software. That's also because I know that in 20 years or so, when computers have turned into the next greatest thing and aren't supported by MS or Dell, or whatever, I won't have to worry about whether or not my games will be supported by the company that made them, and something else that's awesome and great will be out there to gather my interest for long enough that I can be entertained enough to be happy.

I think you have a very big misconception about the ownership of things that you buy, versus things that you have access to. Just like with Microsoft Windows, when you agree to only install Windows on ONE computer, why aren't you going crazy about that? They are limiting your installs to one machine, and if it isn't authenticated, they'll uninstall the program and wipe your hard drive...how about that? It just goes to say, software is a right. Not a right to do what you please with it, but a right to use it as the *company intended for it to be used*. Just like, I could certainly take a game I bought and upload all the files to a file sharing site...but is that my right to do? Absolutely not. I only have the right to use the software how the company who manufactured it intended for me to use it. If that means they don't want me playing it, so be it...it was fun while it lasted. I may curse and scream at the computer when it doesn't work, but I feel like the entertainment value of buying a game that may only work for a limited time outweighs the feeling of guilt that I would feel for being a sucker for copy-protection, and not enjoying the entertainment that companies are providing.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 21:20
First off, a theater is different - it's a live performance. It's not a recording. There's no reason that a recording can't be played over and over.

Secondly, when I pay them $60, that cd is MINE and if I want to install what's on it, I can. Your analogy with your company is false - you say "we wouldn't allow new customers to access it" - I'm not saying anything about new customers. Would you go to the people who use your software and forcefully uninstall it / make your software break? I doubt it. That's the same principle I'm talking about.

I don't upgrade my system 3-4 times a year, I reformat it due to playing around with different operating systems (god knows how many versions of linux, beta versions of windows, etc). If a new OS doesn't support my game, I have access to older OS's that do. I can also keep an older system around to play those games on if hardware stops supporting it. However, by your argument, I shouldn't be allowed to keep old hardware or old OS's around to play older games on.

Windows typically is NOT "only install on one computer" it's "you get X installs for one user". I am one user, therefore it's perfectly legit for me to use one copy for both my laptop and desktop. I can also run Linux (totally free) and use WINE to run programs designed for Windows, so again, I'm not limited by MS.

You do not have a right, nor have I ever said you did, to share software with others. However, you have the right to use it for your personal use however you bloody well please.


If that means they don't want me playing it, so be it...it was fun while it lasted.

You know the old adage about a sucker being born every minute? Not trying to insult you, but it was talking about people like you. They know that people like you exist who'll even eventually accept that "it's their right" to charge you $5 every time you boot your computer and $5 every time you launch a game. People like me who know their rights and value their money will never accept that.

I can enjoy the games that I am allowed to own so much that I'll never miss not playing a game that uses DRM to rob me of my rights. I feel no loss at never playing Bioshock or Mass Effect or Spore. That's the beauty of the crap tons of software out there - there's always something to keep you busy.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 21:39
First off, a theater is different - it's a live performance. It's not a recording. There's no reason that a recording can't be played over and over.

Secondly, when I pay them $60, that cd is MINE and if I want to install what's on it, I can. Your analogy with your company is false - you say "we wouldn't allow new customers to access it" - I'm not saying anything about new customers. Would you go to the people who use your software and forcefully uninstall it / make your software break? I doubt it. That's the same principle I'm talking about.

I don't upgrade my system 3-4 times a year, I reformat it due to playing around with different operating systems (god knows how many versions of linux, beta versions of windows, etc). If a new OS doesn't support my game, I have access to older OS's that do. I can also keep an older system around to play those games on if hardware stops supporting it. However, by your argument, I shouldn't be allowed to keep old hardware or old OS's around to play older games on.

Windows typically is NOT "only install on one computer" it's "you get X installs for one user". I am one user, therefore it's perfectly legit for me to use one copy for both my laptop and desktop. I can also run Linux (totally free) and use WINE to run programs designed for Windows, so again, I'm not limited by MS.

You do not have a right, nor have I ever said you did, to share software with others. However, you have the right to use it for your personal use however you bloody well please.


You know the old adage about a sucker being born every minute? Not trying to insult you, but it was talking about people like you. They know that people like you exist who'll even eventually accept that "it's their right" to charge you $5 every time you boot your computer and $5 every time you launch a game. People like me who know their rights and value their money will never accept that.

I can enjoy the games that I am allowed to own so much that I'll never miss not playing a game that uses DRM to rob me of my rights. I feel no loss at never playing Bioshock or Mass Effect or Spore. That's the beauty of the crap tons of software out there - there's always something to keep you busy.

True that there is always something to keep you busy. I guess I consider myself more the adventurous type (getting away from the 'sucker' as you put it)...I buy games for the hell of it. I guess I don't always spend my money the wisest, but you know...you only live once. And I would much rather say it was fun while it lasted, than "Man i really wish I had bought that game and gotten to experience it." Fat chance that will actually make a life-changing impact on your life as a whole, but I'm sure you get my meaning.

I won't deny that I am somewhat of a person who just kinda deals with life and the cards that are dealt to me. Life is too short to get up in arms over small things. This to me is a small thing, and I probably will never understand it. Now, on the contrary, I think that a company that places software on a computer that PREVENTS me from using my computer how I see fit *cough* SecuROM *cough* is VERY wrong. I don't support the use of this, and if I *EVER* have problems with SecuROM because of software like Spore, etc. You better believe that I'll be trying to get my piece of the lawsuit as much as the next guy.

You're right that it's my computer so I should be able to do what I want with it, I just think that you might be getting a little too serious about this whole thing over a video game, that's all. I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't want to buy the game that's perfectly fine with me, and I'm sure that Eidos/Rocksteady don't care either, but why make it sound like not having 100% full access to your software that you are spending money on is like the end-all-be-all for you with computers?

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 21:44
True that there is always something to keep you busy. I guess I consider myself more the adventurous type (getting away from the 'sucker' as you put it)...I buy games for the hell of it. I guess I don't always spend my money the wisest, but you know...you only live once. And I would much rather say it was fun while it lasted, than "Man i really wish I had bought that game and gotten to experience it." Fat chance that will actually make a life-changing impact on your life as a whole, but I'm sure you get my meaning.

I won't deny that I am somewhat of a person who just kinda deals with life and the cards that are dealt to me. Life is too short to get up in arms over small things. This to me is a small thing, and I probably will never understand it. Now, on the contrary, I think that a company that places software on a computer that PREVENTS me from using my computer how I see fit *cough* SecuROM *cough* is VERY wrong. I don't support the use of this, and if I *EVER* have problems with SecuROM because of software like Spore, etc. You better believe that I'll be trying to get my piece of the lawsuit as much as the next guy.

You're right that it's my computer so I should be able to do what I want with it, I just think that you might be getting a little too serious about this whole thing over a video game, that's all. I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't want to buy the game that's perfectly fine with me, and I'm sure that Eidos/Rocksteady don't care either, but why make it sound like not having 100% full access to your software that you are spending money on is like the end-all-be-all for you with computers?

The reason people like me take it so seriously is because we know where companies want to go with this. Music companies DO want to turn it into "pay per play". Game companies DO want to take it to where (at best) you have to pay a monthly fee for every game (even single player games) that you buy. These things have to be brought to societies attention NOW before companies start really destroying things (I'm far from anti-corporation, just against companies abusing their power).

I do plenty of living in the moment, I just won't waste money on something that SHOULD be a "buy once and have it forever thing" just because that particular company altered it so that it will break after X amount of time.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 21:59
The reason people like me take it so seriously is because we know where companies want to go with this. Music companies DO want to turn it into "pay per play". Game companies DO want to take it to where (at best) you have to pay a monthly fee for every game (even single player games) that you buy. These things have to be brought to societies attention NOW before companies start really destroying things (I'm far from anti-corporation, just against companies abusing their power).

I do plenty of living in the moment, I just won't waste money on something that SHOULD be a "buy once and have it forever thing" just because that particular company altered it so that it will break after X amount of time.

I don't think that the big-kahuna companies would ever let it get that far, because if it was honestly 'pay-to-play' for each song, I'm not that naive and stupid. Do you really think the world would come to that? I mean I know that games like World of Warcraft are just cash cows from their $15/month 'subscription' fees, but we all know what that's really paying for...jack crap. Crap servers, crap support, and crap communities. If it came to that, I know where to draw my limits line. I was hesitant to renew my Xbox Live Gold membership yesterday because I simply don't use it all that much to make it worth the $50/year, but I did anyways, oh well.

I really hope that the gaming industry doesn't get completely destroyed because of ambitious companies looking to drain everyone's wallet...I think the gaming industry is booming as it is, why go for broke with the idea that everyone will pay to play? If my estimates seem reasonable, I would guess that gaming would completely become extinct if it ever came to that. Or at least I would hope so, then again...the world is full of idiots. It's a known fact.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 22:15
Companies use piracy (which really doesn't affect their sales, as I went into earlier on this thread in a response to Coke) as an excuse for having absolute control over peoples access and use of media.

I really don't want to see the gaming industry go that way, but they're pushing for it out of pure greed (I'm talking the industry in general, not every company wants that).

I agree, many people (like me) would just give up gaming if it went to that. However, the companies would just claim that they were "losing sales" to pirates even more and the cycle continues. It's pretty much just like how GM went bust.

Pbrad08
8th Sep 2009, 22:38
Companies use piracy as an excuse for having absolute control over peoples access and use of media.

Look out, we got ourselves a true conspiratist here! :lol:

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 23:31
Not a conspiracy, it's a well known fact. I've seen your posts on other threads PBrad. Either you're an idiot or you're actually an Eidos employee out to slander anyone who questions companies having absolute control over people's use of the product they pay for.

Nemesis296
9th Sep 2009, 01:28
Not a conspiracy, it's a well known fact. I've seen your posts on other threads PBrad. Either you're an idiot or you're actually an Eidos employee out to slander anyone who questions companies having absolute control over people's use of the product they pay for.

As interesting a point you make, don't call people names on here. And secondly, I highly doubt an Eidos employee would write:


What kind of dude opens a batman game while there is a girl in a bed near him. Unless that is the dude's sister. But then agian.....why would you open batman in your sister's room while she is in bed?

If that isn't the case...wow...I'm speechless.

Totenglocke
9th Sep 2009, 03:01
Why do people construe commenting on someone's intelligence as "calling names"? If I said "you must be really smart" you wouldn't say that, so if they're not intelligent, why does that all of the sudden become an insult instead of a simple statement of a fact?

Tarzanman
10th Sep 2009, 19:53
Totenglocke is correct. Both software and music companies see 'software-as-a-service' or subscription based models as the path to increased profitability. This will allow them to demand more steady revenue streams from their products. An added benefit is that they will be able to spend less money on lobbying Congress to keep extending copyright terms (though they probably will anyway).

The music industry figures that you'll be more likely to spend more for a song if they charge a fraction of the cost of the CD for each device/time you want to listen to it over the course of time than $10.99 up front that gives you unlimited use.

capable heart
10th Sep 2009, 20:17
Now that the answer of what copy protection for Batman AA has been answered, can we maybe get a sticky that says

1. The game uses a disc check
2. There is a Games For Windows CD key
3. You can make a fully offline profile to save your game
4. You never ever have to activate online

I think that all these big rants about the philosophy in general behind the concept of DRM should maybe go in an off topic forum. It is too confusing to go through that wall of text, new users to the forum need to be able to clearly read the relevant info so they don't go on rants themselves because of misinformation.

Catlettuce
10th Sep 2009, 22:11
Just to make things absolutely, 100% crystal clear, the disc check for the physical version of Arkham Asylum is provided by SecuRom, right? (one of SecuRom's "many functions". Coca Cola suggested this may be the case in the Securom thread, but it wasn't confirmed)

And it will presumably, as with most versions of SecuRom, not be removed upon uninstall of the game, correct?

If both of those are true it looks like I'm going to have to knock B:AA off my "Games to buy" list - unless the Steam version uses Steam instead of SecuRom (as with some games, although others use both)

mikelocks
10th Sep 2009, 22:44
i said what it gots theres no DRM in the game at all the STEAM has it yes D2D has it to but not the DVD has no DRM i said in early post what it got

there using SecuROM v7 + PA (v7.40.0006 / v1.0.1.12) + Windows LIVE - Plus DVD Checker And Key is for LIVE only

poor jay they better be paying 5x more to do the board to lol

capable heart
10th Sep 2009, 23:00
Just to make things absolutely, 100% crystal clear, the disc check for the physical version of Arkham Asylum is provided by SecuRom, right? (one of SecuRom's "many functions". Coca Cola suggested this may be the case in the Securom thread, but it wasn't confirmed)

And it will presumably, as with most versions of SecuRom, not be removed upon uninstall of the game, correct?

If both of those are true it looks like I'm going to have to knock B:AA off my "Games to buy" list - unless the Steam version uses Steam instead of SecuRom (as with some games, although others use both)

There's nothing objectionable about the disc-checking part of SecuRom.

Now look, I'm not saying literally 0% of no one has ever had a bug with it, I'm just saying that it is pretty harmless in the overwhelming majority of cases. You really seem confused about what part of SecuRom does what.

Seriously, how many games do you own that have a disc check? Of those that do, I would bet most of them function off of SecuRom's disc check ability. (Of course, if you buy everything through Steam then sorry and just forget I opened my big mouth :))

The Coca Cola Company
10th Sep 2009, 23:50
And it will presumably, as with most versions of SecuRom, not be removed upon uninstall of the game, correct?

After the uninstallation of the game run this: https://support.securom.com/removaltool/

Securom is completely removed now. Easy uh?

Ravenger
11th Sep 2009, 07:41
Thanks for disclosing the copy protection/DRM method. I'm against activation limits, so I'm glad to see that this game doesn't have any.

It's sad that the first feature I check for when purchasing a game is the DRM scheme, but I don't pre-order or buy games until I know they don't feature activation limits having being caught out by pre-ordering Mass Effect and Crysis Warhead in the past.

The good news is that this thread is directly responsible for me pre-ordering the game!

However, you may like to know that GFWL does have hidden activation limits, not disclosed anywhere until you actually hit that limit - some users have been caught out by this, just google 'GFWL activation limits'. It can be resolved by getting a new key from Microsoft.

However since you don't need to activate to play this single player that's not really a problem for me. It would be if this game had a substantial online component, since going past an activation limit could lock me out of the multiplayer game.

It's interesting to note that GFWL 3.0 has a feature that allows a game to be tied to an account like Steam, so no need for activation limits. However this has to be enabled by the game developer.