[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

That's what I said, no?
Making a case for using any copy protection. Arguably. Arguably, because the link couldn't have proved GalCiv would be better off with a protection, as they provided no point of reference.

I never said whether I felt the StarForce admin's argument was a good one or not, just that that was likely the intention of the admin's post, which is where 1UP's comment was directed at.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

And if he feels so, it must be true? But anyway, I don't see how it comes into CP discussion.

Er, well, seeing as how he's the CEO, and therefore presumably is in a position to see what his company's finances look like and worry about them, I think the fact that he thinks piracy isn't a big issue is pretty telling.

And, erm, maybe we're operating on different logic trains, but seeing as how the whole point of CP is to prevent piracy, I think that a developer's view on piracy is 100% relevant to a discussion of CP.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Car crashes kill 400 times more people than international terrorism. Does it mean we don't have to care about the terrorists anymore?

No, just that if you operate solely from that data, it seems that reducing the number of car crashes will have a far greater mathematical impact than reducing the amount of terrorism, in the overall scheme of things.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

That's hardly shocking, isn't it? There is nothing to dislike about no-DRM policy. People adore freeware games, too, but that doesn't mean freeware is the most beneficial option for the developer, financially speaking.

True, but since we are talking about a company that chooses to charge for it's products, I think that the question of whether the number of extra sales you get due to not having DRM is higher than the number of sales lost to not having DRM is one to be curious about.

And harder to answer than you might think. Sure, most of the people buying the game would buy it even if it did have DRM. But then, DRM does not stop piracy 100%, so people would still pirate the game even if it had DRM. It's the net differences involved that seems to be "at stake" here.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Even if they used StarForce?

If they used StarForce I would have never bought the game, so I obviously wouldn't know if they were extremely fun or not.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

No, seriously, you're spot on in that I don't recall ever encountering a reliable study backing up either this theory or the opposite. Until then, though, my intuition tells me that piracy has negative impact on sales. Is it an irrational assumption?

I'm not going to argue that piracy does have a negative impact on sales. There obviously is going to be X number of people that would have actually bought the game had they not been able to download it for free.

The question that's up in the air is, how many lost sales does that number equal out to? I personally don't think that number is as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but I don't think it's a question we can ever get a solid answer to.

And even if it is a bad number, the problem is that I don't think any CP can ever stop all piracy. Games with CP still get cracked all the time. The only way to completely stop piracy would be to completely lock down every single potential copying method on a PC with no way around it. Which might stop pirates, but would also royally piss off customers.

So, you have to consider all the extra questions that CP methods like StarForce bring up, such as:

1. How many sales are lost because people won't buy the game due to the CP method used?

2. How many people had trouble with the CP on a game, whether it be the game not working, the CP ruining their system, or wanting to be able to invoke their Fair Use rights, did a Google search for help, and discovered warez sites they might not have known about before?

3. How many sales are lost due to people from question number 2, suddenly faced with newly-discovered sites where they can download games for free in a form that won't pester them with CP problems, turning to pirating games when it might never have occurred to them to do such a thing before?

4. How many sales are lost due to people with CP problems saying to their friends, "Yeah, it wouldn't work on my computer, don't bother buying it."

Etc., etc.

What it boils down to is:

CP proponents seem to feel that all piracy = lost sales, and if you can stop piracy then that will all translate into gained sales. They seem to feel that they will gain more sales from prevented piracy than they will lose from using DRM.

Companies like Stardock, however, appear to feel that a significant chunk of piracy is never-gonna-have sales, and it's more important to concentrate on finding ways to encourage and make convenient as much of the "real" potential sales as possible. They seem to feel that they would lose more sales using DRM than they would gain from prevented piracy.

Who's right? Well, I'm obviously biased and cheering for folks like Stardock, but only time will tell.

Side note: I could also bring up other considerations like the fact that a cracker can get lots of bragging rights for being the first to crack a game, whereas any scrub with a modem can upload a game with no DRM, but I've done enough rambling already.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Link? I'm open-minded; I may change my view. Note, however, that one or two anecdotal examples that it happened, however well-documented, are not a "study". I'd like to see some fairly scientifc take on that.

I remember these being professional scientific studies back when I read the articles (summarizing the studies' conclusions), but I'm having a bit of technical difficulty with my router/proxy config/etc. so at this point I have to switch between configurations for a lot of websites which costs time etc. basically just put "music piracy boosts record sales" in google and you'll get the results (I'd have to switch configurations to get Google.com and then switch again to see the results ). From what I remember reading though, it made sense and one of the main conclusions was that through internet piracy, people listened to more music and would often end up buying the stuff they liked, so while it may mean less sales for the Britney Spears, it'd mean more sales for less mainstream artists and more sales overall, thus being more profitable for the industry as a whole. I actually think there's a parralel to be drawn with the games industry, where you could replace Britney Spears with say, FIFA 06 and the less mainstream artists with an adventure game or budget RPG. What keeps me from doing so though, is having a full-blown discussion here at this hour with people who know thousands of times more than me about videogames and the game industry

[SoccerDude28]

From Worthplaying:
"As if the StarForce copy protection isn't under enough controversy these days, the company decided to shamelessly promote the use of its anti-piracy application by .. linking to bittorent to download a pirated game. Recently Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II got attention because it doesn't use any protection, but sells increasingly well, apart from a serial code required to receive free updates & patches. Apparently StarForce feels threatened by this and, to seemingly prove copy protections are required, facilitates piracy by publicly spreading information where to download pirated games."

http://www.galciv2.com/temp/starfo2.jpg

[Dale Baldwin]

This has actually already been brought up in the other StarForce thread that's currently going on, from about post 127 onwards.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Dale Baldwin

This is actually already been brought up in the other StarForce thread that's currently going on, from about post 127 onwards.

Sorry I was out of the loop on that one. Can you merge the 2 threads, kind sir

[Tramboi]

Still anybody to defend Starforce here?
Or do we have to wait their next performance?

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Tramboi

Still anybody to defend Starforce here?
Or do we have to wait their next performance?

If there are, bring them on, we'll bash them and make fun of their silly hats and questionable motives, hah!

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Tramboi

Still anybody to defend Starforce here?

I still maintain that Starforce (the product) isn't as bad as the public perception of it would suggest, but I've given up being a lone dissenting voice amongst a seething mass of those determined to hate the company that makes it out of existence.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I still maintain that Starforce (the product) isn't as bad as the public perception of it would suggest, but I've given up being a lone dissenting voice amongst a seething mass of those determined to hate the company that makes it out of existence.

Hmm. I dunno, Doro's experiments looked pretty convincing to me...

Seriously though, even if the StarForce drivers were 100% harmless, the company doesn't even need any hate-mongers to bury it... they're doing it all by themselves with their aggressive, insulting PR moves. At this point they're pretty much making themselves look ridiculous all on their own without any outside help.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[kuddles]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I still maintain that Starforce (the product) isn't as bad as the public perception of it would suggest, but I've given up being a lone dissenting voice amongst a seething mass of those determined to hate the company that makes it out of existence.

Thing is, Starforce helped create that perception. They continue to act petty and unprofessional, and they refuse to change the way their application works, even though problems with it are well documented, and that other copy protection schemes seem to do the same job but aren't as invasive and don't leave information on the system after supposedly being uninstalled.

The fact of the matter is:
a) GalCiv II would still be on that bittorrent site even if it used Starforce.
b) I don't know of anyone who decided to buy a game because he couldn't find an illegal crack immediately after release.
c) I know of plenty of people who wouldn't buy a game because they had a bad history with Starforce, or were concerned about what it was, or couldn't be bothered with the hassle the copy protection scheme would give them. As the guy from Stardock says on his website, nobody has a CD check with Adobe Photoshop, why do we have it for games.

The end result is that piracy still exists whether a game has copy protection or not, but if it does, legit customers end up being penalized.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by kuddles

Thing is, Starforce helped create that perception. They continue to act petty and unprofessional, and they refuse to change the way their application works, even though problems with it are well documented, and that other copy protection schemes seem to do the same job but aren't as invasive and don't leave information on the system after supposedly being uninstalled.

No, they may be fueling that perception with PR mistakes, but the disproportionate amount of hostility towards StarForce existed well before that. And frankly, as a bunch of non-English programmers whose business isn't dealing with the public, I'm not actually all that surprised that they've made such blunders in their responses to the rampant negativity. That doesn't justify it, but it's certainly understandable. They desperately need to hire a PR firm and go back to programming.

As for your other claims, this is exactly WHY some of us feel compelled to defend them even though we don't actually approve of StarForce or their attitude. They did update the build that seemed to be causing the most problems, admitting its flaws. And whether or not their drivers are uninstalled is completely out of their hands, as the uninstall utility is given to the publisher to include or not.

No one denies that StarForce has caused problems. No one denies that they suck at PR. But seeing the same groundless accusations repeated over and over again makes it appear that people can't be bothered with facts or objectivity because rhetoric is more convincing. StarForce may be the biggest pile of crap on earth, but let's be sure to separate fact from fiction, or nobody benefits.

In other news, I agree that (former) doroposo's documentation is impressive. Hey, maybe that's why he isn't around these days. StarForce ate his computer! Or worse, StarForce sent some thugs to rub him out.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jackal

As for your other claims, this is exactly WHY some of us feel compelled to defend them even though we don't actually approve of StarForce or their attitude. They did update the build that seemed to be causing the most problems, admitting its flaws. And whether or not their drivers are uninstalled is completely out of their hands, as the uninstall utility is given to the publisher to include or not.

But even there, it's not really that helpful.

With any other software, I can look at what version it is and go download patches for it. Is there a way for a customer to find out what version of StarForce their game installed and go patch it to the most recent, fixed version?

Of course, that's assuming that the customer even knows that StarForce is on their machine at all, and that it might cause problems. IMHO companies need to start posting which version of CP is being used in their games on the box and/or documentation, and how it might possibly affect your system (even setting aside the question of damage or not, you get things like the fact that certain CP methods have been known not to work with certain drives, for example). It's rather silly that I have to go to warez sites (gee, so much for helping to prevent piracy...) to see which games use which CP method.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[AFGNCAAP]

In yet another news, StarForce has posted an apology four days ago. Did it make it to 1up's and Worthplaying's news?

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

But even there, it's not really that helpful.

With any other software, I can look at what version it is and go download patches for it. Is there a way for a customer to find out what version of StarForce their game installed and go patch it to the most recent, fixed version?

I'll address this point, but again I'm not endorsing StarForce, but rather trying to lobby for objectivity. There are plenty of valid reasons to object to StarForce or their behaviour, so let's leave out the invalid ones.

In this case, you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. I agree that it would be SMART of StarForce to do something along the lines of what you're suggesting. But the publisher is responsibile for the games they produce. They're the ones who bought StarForce, not the gamer. So StarForce is accountable to the publisher, and the publisher is accountable to the customer. Why all of a sudden we consider third-party companies to be directly accountable to the public is beyond me.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Jackal

In this case, you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. I agree that it would be SMART of StarForce to do something along the lines of what you're suggesting. But the publisher is responsibile for the games they produce. They're the ones who bought StarForce, not the gamer. So StarForce is accountable to the publisher, and the publisher is accountable to the customer. Why all of a sudden we consider third-party companies to be directly accountable to the public is beyond me.

Yes, the blame should first be on the publisher. Yet bugs and being able to update is completely in Starforce's hands.

[Jackal]

Agreed. They could really help themselves (and the consumer) instead of digging themselves into a deeper hole. Just pointing out that they're taking all the heat for publishers not doing their jobs.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Just pointing out that they're taking all the heat for publishers not doing their jobs.

Unfortunately there's no way around it. If a customer is having trouble with their software, they're going to want help. And if the publisher doesn't offer any help, whether in the form of support or patches, then the customer is stuck having to go directly to the maker of the software.

Which makes more sense anyway... after all, who do you expect to know more about how to fix your problems - the people who actually made the software, or the people who just distributed it? As AJ said, the ability to update is entirely in StarForce's hands... I'd rather be able to keep track of versions and download patches from them instead of having to wait until publisher X decides to get around to posting the patches on their site.

After all, isn't that true of most third-party things? If a game needs updates to DirectX or drivers or .NET or Python or Java or whatever to keep running properly, I can generally go straight to the people who make the third-party software and keep track of versions and patches. Plus it's almost always stated ahead of time I need have a specific one or more of these third-party things installed to play the game. Why do CP companies get a magic exemption from all this?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Unfortunately there's no way around it. If a customer is having trouble with their software, they're going to want help. And if the publisher doesn't offer any help, whether in the form of support or patches, then the customer is stuck having to go directly to the maker of the software.

Maybe so, but then more hostility should be directed at the publishers than the poor schmuck who's left trying to do two jobs, one of which they have absolutely no experience or expertise in doing (i.e. PR and dealing with the general public). The fact that it's more convenient to YOU to cut out the middle man doesn't change anything.

Which makes more sense anyway... after all, who do you expect to know more about how to fix your problems - the people who actually made the software, or the people who just distributed it? As AJ said, the ability to update is entirely in StarForce's hands... I'd rather be able to keep track of versions and download patches from them instead of having to wait until publisher X decides to get around to posting the patches on their site.

Now you're discussing technical issues hypothetically, and we're back to assumptions about what causes problems. I have no idea what is and isn't possible technically, nor what StarForce has and hasn't addressed. I asked specific questions about a zillion pages ago about what they have failed to acknowledge, and don't think I got an answer. I'm not about to argue hypotheses without facts. (And I'm not looking to argue facts, either. I simply wonder if people HAVE them.)

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Maybe so, but then more hostility should be directed at the publishers than the poor schmuck who's left trying to do two jobs, one of which they have absolutely no experience or expertise in doing (i.e. PR and dealing with the general public). The fact that it's more convenient to YOU to cut out the middle man doesn't change anything.

I sympathize with the matter (I've spent enough years in retail to know how much a pain in the backside customers can be), but the simple matter is that the average customer doesn't care who their help is supposed to come from as long as they get some. But then, I sympathize with the customer too... "Sorry, can't help you, that's not my department" is one of the most frustrating things to hear.

Not to mention the IMHO perfectly reasonable thought of "Hey, I paid *you* money to use your product; why do *I* have to jump through hoops to get help getting it working?"

I would also point out my third paragraph in my previous post: namely that the established precedent is that the average maker of third-party software designed to enable other software to work *does* usually provide its own support, patches, "contact with the public", etc. Again, why would your average Joe Shmoe expect CP software to be treated differently?

Originally Posted by Jackal

Now you're discussing technical issues hypothetically, and we're back to assumptions about what causes problems. I have no idea what is and isn't possible technically, nor what StarForce has and hasn't addressed. I asked specific questions about a zillion pages ago about what they have failed to acknowledge, and don't think I got an answer. I'm not about to argue hypotheses without facts. (And I'm not looking to argue facts, either. I simply wonder if people HAVE them.)

Well, as you said previously:

Originally Posted by Jackal

As for your other claims, this is exactly WHY some of us feel compelled to defend them even though we don't actually approve of StarForce or their attitude. They did update the build that seemed to be causing the most problems, admitting its flaws.

So make up your mind... did StarForce have flaws in the past, in which case the question of a customer being able to keep updated is important, or does it not have flaws and we're wasting our time discussing this particular angle?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Not to mention the IMHO perfectly reasonable thought of "Hey, I paid *you* money to use your product; why do *I* have to jump through hoops to get help getting it working?"

Sorry, I don't follow. The end-user has NOT paid anything to StarForce. The fact that there's a middle man you HAVE paid is the entire point. Demanding accountability from the company that sold you a (presumably) damaging product is not jumping through hoops. It's the correct avenue of recourse.

I would also point out my third paragraph in my previous post: namely that the established precedent is that the average maker of third-party software designed to enable other software to work *does* usually provide its own support, patches, "contact with the public", etc. Again, why would your average Joe Shmoe expect CP software to be treated differently?

I don't know how similar or different these things are to have any opinion one way or the other. I doubt most people do. In any case, that's irrelevant to this point. I've already said about four times that StarForce has handled itself poorly from a PR perspective. Surely you can't have missed that each and every time. I'm just pointing out the folly of venting all the hostility at the wrong company. No amount of helpful precedent-setting examples or fervent sense of self-entitlement is going to change that.

So make up your mind... did StarForce have flaws in the past, in which case the question of a customer being able to keep updated is important, or does it not have flaws and we're wasting our time discussing this particular angle?

Again, I have no clue what point you think you're trying to make. You don't KEEP StarForce on your computer (unless the publisher - again - opted to impose that) for it to need "updating" or not. If a faulty build is related to particular products, it's those products that require updating.