copy protection: not requiring CDs

[ledfan]

I'd just like to make the point that while copying a CD or using a no-cd patch while not having bought the game is illegal, it is not in the case of making a backup copy. I, for one, use no-cd patches or backup CDs because I dont want to pay for a new game if, for whatever reason, the original CD gets damaged. I keep the originals safe. This is the argument that devellopers of clone CD use(d), and many of the game copy websites, where you can download patches and software for cracking the protection. I won't name them because I'll just get a warning.
Plain Piracy is however is bad, and shouldnt be done.

Did any of you multi-player gamers ever play starcraft? Their system was really good, you bought the CD and installed the full game on one PC, and on your brother's (or whoever) PC you could install the muntiplayer only version. The multi-player version only worked if connected via a LAN connection to the pc with the full game on (installed from the same CD obviously). Great if you wanted to kick your bro's/friends....leg.

 

[Colonel]

A little thought but why not just require a cd code everytime you want to play, granted it would allow hacks cracks and just fake serials but that happens now anyways, I for instance know where to get both Civ3 and Civ3ptw for free. So it is no use to even attempt to get cd protection. I have known games that before they even came out commerically have had cd cracks and patchs and serials.

 

[ainwood]

The downside to a one-time-only verification is that it allows people to install, then simply sell the CD.

For people worried about damaging the CD, this can be greatly reduced by simple measures like putting the CD in the case when its not in-use, rather than stacking it on top of others on the desk etc.

It doesn't worry me too much having to insert the CD to play. It would be nice if the game supported being able to specify a directory for in-game music (so you could play your own MP3s as the soundtrack), and this would remove one of the rationales for not wanting the CD in the drive.

My only real problem with the CD copy protection is when the copy protection stops people running their legitimate copies (as appears to have happened with some of the PTW / C3C patches).

 

[rhialto]

Anyone familiar with the GalCiv system for copy protection? Basically, you register online, the reg code being unique to each paid copy. Presumably, if they detect the same reg code being used too many times (twice in 10 minutes, or more than 50 times total), they can then simply disable that code so any further registration with that code will be prevented. That should be combined with a message explaining why it is blocked and a contact for customers to query the decision, just in case.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

One question: do you have to register on the same computer you installed it on? It's a real pain in the ass, because my dad hasn't installed my connection to our house's wireless network (damn call schedules! (my dad is a doctor))

 

[rhialto]

I don't know the technical details for the GalCiv model, but I imagine you would need to install and then register from each computer.

I don't know under what circumstances they would consider disabling a reg code, but I can't imagine any single person installing two copies within 5 minutes, or anyone owning 50+ computers, which is why I set those limits at that high level.

 

[KazVorpal]

To the guy who said the request for a CD crack was hurting the developer:

He said he already bought the game, but lost the CD...something I've done dozens of times, with the help of my kids. This wouldn't hurt anyone even if actual copying did.

But, in reality, even copying software one doesn't have costs the industry little or nothing. This is because most people do spend what they can afford on software, and copy stuff they can't afford. If, once you've spent $200 for Windows XP, you can't afford to pay the insane $300+ for Microsoft Office at all, then downloading a copy obviously didn't "cost" Microsoft a penny.

Software is not "property" like REAL things, even copyright law says it's not. Copyright laws are just monopoly grants. The government actually, and this is how it's officially treated, gives Microsoft a monopoly on Windows XP. Ironic, isn't it.

If someone cuts down your apple tree to make furniture, you're deprived of apples and shade. If someone steals your furniture, you're deprived of furniture. This is REAL theft.

But if someone copies a CD, the software company is not actually deprived of the software. It's not REAL theft, it's just the violation of a monopoly grant.

 

[Vael]

If the developer produced it, it is their right to distribute it as they will. Just because it's not tangible property doesn't mean someone does not own it. If everyone pirated Windows XP and Microsoft made no money off of it one would not say that piracy did not cost Microsoft anything...

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually if you read the UFLA(whatever it is you always don't read and click 'I Agree'), you are agreeing that they have a right to distribute software under that liscense.

Software is not "property" like REAL things, even copyright law says it's not. Copyright laws are just monopoly grants. The government actually, and this is how it's officially treated, gives Microsoft a monopoly on Windows XP. Ironic, isn't it.

Wow, two arguments in one paragraph without a clear thesis for either. I certainly agree that we should just repeal 'oppressive' copyright laws and patents. After all companies should be willing to spend their money on development and not enjoy any chance to recoup development costs. This would definitely be an incentive for me to pay for the R&D for other companies. Of course if your are not a large company, you can get bought out by the large companies. So in effect large companies will inherit and control all business. In conclusion, I support your efforts to eliminate monopoly grants and believe it will accomplish all its goals.

But, in reality, even copying software one doesn't have costs the industry little or nothing. This is because most people do spend what they can afford on software, and copy stuff they can't afford. If, once you've spent $200 for Windows XP, you can't afford to pay the insane $300+ for Microsoft Office at all, then downloading a copy obviously didn't "cost" Microsoft a penny.

Dude, it costs Microsoft that $300+ you did not pay them. They assume that they need to sell x number of units to recoup R&D costs. Each unit that is not paid for is lost money. If you do not like how a product is priced, you buy a cheaper competitor. Stealing is not a legitimate market force.

 

[dexters]

Well, the wear and tear of my 'original' CDs is really what worries me. My C3C CD is getting scratches, i assume from the mechanisms inside the CD tray, as I've really only moved it between the CD-rom drive and its case.

There's also been reports of CDs exploding inside the CD-rom drive, wrecking the drive and making it essentially impossible to play the game you bought. I'd like to keep the CDs as the master copies and for reinstallation. A CD-less copy protection scheme would be welcome, but as Warpstorm has already noted, may be more of a hassle than its worth.