Does Civ IV use StarForce for copy protection?

[KrikkitTwo]

Sorry, for getting off topic, but laws are made to make lawyers and their clients rich.

And Lawyers are there so that we don't have to kill and torture each other to settle things. (we can still do that but its not hygenic)

 

[Iolum]

Silent hunter uses starforce, and after installing it, my computer rebooted randomly. Just shuts down and restarts by itself. After I killed starforce it stopped. No game is worth having to suffer random reboots and loss of data. If it has starforce I will wait till its cracked or I just wont buy it.

 

[apatheist]

Starforce is good, please don't hate me Let me explain, Starforce is good only because it the new version Starforce 3 is really difficult to crack, and currently it is the only protection scheme that is not bypassed and therefore pirates can't play Starforce 3 protected games, they need to resort to insane methods like unplugging their IDE drives etc.

The problem with that is it only requires one person to resort to insane methods. Once they crack it, the software gets out anyway. It's not as though everyone will need to do that to get around Starforce. The net effect is the same, but with more ill will. The best compromise is for publishers to make copying a tedious bother rather than attempting to make it an impossibility. It's like real theft; you're never going to be able to guarantee keeping something perfectly safe, but you don't have to. You just have to make it so that it's not usually worth the effort. That's what Apple has done with iTunes. Fairplay has been cracked, but it's sufficiently liberal in what it allows that, even though it's trivially easy to download the crack, few people bother.

 

[brown_mudante]

There is no software protection that can't be cracked. Never was and never will be. It's too much money involved and sometimes it's even matter of cracker's prestige. Every "secure" protection is challenge for some smart kid to crack it so I don't believe that corporations will ever be able to protect software, music and movies from illegal copying. Only "secure protection" would be decreasing prices so that nobody will bother buying illegal stuff, but that will never happen beacuse of their greed.

 

[lightnng]

There is no software protection that can't be cracked. Never was and never will be.

Correct. This is true of any data, essentially once you have the data in your physical possession, whatever form of protection it has can eventually be removed with enough time and effort.

I think, however, that the point in shrinkwrap software is that it simply cannot be protected too well, due to resources required as well as the amount of hurdles it would place in front of the user. It's a self-defeating concept.

Basically, CP on shrinkwrap software is a misleading term. It is NOT a protection, nor is it thought of as one. It is simply a deterrent against "casual copying", or from another angle, a reminder to the one who tries to "casually copy" the software that it is, indeed, someone else's intellectual property. That is where technologies like Starforce go wrong; the people who develop them and those who buy them have actually bought into the mistaken notion that CP is actually protection, which it is not and never was intended as such.

Only "secure protection" would be decreasing prices so that nobody will bother buying illegal stuff, but that will never happen beacuse of their greed.

Wrong. There is no evidence of direct causality between pricing and piracy. That is why, for example, Microsoft can't sell their products for a tenth of their US price in some parts of the world (which they have tried on a limited basis, just to test the theory). There IS, however, plenty of evidence of causality between cultural tendencies and piracy. Refer to my earlier post.

You must understand that value - that is, price - is not something that is derived from the product itself, or from what the seller thinks its worth. It is derived solely from what the buyer is willing to pay for it. Here is the rub: if you grow up believing that ANY price is too much for, say, software, then regardless of how much you're getting for however little you are asked to pay, you simply won't consider it.

In other words, price points for games have been established NOT by the game companies, but by the customers. You and I have decided that $50 is a decent price for Civ4. No, I don't mean on an individual level, of course. But the support for these pricing decisions comes not from the companies deciding those prices are what their products are worth, but by us buying them. Yes, we may grumble, but we still buy. I'll add to this that the simple fact that we ARE grumbling but still buying proves that the price point is correct; if the price was so low as to create no grumbling, the company would be leaving money on the table. If it was too high so as to go from grumbling to not buying, they would be out of business.

 

[apatheist]

Wrong. There is no evidence of direct causality between pricing and piracy. That is why, for example, Microsoft can't sell their products for a tenth of their US price in some parts of the world (which they have tried on a limited basis, just to test the theory). There IS, however, plenty of evidence of causality between cultural tendencies and piracy. Refer to my earlier post.

Really? For how long did they conduct this experiment? And how much did they advertise the new, lower prices? Where did they sell them? You can't change people's habits just by marking down a price sheet. As I recall, legitimate software distributors and retailers in those areas area already few and far between. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I am not aware of sufficient evidence to make you right.

In other words, price points for games have been established NOT by the game companies, but by the customers. You and I have decided that $50 is a decent price for Civ4. No, I don't mean on an individual level, of course. But the support for these pricing decisions comes not from the companies deciding those prices are what their products are worth, but by us buying them.

Price points are established by both buyers and sellers. If the computer game buyer was only willing to pay $20 for Civ4, there would be no Civ4. Take2 and Firaxis would decide they couldn't cover their costs and make a sufficient profit to justify the investment. That's how the seller would influence the price. It's the exact same way that buyers influence the price. The market isn't one-sided; it's a market. It's in action right now. There are hundreds of games not being made because they'd have to charge $70 or $100 or $500 to cover expenses.

 

[Kazper]

Starforce is good, please don't hate me Let me explain, Starforce is good only because it the new version Starforce 3 is really difficult to crack, and currently it is the only protection scheme that is not bypassed and therefore pirates can't play Starforce 3 protected games, they need to resort to insane methods like unplugging their IDE drives etc. All other protection schemes are already cracked. So, releasing Starforce games is good from the publisher's perspective.

This is simply untrue as others have said. Starforce 3 games have been hard - but not impossible - to crack in the past, however, recently a generic way to crack SF3 was found and the protection is now as worthless as any other (well more worthless since it screws with legitimate consumers).

Anyway to repeat myself - enough about SF already. It's so extremely unlikely that Civ IV will use Starforce that discussing it is utterly pointless =)

 

[Lord Shadow]

Kazper's right. Enough with SF, Civ IV won't use it, and I'll continue to stoutly believe so until someone presents contradicting evidence.

 

[bky1701]

Starforce is good, please don't hate me Let me explain, Starforce is good only because it the new version Starforce 3 is really difficult to crack, and currently it is the only protection scheme that is not bypassed and therefore pirates can't play Starforce 3 protected games, they need to resort to insane methods like unplugging their IDE drives etc. All other protection schemes are already cracked. So, releasing Starforce games is good from the publisher's perspective.

So no one can play the game. Well that's just dandy.

 

[Naveed]

This is simply untrue as others have said. Starforce 3 games have been hard - but not impossible - to crack in the past, however, recently a generic way to crack SF3 was found and the protection is now as worthless as any other (well more worthless since it screws with legitimate consumers).

Anyway to repeat myself - enough about SF already. It's so extremely unlikely that Civ IV will use Starforce that discussing it is utterly pointless =)

Actually latest Starforce is currently extremely difficult to crack, some games are cracked but there is no general solution, esp. it makes life much difficult for the casual pirate. Take the example of Worms 4, out few weeks ago in Europe and still there is no way to bypass the cd check, so it is considered to be the least pirated mainstream game, which is truly remarkable and the publisher codemaster on their forum applaused Startforce for this.

 

[lightnng]

If the computer game buyer was only willing to pay $20 for Civ4, there would be no Civ4. Take2 and Firaxis would decide they couldn't cover their costs and make a sufficient profit to justify the investment.

It appears that we are in complete agreement What you are saying is entirely true, but it really is just the other side of the same coin: if the buyers are not willing to spend as much as is needed for the seller to make a profit, then the seller won't make the product, which will then not exist.

Of course, this is far too simplistic - there are numerous market forces at play that, for example, make some products worth selling below cost, from loss leaders to government subsidies. There are monopolies, oligopolies, and the like. Heck, there's tons of stuff we can talk about for ages.

But I think the basic truth is that value is derived by the buyer, not the seller. The seller simply attempts to figure out that value as early as possible ("what the market will bear"), and then to influence the market perception so as to make buyers believe there is more value inherent in the seller's products. Take2, for example, have done very well in the latter department with their marketing efforts for Civ4; GM, on the other hand, have done exactly the opposite with their recent "employee discount" program.

Cheers, mate.

 

[NP300]

Price points are established by both buyers and sellers. If the computer game buyer was only willing to pay $20 for Civ4, there would be no Civ4. Take2 and Firaxis would decide they couldn't cover their costs and make a sufficient profit to justify the investment.

Not necessarily... If 2.5 times more people would buy the game at $20 then the overall revenues would be the same. The profits would also be almost the same, since the cost of making an extra copy of a game, especially nowadays, can be near zero. So it should be perfectly viable to sell games at $5 each, provided enough people would buy them.

 

[apatheist]

But I think the basic truth is that value is derived by the buyer, not the seller. The seller simply attempts to figure out that value as early as possible ("what the market will bear"), and then to influence the market perception so as to make buyers believe there is more value inherent in the seller's products.

The value is derived on both sides. A transaction occurs when both buyer and seller believe they are better off with what the other has. Firaxis derives more value from their share of my $50 than they derive from having the box sitting in a warehouse, while I derive more value from the game.

Not necessarily... If 2.5 times more people would buy the game at $20 then the overall revenues would be the same. The profits would also be almost the same, since the cost of making an extra copy of a game, especially nowadays, can be near zero. So it should be perfectly viable to sell games at $5 each, provided enough people would buy them.

Well, the costs do increase. An incomplete list of costs is:
1) Development
2) Marketing
3) Press the CD
4) Print manuals
5) Construct the box
6) Ship it to a distributor from the publisher
7) Ship it to the retailer from the distributor
8) Store the inventory in various places along the supply chain
9) Provide tech support

Only the first two costs are independent of the number of units shipped. Manufacturing the CDs has a minor marginal cost, but, for all the other components, the costs increase almost linearly proportionally to the number of units shipped. I don't know what the cut that distributors and retailers take is. It's possible that dropping the price so much would more than make up for it, especially if the game was sold over the Internet directly by the developer (like Stardock does; they are developer, publisher, developer, and retailer all in one). I'm guessing that they have much better knowledge of the economics of the business than you or I do. These aren't music executives, after all.

 

[playshogi]

And Lawyers are there so that we don't have to kill and torture each other to settle things. (we can still do that but its not hygenic)

But, wait, we wouldn't be trying to kill and torture each other if we weren't arguing about the laws the lawyers made.

 

[Mujadaddy]

But, wait, we wouldn't be trying to kill and torture each other if we weren't arguing about the laws the lawyers made.

No, we'd still be trying to kill each other -- we'd just have killed all the lawyers FIRST

 

[bman003]

Actually most hunter gather societies with no written laws can actually have better family and friendship bonds. Also, they do less physical work than most agriculural societies. That's what I learned in anthropology last week anyways...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They also have a higher violent death rate..family+friendship bonds get really good vendettas going

 

[Mujadaddy]

They also have a higher violent death rate..family+friendship bonds get really good vendettas going

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees!

 

[Kazper]

Actually latest Starforce is currently extremely difficult to crack, some games are cracked but there is no general solution, esp. it makes life much difficult for the casual pirate. Take the example of Worms 4, out few weeks ago in Europe and still there is no way to bypass the cd check, so it is considered to be the least pirated mainstream game, which is truly remarkable and the publisher codemaster on their forum applaused Startforce for this.

This is still simply untrue. I can't link you because it'd balance on the edge of being against forum rules to link to a page describing - even in general terms - how this is done. But please look up things before you claim you know better than someone else. A very popular program is due out in a new version before the end of this month that will have this generic crack included. From that point on even the most casual gamer can do it, but there does indeed already exist such a generic solution.

Don't drink the Starforce developers Cool-Aid.

Edit: And Worms 4 has been available in an illegal version since at least Oct 12th. The Publisher is drinking the cool-aid when they applaud Starforce and thinks it helps one tiny bit.

 

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Not necessarily... If 2.5 times more people would buy the game at $20 then the overall revenues would be the same. The profits would also be almost the same, since the cost of making an extra copy of a game, especially nowadays, can be near zero. So it should be perfectly viable to sell games at $5 each, provided enough people would buy them.

Sort of true(as was said). However, I think it's rather unlikely that an increase in sales of that magnitude could be archived. They might see some increased sales, but I doubt it would be enough to cover the decreased profit. No matter the price you only have a finite group of customers. Some will not buy because of a price they perceive to be to high, but the rest will still buy. So lowering prices would likely only tap into a rather small pool of potential customers.