Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UbiSoft Blocks Virtual Drives With Raven Shield Patch

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the virtually-annoyed dept.

PC Games (Games) 152

Thanks to EvilAvatar for their story discussing UbiSoft's new patch for PC stealth action title Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, which "checks PCs for ANY clone or virtual drive programs and then fails to launch the game if such devices or programs are found." The article explains: "What this has, in turn, done is disabled thousands of consumers who use programs like Daemon Tools, CloneCD or Alcohol 120% from playing their UbiSoft games even if they have their own physical CDs in an actual drive." The writer is furious, pointing out: "Irregardless of what the virtual drives or virtual clone programs on your system are for, you will not be able to play Raven Shield with patch 1.5 unless you remove them completely off your system", and wondering whether this action is allowed under the EULA for the product. There are also similar discussions on the official UbiSoft forums for the game, though many sympathize with UbiSoft's anti-piracy efforts "telling you that in order to use the product you have to keep the CD in."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so use a crack (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686031)

that's what they're for, isn't it?

Re:so use a crack (4, Informative)

strangel (110237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686276)

if you use a crack, you modify the checksum of the .exe...which alot of game servers check when connecting to play online. I don't know anything about this game, but I know that BF1942 does it.

Re:so use a crack (2, Informative)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687611)

So does Warcraft 3 now (it never used too), which sucks as the latest Securom won't load on my system, so I can't play without a crack, but can't play online with a cracked exe... Yeah, thanks Blizzard. I've always liked Blizzard, but I won't be buying any future products. I'm sick of companies using "security" measures that do nothing to prevent piracy, but screw over people who paid for the product.

As for not working with virtual drive programs etc... This is not new. Supposedly some versions of Safedisc and Securom do the same thing.

I would not buy from ANY company that used protection like this.

Re:so use a crack (1)

jilles (20976) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688087)

The ironic thing is that these security things severely limit the life time of a game. After the release of the game there is a peak in online game play. A few months after there's only the usual clan nuts left (no offense but for the casual player that totally sucks). All the people who bought the game have likely bought another game and the people who used the crack can't play online anyway. As a consequence I am very selective in what I buy.

Games like quake (I & II) and doom took off because of illegal copying. There are so many copies that you can still find quake I servers with players on them (for the record I played this game online in 1997). Basically none of the games on the shelf right now are going to be played online in seven years. The chance that you will find someone who bought the game and is still playing in seven years is very low.

Re:so use a crack (3, Interesting)

mystran (545374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688148)

You just need a crack that in addition to going around the virtual drive checking routine, replaces the routine which replies to servers query of the checksum, either returning the correct (original) checksum it it's static, or using the unmodified binary to calculate the checksum.

While this is a bit harder to do than just jmp:ing over the checking routine, there's no fundamental reasons why you would have to return the real checksum of the binary. It's just more work for the cracker.

Actually, even adding something like PunkBuster there to do the checksumming doesn't help. There's no reasons why ANYTHING on your computer could be trusted by the server. It's just a matter of adding yet more things that must be cracked before the game works.

That said, this whole thing is ridiculous. What's the point of playing games on PC if you have to search for the stupid CD. Game makers that try to force one to do this are just trying to kill the PC gaming. Those people that can't use virtual drives have most likely already gone to consoles.

EULA's allow for backup copies to be made (4, Insightful)

servicepack158 (678320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687097)

I thought most EULA's allow a person to make backup copies. It's legal to make/keep back up copies of software you purchased. I would think this control is improper. Granted they uses these imaging products to make illegal copies too, but that shouldn't prevent a user making legit backup copies from playing online.

Re:EULA's allow for backup copies to be made (1)

joeljkp (254783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688924)

Mod parent up.

I've thought about this, too. It seems like a blatently hypocritical policy. On the one hand, you have game EULAs that allow you to make a backup copy. At the same time, you have copyright protection schemes that try to prevent you from making that copy. This seems like something the courts could take up, honestly...

In the end, though, the effect is to shut out casual copiers (i.e. legit backups) while doing nothing to hinder the truly dedicated (who will used cracks and stuff anyway).

Does anyone have a copy of the Raven Shield EULA around? What does it say about backup copies?

Not a problem (4, Insightful)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686032)

Safedisc and whatnot have been doing this for sometime now. Daemon Tools will release an update that will bypass the blacklist and all will be merry.

Re:Not a problem (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686058)

afaik they're only been checking the name of the virtual device, not actually checking if the programs are installed and refusing to run if they are.

Re:Not a problem (4, Insightful)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686215)

And I'm sure there's a no-CD crack out already. This sort of move really baffles me; I don't see what UbiSoft could possibly hope to gain. Clearly the only users who will be affected by it are those who bought the game, as those who didn't are already using cracks: they have no need for virtual drive software. The only reason for ever using virtual drive software is convenience, and the convenience can be appreciated both by legal and illegal users of the game.

Re:Not a problem (3, Insightful)

KronicD (568558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687244)

Exactly, all these companies purchase copyprotection such as safedisc because of macrovision's (and other companies) marketing hype about "protecting your investment" and such... Then the marketing droids get quite exited about this idea, oo another "feature" to make sure our consumers only get a "high quality product" and not some "pirate copy" by mistake... These people have no idea how things actually work.

Look at windows xp for example, product activation... a very annoying feature that you have to live with if you buy the product legitimatly (excluding corporate versions), however when you get a nice pirated copy all that horrid protection is removed and you get a peice of software that doesnt try to stop you from using it (ok maybe windows was a bad example).

The LEGITIMATE users are the only ones who end up getting screwed, the people who have pirate copies never even notice the protection because its all been removed before release.

So once again legitimate paying users are left with a barely useable product and the pirates can actually play the game.

Good Going UBISoft

An Observation.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687312)

Ubi Soft is crap and makes crap. This has been so since Hudson's Adventur Island or whatever it was. It was the only game to crash my 8bit nintendo, except for that time I beta'd Mother/Earthbound (which was awesome).

The only time something good comes out of Ubi Soft is either by fantastic accident, or they bought a company where quality control people understood their job to be centered around keeping quality *in* the product, and released it before discovering this. Naturally, for their oversight, people who let the quality leak out of the company are fired.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687984)

The patch probably invalidates the nocd crack too.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Lightzout (697564) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689790)

I have bought so many Ubi products over the last few years this is a real insult to people who dont pirate. My next Ubi purchase is going to support Daemon tools. That is a great application I need to ue occasionally. Ubi is just alienating customers.

the usual deal.. (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686040)

the users who paid get screwed.
and patching daemon tools won't take that long.

theres shitloads of other programs though as well. like nero(which iirc has nowadays a virtual drive of it's own. and comes pretty fucking standard on all pc's that have a burner).

nice move. you just crapped yourselfs ubi! why do you even except people to have their cd's in the drives? when you know that you can't trust that. most games just have keys for limiting online play to legit customers, much more effective and less annoying for the users.

Re:the usual deal.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686062)

Why are you whispering?

Re:the usual deal.. (3, Insightful)

Zeio (325157) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686422)

I agree. I cracked GTA Vice City and GTA Liberty City and I bought them both. The frigging CD-check bullshit would clam up the game in mid-M16-shot. So fucking annoying. This crap encourages cracking. In fact, if it weren't for the crack, I would have had a shittier gaming experience.

Apparently UbiSoft and Macrovision, which I believe makes SafeFuckDisc, have had a major falling out. Several corporate and Academic pundits have all said : don't waste shareholder money on copy protection. The tow words that close together are a misnomer.

I *completely* agree (2, Insightful)

WhiteBandit (185659) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686496)

I've had similiar experiences in some games. Civ 3 (granted it's a "wussy" game yes :P) would check for the CD in my drive every 5 minutes and in the process, would freeze all processes in the game up for a few seconds. Quite annoying with how often it checked for the CD. I finally just ripped the ISO with Alcohol and mounted that as a virtual drive. Works fine now (At the time I couldn't find any no-cd cracks, now I see them all over for it).

If it weren't for that, I probably would lit the CD on fire before I was able to discover how buggy Civ 3 actually is. :-X Hehe. But regardless, it is a more enjoyable game experience. Things load faster, when you play multiple games you don't have to worry about switching CD's all the time. Don't have to worry about getting your cd case stolen at a LAN party, etc.

Re:I *completely* agree (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 10 years ago | (#7690029)

I finally just ripped the ISO with Alcohol and mounted that as a virtual drive. Works fine now.

I do this with every game I buy. I started doing it with my kids' games, when I got tired of them scratching the fscking CDs all the time. Rip 'em and leave the CDs on a shelf, out of reach. Worked like a charm. Then I found just how freakin' convenient it was for my own stuff. A single click mounts the appropriate CD and fires up the app. I bought a 120G drive for my file server just to store ISOs on. Now I have a box full of pristine only-used-once CDs and a server full of ISOs. Life is good.

That's not a word! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686064)

Irregardless of what the virtual drives or virtual clone programs on your system are for, you will not be able to play Raven Shield...


Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Re:That's not a word! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686166)

You know what that sort of talk reminds me of? Modern art lovers.

Who are you to say what words are okay to use and which are not? Our language has evolved over the centuries, and the current form of our language is no better or worse than when we used "thee" "thou" and "thine".

There are many quirks in the english language that make no sense. So what's one more? Quirk itself is a quirk. Why does every word that has a Q in it also have to have a u immediately following the Q? That U is completely pointless. The Q should imply the U sound.

I find your position on this matter inconceiveable.

Whee Google (-1, Offtopic)

Dr. Smack PhD (604514) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686231)

Buqsha....Buqshas....Burqa....Burqas
Faqir.....Fa qirs.....Inqilab..Inqilabs
Mbaqanga..Mbaqangas..M uqaddam.Muqaddams
Qabalah...Qabalahs...Qadi.....Q adis
Qaid......Qaids......Qaimaqam.Qaimaqams
Qal amdan..Qalamdans..Qanat....Qanats
Qasida....Qasid as....Qat......Qats
Qi........Qibla......Qiblas.. .Qigong
Qigongs...Qindar.....Qindarka.Qindars
Qi nghaosu.Qinghaosus.Qintar...Qintars
Qis.......Qiv iut.....Qiviuts..Qoph
Qophs.....Qwerties...Qwerty ...Qwertys
Sheqalim..Sheqel.....Suqs.....Talaqs
Tranqs....Tsaddiqim..Tsaddiqs.Tzaddiqim
Tzaddiqs. .Umiaqs......Waqf....Waqfs
Yaqona....Yaqonas

Re:Whee Google (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686296)

While I realize it's a proper name, I'm surprised you forgot 'Iraq.'

Re:That's not a word! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686188)

Get over it! English is a living language it changes and grows. Irregardless has been in the dictionary for the english language for almost 100 years. (91 to be specific) Furthermore since when are users comments meant to be in the formal style?

Regardless Versus Irregardless


Irregardless first appeared in print in 1912 as an item in the American Dialectal Dictionary and later in the 1923 Literacy Digest article Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?


The Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage felt so strongly about lawyers using the correct term that the editor listed regardless and irregardless. The dictionary clearly explains the correct usage for both of these words. Regardless (=without regard to) should not be used for despite (=in spite of). E.g., The appellants voted to reject the plan, reiterating the grounds for their suit against Martin; regardless of [read despite] the appellants vote, the plan was approved by two-thirds of the creditors voting for the plan. Irregardless is a semiliterate word formed from irrespective and regardless that should long ago have been stamped out. Irregardless is common enough in speech in the U.S. that it has found its way into judicial opinions. The U.S. Supreme Courts Chief Justice William Rehnquist upbraided a lawyer who used irregardless, saying: I feel bound to inform you there is no word irregardless in the English language. The word is regardless. Linguistic Fastidiousness is no less important in oral than written argument.


The American English Usage Dictionary based on Fowlers Modern English Usage briefly chastens the word irregardless. Nicholson says the word seldom gets in print, but is occasionally heard in speech from people who should know better. She strongly suggests that the readers use the word regardless in its place.


The Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage states that irregardless is an incorrect form of regardless. The correct form, regardless, is an adjective and should be used with the word of.


The Concise Dictionary of American Grammar and Usage compactly states that irregardless is a faulty mixed construction made from irrespective and regardless.


The Readers Digest Success With Words: A Guide to the American Language defines irregardless as a nonstandard or humorous usage. Another Readers Digest word book Write Better, Speaker Better, states categorically, There is no such word as irregardless . . . The usage writer offers judgments and recommendations, and behind statements that such words as irregardless, normalcy, or hopefully dont exist, you must always understand an implication that in the writers opinion they should not exist because they are bad English. Mr. Davies recommendation is: Dont say or write irregardless unless you dont care what your audience may think.


The third edition of the American Heritage Dictionary lists both regardless and irregardless. It states that regardless is an adverb that means in spite of everything, anyway: continues to work regardless. As an adjective, it means heedless; unmindful. Regardless of is a preposition that means in spite of, with no heed to: freedom for all, regardless of race or creed. Irregardless is listed as a Non-Standard adverb and gives one of American Heritage Dictionarys famous USAGE NOTES:



The label Non-Standard does only approximate justice to the status of IRREGARDLESS. More precisely, it is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be a correct usage in formal style but that in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or nonstandard varieties. (The word was likely coined from a blend of irrespective and regardless.) Perhaps this is why critics have sometimes insisted that there is no such word as irregardless, a charge they would not level at a bona fide non-standard word such as aint, which has an ancient genealogy.



Irregardless is one of those words that is either used naturally without a person realizing he has used or heard it. OrWhen the word irregardless is used in speech or is used in writing, the hearer or reader wants to gouge out the tongue of the user. Even Windows 97 highlights irregardless as a usage problem and suggests regardless instead. The consensus is do not use irregardless unless you do not care about what others think about you. If you do care what others think about you, use regardless in your speech and writing. However, the status of irregardless may be changing. This word is less that 100 years old, but seems to be gaining popularity, even among the educated. Irregardless is appearing in speech and print more frequently. Maybe this is one of those words that some of us will just have to get used to hearing, IRREGARDLESS of how we feel about it.

compiled by Janis McKinney










Works Cited


A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. II. Burchfield: Oxford. 1976.



P.371. (for history of irregardless)



American Heritage Dictionary. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton. 1992. P. 953, 1519.


Concise Dictionary of American Grammar and Usage. New York: Philosophical


Library. 1955. P. 122.


Davies, Peter. Success With Words: A Guide to the American Language New


York: Readers Digest. 1983. P.326.


Garner, Bryan A. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. New York: Oxford. 1987.


P. 313-14, 469.


Mager, M. Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage. New Jersey: Prentice. 1974.


Nicholson, Margaret. American-English Usage. New York: Oxford. 1957. P. 290-1.

Re:That's not a word! (-1, Offtopic)

jpmkm (160526) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686264)

People still sound like damn morons when they use it though.

Re:That's not a word! (But this is a troll) (2, Funny)

mo^ (150717) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688820)

It's a word mostly used by Americans usually.. so of course they sound like morons when they say it.

shit, they sound like morons when they say Good Morning, Hello, or Weapons of Mass Destruction

Re:That's not a word! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686288)

whew! nobody tell this guy about "Killographic" He might bust a forehead vein!

Irregardless? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686080)

Note to writers: when trying to write a good-sounding "mad as hell" note, refrain from using words that make you look really dumb.

e.g., "irregardless".

Re:Irregardless? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686598)

Take the quiz [msn.com] . Note question #5

Re:Irregardless? (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688262)

10/10, bitches.

Just, y'know, thought you'd like me to say.

FADE (4, Informative)

pcbob (67069) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686088)

FADE system, used by Codemasters (Pro Race Driver, Colin McRae Rally...) does the similar thing, and considers virtual drive software to be a sign of piracy and degrades the game slowly if it detects something fishy.

Re:FADE (4, Insightful)

grotgrot (451123) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686131)

Does anyone have a list of companies doing this sort of thing? I am a daemontools user. I buy all my games. I got sick and tired of switching CDs. I got annoyed having to buy new copies when old CDs got scratched.

Given how many PC and console games there are out there, and how much time I have, I think I will just avoid these companies.

But I need a list of who to avoid ...

Re:FADE (2, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686921)

I've been using no-cd patches for years. Started when the cdrom spin up would pause the system, a horrible pause ruins a nice fragging experience. Still need a legit cdkey to play online, so its not piracy.

I wonder, how many legit gamers have to use "freedom" utilities to play games normally? I hate lugging all my cd's to a lan party, when you dont know what games people are going to be playing.

Re:FADE (3, Insightful)

grotgrot (451123) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686988)

I also daemon tools on my laptop when I travel. I really don't want to drag the original cds around and potentially lose them.

Re:FADE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686303)

Fade is cracked too.

Re:FADE (1)

stickb0y (260670) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687089)

Hopefully these systems will come back to bite their game publishers in the ass.

Anyone who encounters such clandestine anti-piracy systems probably will consider the game to be buggy or slow and will blame the developers for being inept and selling a POS.

I hardly see how such a system would encourage that person to purchase the game (assuming he is even a pirate at all), and if anything works as negative advertising, since that person has the potential to badmouth the game to his friends.

Brilliant.

Re:FADE (1)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689502)

How exactly did FADE work anyway?

I know it degrades the game, but in what way? Lower quality graphics? Artificially reduced framerate?

How gradual was the process?

Course you know, this means war... (2, Interesting)

complete loony (663508) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686091)

How long until the developers of these programs change the application signature that Raven Shield looks for?

Or some other 3rd party discovers a way to hide them?

This patch will only be a short term problem, as other virtual drive programs are written or the existing one's modified to avoid the issue.

EULA (4, Informative)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686201)

Ubi's EULA is one of the most restrictive in the industry, which is why I don't buy their games anymore. Unlike other large publishers, such as Infogrames, which routinely include the permission to make a single backup copy, UBI expressly forbids making backup copies, modifying the game, creating and distributing "unauthorized levels and/or scenarios", and many other things. While I am aware that EULAs may not have a legaly-binding power, I personally would feel bad if I didn't follow something I agreed to, which is why you won't find any recent game released by UBI Soft on my computer.

Re:EULA (3, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687540)

Kinda sucks since I was gonna pick up Raven Shield from Gogamer.com since they have it for $25. Instead, I emailed UBI to let them know that I changed my mind because they pulled this crap. Would be nice if other people would email them as well and let them know you're pissed about this. Maybe they'll get the message if enough people do this. Worth a shot anyway.

Backup copies and (US) Copyright law (2, Interesting)

moncyb (456490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687800)

IANAL, but I don't think a "no backup" clause is enforceable, at least in the US. If you look in Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 117 [cornell.edu] ("Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer Programs"), it says making an archival copy (I assume this must mean backup) is not a violation of copyrights.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

...

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

In fact, paragraph 1 seems to say the programs UbiSoft is blocking may be allowed.

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner...

It depends upon how the courts will interpet the word "essential." Reading the posts, there seems to be plenty of people on Slashdot who think using a hard drive copy is essential so their CD won't get scratched up. I don't know, maybe I'm stretching a bit.

Re:Backup copies and (US) Copyright law (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689683)

You are right, and I, too, believe that the no-backup clause goes against the US copyright law. However, I'm the kind of person who'll follow the rules he agrees to, no matter how stupid. I reserve the right to agree or disagree with said rules, but once I agree, it's over for me. But that may just be me...

Re:Backup copies and (US) Copyright law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7690023)

Trust me, it is.

I used to pirate all the time and didn't give it a second thought. Lately, I've been impressed by the principled stand a friend makes regarding pirated software: he won't use it. I still do a little, but there are several games that I've refused to pirate because I know I want them, I know they'll be good, so if I don't get them for X-mas, I'll buy them myself (Max Payne 2, Homeworld 2, Call of Duty). Developers should be rewarded for their excellent work, even though I'm itching to play those games.

But you know what? EULA's are bullshit. Utter crap. I put no faith in them, I don't believe they are legally enforceable, and I don't bother to read them. If I didn't agree to it at the time of purchase, you can cram it up your ass.

Funny, I crack all of my games. (4, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686235)

Keeping a CD around is a real pain. They get lost, they get scratched, they require storage in a binder, and as games copy themselves to the HDD now anyway, they are totally unnecessary. I can store maybe 40 retail games on a HDD, and can play any of them at any moment. Feel like a round of Worms? Boot. Feel like a game of Empires? Start it up. It's that kind of instant gratification you get with consoles, and it should be even faster on a computer. But it isn't. Despite checking my valid registration code on their server when connecting, they still require a crack to run without flipping through 40 pages of CD's looking for that safedisk. U.N.N.E.C.E.S.S.A.R.Y. Don't make your paying clients lives a pain, just to protect against a group of people who aren't going to pay anyway.

My impulse game of choice is Typing of the Dead. Why? It copied itself to the hard drive nicely, and has played solidly every since. Except for the fiasco of pressing F4 to quit, it has performed admirably... like something I own, not something I'm borrowing for money.

Come up with a better copy protection scheme, or come up with a better customer.

Re:Funny, I crack all of my games. (2, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686472)

"It's that kind of instant gratification you get with consoles, and it should be even faster on a computer."

And ironically, you have to use CDs for consoles.

Re:Funny, I crack all of my games. (1)

kommakazi (610098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686577)

Yeah but the consoles don't run slower due to use of the CD/DVD disc...

Re:Funny, I crack all of my games. (2, Interesting)

Daniel Wood (531906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687528)

As an owner of a modified Xbox, I cringe whenever I play games off the disc. Playing of the hard drive is a much more pleasant experience. The loading times are reduced DRAMATICALLY, scene changes are almost instantaneous, no studdering at all. So in the end, the Xbox users who willingly violate the EULA get the better gaming experience. Whether or not they actually paid for the game(I have a gamefly subscription so I don't have to buy games anymore, I just rent and usually stick with a game while cycling the other disc I have.)

Re:Funny, I crack all of my games. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687976)

I myself have problems with scratching CDs up (cases, who needs 'em). And until we move to something like Blu-ray you need to be able to back stuff up. Besides, it's stupid, LAN parties are one of the big places people like to pass games around and everyone can try it out. It wasn't till after playing AVP2 at a LAN party that I went out to buy it, same with Call of Duty.

Any developer who uses "fade" is an idiot. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686248)

What developer in their right mind would use a program like Fade?

Fade may stop pirates from playing your game, but if a screen doesn't pop up saying "this game's performance has degraded because..." then the users will assume that your game is BUGGY, or SLOW, and tell their friends, and people online, that the game sucks.

Look at all the bad press Doom 3 has gotten because of the demo that played poorly. And people know that's an unfinished E3 demo never intended for public consumption! I'm sure a lot of people are concerned now that Doom 3 will run poorly on their system and will not rush out to buy it. I know I'm worried.

Now extend that to your ACTUAL game performing poorly on someone's system. They're not going to assume that it runs crappy because it's a pirated copy. They're going to assume it runs crappy because the game is written poorly.

And those same people who pirate the game, may just decide that they want to purchase the full game later on down the road because they want cutscenes and music that the pirated version of the game stripped out. But if the game runs crappy, you'll lose those purchases!

Stuff like Fade will NEVER work FOR you and INCREASE purchases of your game, because of how it works. Only a system which pops up an error window and says the game won't run because it is pirated would have a chance of working.

Re:Any developer who uses "fade" is an idiot. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686447)

"And those same people who pirate the game, may just decide that they want to purchase the full game later on down the road because they want cutscenes and music that the pirated version of the game stripped out."

Dude, what year are you living in? Pretty much 100% of warez releases today are full ISO copies with nothing taken out and the only change being a crack applied to the executable to get around copy protection.

Re:Any developer who uses "fade" is an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687175)

"Only a system which pops up an error window and says the game won't run because it is pirated would have a chance of working."

FADE does just that. Check your resources before you rant or you make us all look like ignorant fools.

Re:Any developer who uses "fade" is an idiot. (2, Informative)

one4nine4two (683126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688247)

All the Fade message says is "Original games do not fade." It pretty bluntly states right there that you did not purchase the game, so you shall be punished.

If the Doom 3 pseudo-demo turns anyone off, it will be those who won't purchase the game anyway. When id releases a real demo it will be a huge deal to those even remotely interested in PC gaming. The real demo will be the real litmus test to those on the fence.

But my defense of Fade may be biased, since I feel Operation Flashpoint is an incredible and very underrated game. As long as it works as intended, wherein I paid for the game and never got the Fade messages, I have no issues with it.

Morons (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686297)

This will split the userbase and generally annoy paying customers. I run a virtual drive system so I don't have to keep my Chessmaster 8000 discs out where they can get lost, so that's exactly what UbiSoft's new patch can do, get lost.

Anyway, there will be a NoNoVirtualCD patch out by the end of the day.

get it through your thick skull (1, Offtopic)

eWarz (610883) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686358)

IRREGARDLESS is not a word.

Re:get it through your thick skull (0, Offtopic)

WhiteBandit (185659) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686623)

Re:get it through your thick skull (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686720)

From the very definition you cited,

'.....it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. '

Re:get it through your thick skull (2, Funny)

WhiteBandit (185659) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687483)

Irregardless... the definition still considers it a word. ;)

Re:get it through your thick skull (0, Offtopic)

beders (245558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688021)

Got to agree with you there, whats the point in using a longer and harder to pronounce word that means the same as a word that is almost exactly the same (Regardless)

Re:get it through your thick skull (0, Offtopic)

Grab (126025) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688252)

Dead right - glad someone else gets annoyed by assholes who can't speak their own language.

"Regardless" = "without regard to"

So I suppose "irregardless" would be "with regard to"? Who knows? And more to the point, which asshole came up with that corruption of the word in the first place, bcos they deserve to be killed with a sharpened dictionary! ;-)

Grab.

'Irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word' (2, Interesting)

@madeus (24818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688717)

It's been used in the United States for nearly 80 years. It's been in use a lot longer than most words we use every day. It's also present in many American dictionaries. American English, International English and British English are not the same language any more than Scots is the same as English.

Further more, language evolves; some people are simply too short sighted to comprehend that the purpose of language is to allow communication. The use of 'irregardless' vrs. 'regardless' does not impede that purpose. You'd have to be particularly dull-witted not be able to infer the meaning even if you had never heard the former before.

This evolution in the language has some about because it's intuitive and logical for many users (given the use of irrespective and regardless) and that's exactly how the English language (the International, British and American variants) has evolved into what it is today. We have gained many words in precisely this manner.

There are many other words in the English language which also use redundant prefixes, even simple words such as 'unravel'. One would assume from the beatings of people like yourself that it should not be considered a word and that we should exclusively only use the original 'ravel' instead; the 'un-' prefix being mysteriously so objectionable to linguistic conservatives like yourself, no matter how much more intuitive it seems.

Is everyone else sick of this? (3, Insightful)

actor_au (562694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686432)

Game companies treat everyone that buys their games like thieves, but the real thieves just crack it, never patch the game and then laugh loudly at the poor bastards that had to spend extra money on a product to subsidise the thieves.

Its not the companies fault for the main part because for years the idea of free games have been a part of the gaming world and now they have the ability to fight back they are, its just that their means are insane.

The major strength of PC games is that they install straight to the HDD, making them easier to access, in theory, than console games which require a disk, the fact that I have to give up a few precious gigs for each game (gigs that could be used for important things like porn or mp3s or pornographic mp3s) and the image files that take up even more space os that my CD doesn't get damaged(because even though they protect it so you can't copy it thye won't give you a new one if you do somehow damage it).

Valve and iD have the right idea, you don't need the CD in the drive to play it, just the CD-Key to play over the net.

I wouldn't mind if they made it so that for the first two or three patches they kept the check-cd in but after that got rid of it, because having to have a CD in the drive to play a game over the net becomes annoying and after a while it just gets ejected and eventually forgotten.

single-player games? (1)

fofptf (731045) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688004)

Valve and iD have the right idea, you don't need the CD in the drive to play it, just the CD-Key to play over the net.
What about single-player games?

Re:Is everyone else sick of this? (2, Interesting)

thing12 (45050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689563)

Game companies treat everyone that buys their games like thieves, but the real thieves just crack it, never patch the game and then laugh loudly at the poor bastards that had to spend extra money on a product to subsidise the thieves.

They treat everyone like thieves to protect against casual copiers. If it were trivially easy to copy games then everyone would do it. Instead just the warez kiddies do. Adults have money to buy games, so they're not the ones targetted by this. And I'd say many (not all) 12 year old kids out there don't know how or where to find cracks for games. If they all did, then you'd have one legit copy per school or neighborhood.. instead, because it's not trivially easy to do it, most kids get their parents to buy legit copies for them.

But, as everyone else has been saying, selling the box gets you profit, online play - unless it's fee based - is a drain off the bottom line. So it only makes sense to limit online play to those who have actually purchased the game. I've played through lots of games on single player only to buy the game afterwards because I wanted to play online. All that really needs to be done is to make it difficult to get updates, additional levels, etc without a valid serial number... or just require product activation. Anything other than having to have an original disk. What happens when manufacturers decide to go to electronic distribution? It's so much cheaper, probably would save $5 per unit sold.

another unhappy voice..... (2, Interesting)

strangel (110237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686442)

I know I'm being redundant, but the more voices crying out in horror, the better right?
Here's my situation, just as an example. I only have 1 optical drive. I don't want to keep my 1 drive filled 24/7 just because I want the game to actually RUN when I start it up. But if I take it out of the drive and put it back in all the time, it's GOING to get scratched up, and you can't make a backup of it. If you crack some games, they won't run online, even with a valid CD key. So, I make an image of the CDs that I use alot.
Ubi, this is a bad idea, because it angers your REAL customers. Virtual drives have uses other than piracy and the convenience factor I mentioned above, and the people who buy the games are the same people who would have a real use for virtual drives.
What also should be obvious is the futility of blocking the software - there will be a way around it soon enough. There always is, for better or for worse.

Pointless (3, Insightful)

Datasage (214357) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686449)

I can understand the plague of piracy but that affects all creative fields.

Using technological solutions to block piracy will just inconvenience legal users of the software. Those who want to pirate it, will reguardless of what protection is used. There is no copy protection that cannot be broken. Its just that some schemes take longer than others to break.

Although the DMCA outlaws reverse engineering. But like any law its only effective if one chooses to follow it. Those who want to pirate the product, certainly wont.

I would say the best solution is make games cost less then $50-60. Dont adjust prices for piracy. All your doing is making the legit users pay and encouraging more piracy due to high costs. Electrontic diribution can cut costs, but the price should reflect that.

Thats enough for now.

Holy fucking shit! (-1, Troll)

Frac (27516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686458)

You mean I might have to go through the inconvenience of *gasp* placing the original CD into the drive, and disabling my virtual drives?

Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. If you're a legitimate user, blame the kids that pirate the games - they're the reason games are inconvenient these days. And yes, there are ways to get around it, and yes, this kind of protection will weed out a significant proportion of casual pirates.

Some poster on the messageboard cried out how this is just an intermediate step to some pay-per-play scheme. Oh please. Is this new patch tapping into your bank account? Until then, Mulder, please keep your theories on your Post-It notes inside your tin-foil hat.

If this gets seriously enough, go to the BBB or the FTC and complain.

Re:Holy fucking shit! (1)

CrisDias (556611) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686537)

Let me be the first to tell you to RTFA: Again, you can't even play when you have the retail cds in a drive unless those programs / virtual drives are removed.

Plus, I understood (and I guess everyone else here too) this fact by reading the /. piece alone. "Got Alcohol 120% on your system? You're a pirate! We don't want you!"

Can't the makes of the virtual drive software sue UBI? Cmon, anyone can sue anyone in this country... let's all have some fun!

Re:Holy fucking shit! (0, Troll)

Frac (27516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686686)

Let me be the first to tell you to RTFA

Let me be the first to tell you to RTFP. Clearly I've read the entire bullentin board posting.

Again, you can't even play when you have the retail cds in a drive unless those programs / virtual drives are removed.

No, YOU read the FA:

Try again, sport. You agree to specific conditions under which you use the license you purchased when you picked up Raven Shield at your local software r/etailer. You can use Daemon tools and Alcohol 120% all you want. You just are unable to use them in conjunction with Raven Shield running. *shurg*

You don't have to remove anything. Just turn them off. Oh my god my fingers are aching from doing that everytime I play!

Plus, I understood (and I guess everyone else here too) this fact by reading the /. piece alone. "Got Alcohol 120% on your system? You're a pirate! We don't want you!"

And Group Think is always correct. *smirk* Clearly the patch is implicating "Got Alcohol 120% on your system? Turn it off before you run Rainbow Six!"

Can't the makes of the virtual drive software sue UBI? Cmon, anyone can sue anyone in this country... let's all have some fun!

Yeah... Kind of like how a lot of install programs force you to disable anti-virus programs during installation, Symantec must be pretty busy these days suing everyone for everyone's stupid problems.

Re:Holy fucking shit! (1)

Samus (1382) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687059)

Straight from the article:
It turns out that Ubisoft implented code into the RVS 1.5 patch which checks PCs for ANY clone or virtual drive programs and then fails to launch the game if such devices or programs are found.
Now both of you be nice.

Re:Holy fucking shit! (1)

Frac (27516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687789)

Your quote was from EvilAvatar's lackey. Mine was from the official Ubisoft forum moderator. Common sense would suggest EvilAvatar messed up.

Re:Holy fucking shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7688857)

Common sense is in short supply on /.

MOD Parent UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686567)

the man speaks true

Add UbiSoft to the list (1)

Zed2K (313037) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686464)

Of companies that I will NEVER buy a game that they make, but I will do all that I can to download them if they look interesting. They will never get money from me again.

Umkay (3, Insightful)

Mike Hawk (687615) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687633)

Quite the closed circle you've created for yourself there. So no matter what, you aren't going to buy a game? I have a feeling you never did. What is their incentive to change? Or did you just prove them right, that they need to take steps to combat privacy? Your stance is counter-productive at best. Its posts like this that the industry points to and says, "See, we have to do these things, and we need more laws to protect our IP."

But come clean, you haven't purchased a game since 1998. Be honest.

Re:Umkay (0)

anthony_philipp (710666) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687831)

mod mike hawk up. you make a good point, and i havent bought a game since 1997. most of the posts complaining about anti-piracy measures do so because it bothers the writer to have to crack it. also most anti piracy measures block against soft-piracy. win xp has activation to stop one person from sharing the copy with their friends which happened with win 98 and most of the office versions. their goal was never to stop all piracy of win xp because that would be a futile attempt.

Re:Umkay (1)

Zed2K (313037) | more than 10 years ago | (#7690196)

"But come clean, you haven't purchased a game since 1998. Be honest."

Actually your wrong, last game I bought was Call of Duty. Nice theory but your wrong. Make a good game and don't use stupid protection mechanisms that impact legit users and people will buy your stuff. Treat all users like they are criminals and people won't buy them. Its as simple as that. But you obviously are like the game developers...you just don't get it.

Irregardless? (4, Informative)

wrenkin (71468) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686501)

Irrespective, or regardless. Pick one.

It's a distribution method, stupid! (4, Insightful)

sreeram (67706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686600)

These dumbass companies seem to have forgotten what a CD is all about (same goes for RIAA). They seem to think of a CD as proof of something - ownership, legitimate copy, etc.

It's not. It's just a distribution medium. Like floppies, analog tapes, radio-over-airwaves and other media, it's just a convenient means of getting the game/goods from them (the publishers) to us (the consumers). Once the goods have been delivered, forget about the medium already!

When the medium becomes outdated or cumbersome, people will look to other media. It is stupid (and ultimately their ruin) to try and lock us into their media of choice.

RIAA should accept that ftp/file-sharing and the Internet in general are more convenient media for music delivery. Stop forcing CDs on us. Learn to deal with the new delivery mechanisms.

Equally well, UbiSoft should also accept that the huge hard-disks we have are more convenient to store games and game images. Stop forcing CDs on us.

I personally find it extremely inconvenient to keep swapping CDs in and out (I play many games). I have only one physical CD drive, but I can have many virtual drives! Not to mention that the hard-disk is MUCH faster than a CD drive.

Re:It's a distribution method, stupid! (2, Interesting)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687271)

Once the goods have been delivered, forget about the medium already!

Exactly. And it's not really stopping piracy, either, because pirates who download ISOs and "play" them through DAEMON Tools also have CD burners, which they can in about 1 minute produce a CD which will allow them to still play the game with this patch.

I don't have any Ubi games myself, so I'm not sure how valid this suggestion is, but here's a potential workaround for those people who absolutely have to pirate:

1. Download VMware with serial from Kazaa/BitTorrent/etc.
2. Make ISO using Nero/Undisker/etc (also obtainable through the above).
3. Connect the virtual CD-ROM to the ISO . As far as the Guest OS is concerned, it's a real, physical CD-ROM, and you don't even have to run DAEMON Tools on the Host OS.
4. Profit!!!

I just don't see why companies will produce such crap. I don't even care about this game, and in less than 10 seconds I've got two workarounds (assuming, that is, that the game functions correctly while running in a VM; and even if it doesn't, the pirates can still burn CDs from the downloaded ISOs).

I buy all my games, and I loved that I figured out how to use DAEMON Tools to run Starcraft without putting the CD in the drive. Making your users hate you is taking a page out of the playbook of the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:It's a distribution method, stupid! (1)

ymgve (457563) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689094)

This won't work with the versions of VMWare/VirtualPC I've tried. Those programs (atleast earlier versions of them) indeed does support CD images, but only the most basic ones of them, namely ISO images and bin/cue files. This works fine for applications and operating systems, that generally don't have any CD protection schemes, but for almost all games nowadays you've got to use a more advanced imaging tool like Alcohol or CloneCD, and I don't think any virtual machines support those kinds of images yet.

(Another problem with playing games in VMWare is that the virtual video card only supports the most basic Direct3D stuff, which only works if you want to play 1997-era games..)

Re:It's a distribution method, stupid! (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689523)

This won't work with the versions of VMWare/VirtualPC I've tried. Those programs (atleast earlier versions of them) indeed does support CD images, but only the most basic ones of them, namely ISO images and bin/cue files. This works fine for applications and operating systems, that generally don't have any CD protection schemes, but for almost all games nowadays you've got to use a more advanced imaging tool like Alcohol or CloneCD, and I don't think any virtual machines support those kinds of images yet.

No, you misunderstood. You don't mount the CD image within the VM, you mount it in Daemon Tools or whatever in your real OS, and then you tell the VM to map its CD-ROM to the virtual drive. I do this regularly with Virtual PC.

Irregardless????? (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 10 years ago | (#7686731)

Sure it's in m-w.com but they recommend that regardless be used instead.

Simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7686965)

Get the Xbox version.

Re:Simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687047)

???? i already have ONE computer running win32 for games, why should i buy another one??? and i mean, yes, i have a HUGE penis, but like i still can't fit these man hands around that controller.

Call of Duty as well (2, Informative)

Murrow (144634) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687200)

Call of Duty from Activision/Infinity Ward has this problem as well. You can see on their support site here [custhelp.com] their recommendation to shut down both Alchohol and Clone CD's virtual drives. This was indeed the necessary fix to get it to run on my machine.

mod parent up please (1)

strangel (110237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687478)

and if anyone happens to have a list of such games, please post!

Really, this is just stupid (4, Insightful)

McCarrum (446375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687258)

I use CloneCD to create images of any CDs I purchase - and for quite a few reasons.

1) Ease of use: mounting/unmounting CDs via HD is so much easier
2) Asset Protection: CDs are delicate things, double so with 5 kids
3) LAN Parties: I will *not* take my CDs to a LAN Party
4) Price: Game CDs are more expensive than additonal HDs
5) Laptop: I have a laptop - and can choose between 2 batteries or 1 battery and CD

But, these reasons don't mount up to the suits in UBI. Indeed, this sounds like something which some PHB has thought up and pushed through. In all seriousness, the measures used by groups like Valve work - these do not. They've lost (yet another) customer. It's a wealthy market out there people, vote with your cash and walk away.

Re:Really, this is just stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687616)

You have 5 kids, yet you go to lan parties?

Re:Really, this is just stupid (1)

McCarrum (446375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687770)

I go to LAN Parties *because* I have 5 kids ...

Re:Really, this is just stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687876)

Most people just drink cause of the kids, good for you!

What's Next (2, Funny)

sirsampson (48252) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687445)

We detected a CD Burner in your system, that _could_ be used for piracy, you can't play our game.

Now where did I put my radar detector detector.

Long term solution... (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687545)

Join the warez community and stay one step ahead through the use of cracks, while saving money (optional).

Seriously, expecting people to hold onto a cheap, easily damaged piece of plastic for over a year without letting them make a copy of it is stupid. Whats even more stupid is that most gamers tend to keep the CD in the CD rom drive when they don't have a reason to change discs. To top it all off, a heavy gamer (more than 2 hours of gaming -a day-) will virtually toast their CD due to the amount of time they spend gaming and having that one disc constantly read. The only reason why you don't hear about most hardcore gamers complaining about this is because they make multiple copies (my friend had SIX copies of Starcraft at one time and has damaged his original copy beyond playability). The more companies try to stop piracy, the more these reports will become common.

Bad author bad! (1)

SurgeryByNumbers (726928) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687568)

This is not true (all you have to do is close it): "Irregardless of what the virtual drives or virtual clone programs on your system are for, you will not be able to play Raven Shield with patch 1.5 unless you remove them completely off your system."

These days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7687602)

CD's that won't play.. Games that won't run... must be a nightmare not to have pirated versions...

Sucky (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687670)

I hate games that require the original CD to be in the drive. I own all my CD games, but I'm not in a rush to buy new games from the manufacturers who care more about piracy than user satisfaction. My cd-rom drive sounds like a jet engine whenever it has to speed up, and CD's don't last forever. Some games go even further and ask for a serial code to be entered each time they're played, like the voyager elite force holomatch. That's just wrong. They didn't advertise those "features". That's not what I paid for. And I should be able to get the advertised quality out of what I've legally purchased. If they put in unadvertised limits that reduce the program to less than I was promised, I should be within my moral right to overcome them.

I hope they get raped by countersuits if they ever prosecute a paying customer for cracking their "protection".

mmmmm (1)

erichmjansen (731836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7687913)

required: 1x jello jigglers mold ingredients: 1x Raven Shield CD 1x Prince of Persia: Sands of Time 1x Shadowbane 1x Uru microwave on high for 3 minutes until desired liquidity is reached. pour into mold let cool. wrap in colored cellophane, place in appropriate packaging material and ship to: 3200 Gateway Centre Blvd Suite 100 Morrisville, NC 27560, USA

Who cares, cracked and patched before release! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688511)

This is beyond pointless because we all know this will be cracked and patched before it is even released. Legit users get annoyed, warez d00ds use the crack and nullify the protection entirely.

What really irks me is that they insist on having the CD in the drive, yet it is absolutely not required because they install 3-4 fricken' gigs of uncompressed crap to my hard drive and never read off the disc again. Console games don't need a hard drive and yet they seem to be surviving quite well. So the reasoning is this: run off the hard drive and do away with CD checks, or run off the disc and quit lining Maxtor's coffers with wasted disk space.

There is nothing more aggravating than watching the installer crank for 90 minutes copying several thousand raw 10kb data files, when it could have been done in about 3 minutes had the whole thing been tarred into one big chunk. And then having to futz with cracks and emulation tools when the inbred copy protection goes all false positive on a legit CD. Online keys are the way to go, I'm actually seriously considering the re-purchase of Diablo 2 + expansion because I have my old CD's from 3 years ago, but can't find the original jewel cases with cd keys, and of course you need unique keys to go on BattleNet. That is the power of cd keys. Convenient, simple, powerful!

legitimate uses. (2, Interesting)

solidox (650158) | more than 10 years ago | (#7688678)

cd emulation programs have very good, legitimate uses. for example, i have quite a lot of sample cds (for music production), to swap them in and out every time i wanna grab 1 sample off them would be a real pain in the arse, so i just have them all bin/cued on my hdd and use them through daemon or alcy. for this game to refuse to run on machines with these programs installed is absurd. if you have a lot of games (legit or otherwise) then swapping cds in and out all the time is gunna be a pain, also cds get damaged easily. i'd rather iso all the cds and keep the physical copies in a safe place so they don't get arsed.

What's the point? (1)

10537 (699839) | more than 10 years ago | (#7689089)

I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve with this, really. At the risk of re-stating what's already been covered, all they do is irritate legitimate owners of the game. Anyone with a "pirate" copy will have a no-CD patch thus rendering the whole exercise futile, and it just means that people who bought the damned thing have to run the risk of losing or damaging their CD, or maybe even burning out their CD drive. Will UbiSoft replace damaged or lost CDs free of charge? Will they replace any CD drives burnt out by excessive use? Will they provide external CD drives for laptop users who want to play the game on the road and use an additional battery pack? I suspect the answer to all those questions is "no", so why stop legitimate users from exercising their legal right to use a backup copy of the software? It's not going to sell any more copies -- they've already bought it -- and it may dissuade other people from buying this and future UbiSoft titles. (Me, for one. I was looking forward to Splinter Cell 2, but they can now go smoke my pole...)

Serious lawsuit brewing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7689162)

Virtual drives do serve purpose, hell I use one at work on the network to pass various install CDs around, installs which we have paid all licensing fees on (granted I shouldn't play games at work anyway). Now the issue as I see it as a gamer is that there is no requirement listed on the box that you not use virtual drives to use this product. Further, there is no statement on these boxes that to continue the advertised online gameplay aspect (very key in these kinds of games being successful) you must patch your game, breaking what is advertised on the box. With All major game retailers repealing their open box return policies, this amounts to customers eating the product.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?