games with copy protection has arrived to linux

[KhaaL]

I just got a mail from Linux Game Publishing that they've started using copy protection in their games (link) (http://www.linuxgamepublishing.com/press_releases/200806241.txt). This IMO sucks, since all copy protection can be cracked - it's just a matter of time. Secondly, this paves way to a escalating war between the game publishers and crackers, with the consumers caught in the crossfire between. Remember the copy protection on bioshock or the mess starforce caused?

Personally I'd rather see them using a model similiar to Stardock with no copy protection at all (you can even install their games without entering a serial). Too bad stardock dosen't make games for the linux platform...

What do you think, is this kind of measures really neccessarly from a game publisher?

[fiddledd]

Firstly, I don't play games (I'm an old man :)), however, I think it's sad they need to resort to a sort of Windows Activation tactic because of apparent dishonestly of some Linux users. I guess I could say to all those that brought their Windows mentality to Linux and knowingly downloaded pirated games, serve you right (this is based on the info at the link you posted), though what I say will make no difference.

So it's sad, but not totally unexpected, IMHO.

[Tux0r]

boo! :( serial check like doom 3 is ok though

[eragon100]

I am still goint to but sacred 2, because I couldn't care less about this and think it will be a fun game :popcorn:

Hopefully, this will give them more sales, and thus, more games. That's all I care about :wink:

[eragon100]

QUOTE:

If your machine is not directly connected to the internet, or for some reason
your internet connection does not allow direct connection to our servers,
the game will allow you to continue to play for a certain amount of time
before requesting you re-verify with the LGP key server. If your machine is
unable to do this, for instance it does not have an internet connection,
or it is firewalled in such a way as to block the connection, or perhaps
you are on holiday and are nowhere near an ethernet socket for your laptop,
then you may verify your game using a web browser or WAP phone browser. This
can be used to indefinitely extend the time that a game may be played on a
machine with no direct internet connection, as long as you have SOME internet
access.


What you get out of the LGP key system
--------------------------------------
When you receive a game from LGP with a copy protection key, you are
receiving a license to play that game forever. In this spirit, we will
offer a new LGP download site that will give the ability for users to
download a new copy of their game should their disc become damaged, or
somehow destroyed. You will not need your key, just your email address and
password (assuming you set your email address, if you didn't you will need
your key).

You also get the knowledge that this system is designed to ensure that
LGP can continue making games into the future.

What happens if LGP ceases trading
----------------------------------
LGP has pledged that should we, for any reason, cease trading, and our
keyserver is removed, then we will, using any means possible, provide patches
to remove the copy protection from our games, or provide back doors, or other
such methods to allow games to be played.
All LGP employees have the authority to produce, on their own, and
without the order of the company, such patches, should the company be unable
to produce them or to request their production, on the event that LGP ceases
trading.


Isn't this an improvement? You get a free new downloaded copy if yours goes defect, and if you can register the game forever via a web browser on another computer (say in the library), you DON'T need internet acces on your game computer! :)

[Cappy]

Isn't this an improvement?

No

You get a free new downloaded copy if yours goes defect

I haven't bought a non-downloadable game in years.

and if you can register the game forever via a web browser on another computer (say in the library), you DON'T need internet acces on your game computer! :)

This is the feature that I abandoned DRM-free games for.

Personally I'd rather see them using a model similiar to Stardock with no copy protection at all (you can even install their games without entering a serial). Too bad stardock dosen't make games for the linux platform...

I agree, Stardock is great. Galactic Civilizations is the best single player game I've played in 2 years. They said they MAY make Galactic Civ III for linux. I kind of doubt it though because they seem very pro-DirectX but maybe they would make a nice wine-compatible bundle or something.

For those who don't know, Stardock's games only require a serial to play online or download updates. You don't even need a serial to play single player

[KhaaL]

[Off topic]: Cappy, have you tried Galciv2 under the recent versions of wine? I haven't had access to my computer due to hardware failure so let me (and appdb) know!

[Cresho]

You are now In the Twilight zone!

I don't buy none of those games. They can go to hell for all I care if they pull this stuff on to me.

Honestly! They should copy protect the game with a patch released within 2-3 years to unlock the game. I do not believe in something you buy and cannot keep. Of course, when you die, you take nothing with you.

[Tomatz]

Seems pointless to me. As said a serial check is the best way to stop piracy.

[eragon100]

Pointless or not, it may make LGP able to obtain porting rights for better, more fun games, and as such is a good thing. Please, just go buy sacred gold if you were going to, because otherwise you are ruining things for all native linux games with your freedom crap :wink: We really don't want to have LGP go defunct, do we? That would cost linux the few commercial games it has, and then I would have to make windows xp the only OS on my computer instead of Ubuntu. And somehow I don't think I'm the only one who hates dual-boots and might decide to drop linux if people like you stop buying LGP games and make them go defunct :wink:

[k@e]

If this wasn't going to be a Steam like online activation but rather an offline cd key check, I wouldn't care about it at all. This activation, however, is scaring me off A LOT since I fear of never being able to play again once their servers shutdown foerever. How reliable is their pledge anyway now they are annoying customers?

Similarly, I would never buy DRMed music seeing that if a music store goes down, all customers will not be able to listen to music they bought there. I'm pretty sure you may have heard about MSN Music Store going through this kind of evolution.

DRM has never been effective to stop people from pirating their games as it only provides yet another challenge to cracking groups. In fact, I even believe they will loose sales because of bad reviews, frustated customers and boycotts. Although history has demonstrated scenario more than enough, they are refusing to learn and thus willing to learn their own lesson.

It's a shame since their are some upcoming titles I would really have considered to buy.

[eragon100]

Then buy them! This system may get them porting rights for some (even)better titles. That, and like I said before, I don't want to see them go defunct because YOU are worried about their copy protection, making it imposibble for ME to game on linux, and forcing me (and a lot of other (potential) linux users) to remove ubuntu from my/their harddrive and replace it with vista, which would be a real shame, especially for linux adoption and the advancement of free (=drm etc free) software :(, :cry:

[k@e]

Well, no. There are a billion better ways for me to spend my money, e.g. fuel and energy. I do not buy products that include DRM as I would show my support to this technology, although I am harshly against it. Yes, it's sad that once a company has your money, they won't give a damn about you not liking the DRM it's coming with. So no money from me but really, it is LGP's choice. If they didn't exist anymore, I don't even think I would miss them.

Also, if you are so dependent on games why are you using Ubuntu? Linux is designed to be open source far more than to provide gaming platform anyway. Linux already delivers a wide range of excellent open source applications and I'm perfectly okay with that. You know, there are very few games out there and if you want to play any, you have basically no choice to use binary only graphics drivers. This spreads the notion that those drivers are acceptable, thus further hindering the advancement of free software.

That's why I believe Linux is not meant to be a gaming platform RIGHT NOW. Of course, that might change in the future but hopefully not at the cost of openness or intrusive DRM technologies. I want my Linux to be without them.

[Vadi]

It's cool - I've bought ETQW, Savage 2, penny arcade, and more linux games, that all required activation.

Don't see a problem really with paying for stuff and the game maker having some security for their work.

[eragon100]

It's cool - I've bought ETQW, Savage 2, penny arcade, and more linux games, that all required activation.

Don't see a problem really with paying for stuff and the game maker having some security for their work.

+1. And k@e doesn't seem to understand that some people (=60 to 90% of linux users) use linux because it's better and free, and not because it's open-source. Even linus torvalds himself uses closed-source software, and lifes by the mantra "use what works" :)

And you also need restricted codecs and stuff, so if you don't want to be able to use youtube or watch a star trek fan movie (quicktime etc) or listen to online radio (mp3) or use compiz-fusion or play a game (even an open-source game such as nexuiz!) then go right ahead and install GNoSense or something, but don't expect many people to do the same.

[DrMega]

I'd have no problem with stuff needing to be activated, but I don't like the idea that it seems to need the internet connection to be configured to suit the copy protection.

The solution is simple, if you think a company's ethics are in some way detrimental, just don't buy their stuff.

[eragon100]

You know, there are very few games out there

free: (freeware or open-source)

- savage: the battle for newerth (freeware, one of my favourites!)

- battle for wesnoth (open source)

- sauerbraten ("")

- nexuiz ("")

- urban terror (don't know / not interested enough to even look it up)

- openarena (open source)

- tremulous ("")

- glest ("")

- enemy territory (freeware)

- postal 2 multiplayer edition (freeware)

- regnum online (freeware MMORPG)

- eternal lands (open-source MMORPG)

- the mana world ("")

- planeshift ("")

- warsow (open-source FPS with tron-like graphics, very funny!)

These are only the free ones I can mention right now, please take a look at tuxgames.com for commercial ones and keep in mind that some games (savage 2, penny arcade adventures, eshalon:book 1, etc. etc. aren't on that site) :)

and then there is wine, for star wars jedi knight 2 jedi outcast, star wars knights of the old republic 1 and 2, farcry, star trek elite force, oblivion, prey, morrowind, and lots more, (soon) to be joined by call of duty 4.

I stay entertained :guitar:

[Greyed]

I agree, Stardock is great. Galactic Civilizations is the best single player game I've played in 2 years. They said they MAY make Galactic Civ III for linux.

If any company would do it, it's Stardock. Just realize where they started, OS/2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Civilizations#Development
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html

I believe Brad would still be developing for OS/2 now if the OS took off. Linux has proven it is going to stick around. It has far surpassed OS/2's install base and longevity for the market GalCiv is aimed at. So while Stardock might be enamored with DX they also have a strong history with non-Windows OSes.

Be that as it may I think DRM is flat out stupid, especially on games. The only person that is inconvenienced is the legitimate owners and the only time it works is when the game is made in a client/server model. IE, MMORPGs or small-scale multiplayer FPS/RTS games. To put it bluntly I own games that I have downloaded the cracks for so I can stop being inconvenienced by the "copy protection". I've lost games because of "copy protection" because I could not not make a legal fair use copy for archival purposes. So let's call it what it is, anti-far-use protection. These days most games can be had in a matter of hours after release without anti-fair-use protection. Inconvenience for the pirates? Not in decades.

As for DRM music Steve Jobs said it best, "Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player."

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

So no inconvenience for game pirates only game customers, music is sold without DRM in brick and mortar stores but online we get lower-quality and inconvenience of vendor lockin. What about books?

What about books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baen_Free_Library

Read up, scroll down to the bottom then read what Eric Flint has to say about it. In short, Baen saw an increase of sales from the Free Library.

To me the case is clear, DRM simply does not work. It's an utter failure that is only perpetuated because of a complete misunderstanding of what's going on. It's sad to see a company trying to bring software to Linux, which implies some understanding of the culture and mindset that made Linux the success it is, to miss the point so utterly on DRM.

[Cappy]

If any company would do it, it's Stardock. Just realize where they started, OS/2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Civilizations#Development
http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html

I believe Brad would still be developing for OS/2 now if the OS took off. Linux has proven it is going to stick around. It has far surpassed OS/2's install base and longevity for the market GalCiv is aimed at. So while Stardock might be enamored with DX they also have a strong history with non-Windows OSes.


True but while Linux has and will be around for a long time there have been compatibility issues with older games. Most of the problems revolve around linux's constantly changing sound system. The other is that loki installers are terrible for future compatibility due to the fact that they check libc6's version and they check the computer's architecture. Loki installers weren't designed with future compatibility in-mind.

Both problems would be non-existant if their steam-like application Impulse supported Linux too.


Be that as it may I think DRM is flat out stupid, especially on games. The only person that is inconvenienced is the legitimate owners and the only time it works is when the game is made in a client/server model. IE, MMORPGs or small-scale multiplayer FPS/RTS games. To put it bluntly I own games that I have downloaded the cracks for so I can stop being inconvenienced by the "copy protection". I've lost games because of "copy protection" because I could not not make a legal fair use copy for archival purposes. So let's call it what it is, anti-far-use protection. These days most games can be had in a matter of hours after release without anti-fair-use protection. Inconvenience for the pirates? Not in decades.


A man (or woman) after my own heart.

[eragon100]

without copy protection, they will go defunct because of the piracy. Now they at least have a chance, if people don't boycot them :mad:

[Vadi]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that as a Linux user, after all of the free **** you get, you'd still pirate a game.

[k@e]

without copy protection, they will go defunct because of the piracy. Now they at least have a chance, if people don't boycot them :mad:

What makes you think that the introduction of a copy protection will stop piracy dead and what's more of a concern: will people, who would have pirated the game, buy it now?

This assumes that the protection cannot be cracked, which is absolutely naive in the information system world. There can and will be ways to circumvent the activation, it's like a kind of race between lots of release crews. Almost certaintly those cracks will find their way into the world wide web and yet another DRM has been cracked. I really wish it wouldn't happen this way but it's the companies that have made this kind of 'sport' possible.

I also find it surprising that lot of people judge the game delivering software Steam and the likes as the perfect protection mechanism when it's not. In fact, there are modified clients that enable you to download and, hell even play all the games online without having payed for them. Since LGP will be using a similar mechanism it will maybe take a week or two until the same will happen to them. So why bother with copy protection at all when it has no effect at all... well, it does at least protect careful customers from buying this software.

And yes, I use Linux because it is free, not just as in free beer but free as in free speech. I seriously don't care what Linus says as if he was some kind of guru to blindly follow. He's just one of many kernel developers, a lot of whom are despising the use of proprietary code and strongly support the open source.

[Greyed]

without copy protection, they will go defunct because of the piracy. Now they at least have a chance, if people don't boycot them :mad:

False assumption. You're assuming that copy protection somehow confers success and that the successful software (not just games) are successful because of copy protection instead of in spite of them.

Or, to your line of reasoning, Red Hat should be defunct and Open Source itself should not be here presently. The very fact you're posting on freely provided webforums which are run on a freely available OS comprising of of several dozen thousand freely pieces of software shows the error of your statement.


I think it's absolutely hilarious that as a Linux user, after all of the free **** you get, you'd still pirate a game.

Actually, it makes sense. Many OS people believe in the freedom to redistribute software. Games are just software. Ergo the same thinking applies. It's not that much of a stretch really.

[Vadi]

Freedom to distribute free software, sure.

Freedom to deprive others of compensation? No.

[Greyed]

Freedom to distribute free software, sure.

Freedom to deprive others of compensation? No.

I agree, to a point. I was just explaining what the thought process is and how similar the two classes really are.

[ucal]

When I realized how bad DRM was screwing with my iTunes songs, I found a program to remove the DRM (instead of just rerecording the songs with Audacity, because Dell, the infernal computer manufacturer saw fit to remove my computer's ability to do that). The worst part is that it is completely ineffective at stopping piracy, because the pirates just download versions of the product that have been cracked, or didn't have the DRM protection to begin with.

So in actuality, the hassles DRM causes are just another motivation to download illegal non DRM copies. :lolflag:

[KhaaL]

Even though I'm a strong opposer to DRM, I'd still rather have a DRM copy of a game that I want that works on my system, than a copy protection free game for windows only.


I think it's absolutely hilarious that as a Linux user, after all of the free **** you get, you'd still pirate a game.

QFT

[cogadh]

DRM and copy protection may not stop the dedicated pirate, but it does prevent the casual user from becoming a pirate. That might not be a popular statement, but it is the truth. A system like the one LGP is going to use will prevent Joe Average from pirating their games, which is all they want to do, since Joe Average is far more likely to buy the game if a "free" copy is harder to get or use.

The fact that they are starting to use copy protection will also open up the possibility of more AAA games getting ported to Linux. Linux is often viewed as a bastion of piracy. I don't necessarily think that is true, but the perception exists, nonetheless. If LGP using copy protection assists in alleviating that perception some, it will only be a good thing for Linux in the long run.

And to whoever said Linux is not ready for gaming yet (I'm too lazy to look back), you couldn't be more wrong. Linux is more than ready for gaming, the only problem is the commercial AAA games generally aren't available for it. Copy protection may bring some of those games to us, which will bring more users to Linux, which brings more games and other commercial software support, which brings more users... I think you can see my point.

[Frak]

Freedom to distribute free software, sure.

Freedom to deprive others of compensation? No.
+1

Also, keyservers are one of the EASIEST forms of copy protection to crack.

Answer: Point it to a local file with a an overflow key. It causes the game to basically forget about trying and just let you in. Only VALVe has a fix against overflow keys.

[Greyed]

DRM and copy protection may not stop the dedicated pirate, but it does prevent the casual user from becoming a pirate. That might not be a popular statement, but it is the truth.

Is it? Cite for studies to back this up please because it runs counter to my personal experience with my friends and family.

As I said earlier as DRM has become more draconian the games (and other software) have become easier to obtain. Nor harder, easier. And easier means the casual user will find it.... easier.... to become a pirate. Not harder.

20 years ago it could take weeks, even months, to find a BBS to trade software and often it required maintaining a certain ratio of uploaded bytes to downloaded bytes.

15 years ago all it took was a usenet feed and the tech-savvy to know what a usenet feed was and how to decode binaries.

10 years ago saw the dawning of Napster and with it Peer-to-Peer.

5 years ago it was Gnutella or ED2K and a couple of capable clients.

Presently all it takes is a BitTorrent client (which is becoming ubiquitous as many companies are now turning to that technology to defray their bandwidth costs) and a Google search. Or in 3 words: Opera and Google.

If you have cites to contradict that quick 20-year recap I'm all for it. But I'm sorry, I don't see how DRM has had any impact on that slide to ease-of-obtainability nor how it, in the present climate, is going to prevent anyone with a browser and a search engine from obtaining what they want, even a casual person. In fact in that entire time I doubt that DRM really had any significant impact. It was, in fact, other technical issues which limited the dissemination of software, not DRM.

Excellent article here which goes into this ease-of-availability and why it is hurting Linux' adoption on the desktop:

http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free

The portion I am specifically referring to is under the subtitle "The Elephant in the Room". The whole article is good.

[cogadh]

You completely missed my point. I'm talking about those non-PC savvy users who barely understand how a PC works, let alone how to get a pirated copy of a game (the vast majority of PC owners). Those people who just want to use their PC to play a game, nothing more. Those are the ones who are going to be and have always been prevented from pirating games by DRM and copy protection, not the less common (though becoming increasingly common) tech savvy user or dedicated pirate. Using that same article as an example, the author's girlfriend would be an example of the kind of user I am referring to; someone is just capable of using a PC and nothing more.

Granted, the average Linux user is far more technically capable than the average Windows user, but just look at how many times people here make the mistake of asking about cracked exe's when they are trying to run a Windows game in Wine. They don't know the first thing about pirating a game or how to defeat copy protection. If it wasn't for the fact that some copy protection doesn't work in Linux, they would never have had cause to find out how to defeat it in the first place. Under normal circumstances, those users would be prevented from pirating a game by the existence of copy protection.

[Cappy]

So these "normal people" are going to pirate everything if there is no copy protection, right?

So where do these "normal people" get their games?
1) Buy them
2) Borrow it from a friend

In both cases the copy protection does nothing but add inconvenience because there isn't anything preventing you from giving it to a friend.

Even games that require a CD are similar (and outdated!). These "normal people" will just trade CDs.

Computer newbies don't NEED to know about cracking games because they don't download games. They just borrow them.

On a similar note, my roommate gave me his Steam account which includes Team Fortress 2, Half life, Half life 2, Portal, omg_he_has_$200+_of_games_on_this_account, I_guess_that's_why_he_never_eats, Counter strike, Counterstrike: Source, Geometry Wars, I_can't_remember_anymore, etc.

Sharing an account or lending a game is pretty much "casual pirating".

[Greyed]

You completely missed my point. I'm talking about those non-PC savvy users who barely understand how a PC works, let alone how to get a pirated copy of a game (the vast majority of PC owners).

No, sir, you missed my point. I am saying that I know people like you describe who are doing it now... And have been for years. I'm talking AOL users. I'm talking people who can barely get their Windows laptop hooked into an open wireless network while using the wizards.

Your estimation of the barrier to entry is laughable. It is erroneous. It is, shall we say, no based in this or any other reality. I honestly don't know else to put it than you are simply, 100%, flat out wrong.

[ucal]

You completely missed my point. I'm talking about those non-PC savvy users who barely understand how a PC works, let alone how to get a pirated copy of a game (the vast majority of PC owners). Those people who just want to use their PC to play a game, nothing more. Those are the ones who are going to be and have always been prevented from pirating games by DRM and copy protection, not the less common (though becoming increasingly common) tech savvy user or dedicated pirate. Using that same article as an example, the author's girlfriend would be an example of the kind of user I am referring to; someone is just capable of using a PC and nothing more.


Before I installed Ubuntu, I used vista, and before that, XP. My primary uses were to listen to music, play games, and write papers. I didn't know anything about computers. Part of my education came with installing the game Morrowind. I didn't know anything about file systems, and adding mods to the game every other week educated me fast.

But I learned how to pirate things on Vista, when DRM gave me a hassle. I tried everything to get rid of DRM. All I wanted to be able to do was take songs that I had legally bought off iTunes, and use them in an Alarm clock program that didn't work with the AAC format. This involved converting them. I learned how to get audio mp3s, oggs, and anything else from a youtube video. (Not that I did this, but it was an option I considered to get mp3s of songs that I legally bought) I learned how to use Audacity to record protected audio and save it as the format I wanted (and I didn't do this either, because my computer was technically unable to without recording background noise). But most of all, I found a program that unprotected protected audio.

Before, I was an average computer user. After all the hassles DRM put me through, I've "grown up" so to speak. What I'm trying to say is that people do learn to get around hassles. DRM only encourages people to break it, and indeed, grow more able to pirate copyrighted material in the process. It doesn't stop people who already can pirate and do pirate copyrighted material.


tl;dr: I disagree with you.

[RobOrr]

if you dislike music DRM - from apple store or otherwise, you simply use iTunes to burn that music to the previously mentioned unprotected CD format. I learned how to do this after I wanted to not use iTunes any more for my music (whilst I had several songs I had paid for).

The first thing I really learned to do that my dad couldn't on a computer was to crack game protection, as the laptop he used could only have either the floppy drive in or the cd drive in it at a time which bugged me (this is going back a while). A simple google search also will give you pretty much all the info you need to break simple copy protection. You don't need to be good with a computer to download a patch for an .exe (using windows example I'm afraid) which someone else has created.

Copy protection doesn't work, as anything created by man can be broken by man. why not create the environment to make the player want to pay for the game? I wouldn't want to play a Valve game without paying them - their games are awesome, and I want them to continue making them. Steam's also very handy.

[William Dojinn]

QUOTE:
Isn't this an improvement? You get a free new downloaded copy if yours goes defect, and if you can register the game forever via a web browser on another computer (say in the library), you DON'T need internet acces on your game computer! :)

This one finds the arrangment outlined in Eragon's post agreeable.

[Extreme Coder]

First of all, since when did Copy Protection = DRM?
Next, most people saying that it will be cracked anyways, maybe this is true, but on Windows. The number of Linux users is very small, and I'm not sure how many release groups are out there that crack games for Linux.
I am glad they did something like this, people might actually buy Linux games now instead of heading to Torrent sites to get them. Which means LGP won't turn into another Loki.
Also, Other game studios and publishers who previously thought of Linux as a piracy OS, may think differently now, which means they might think of publishing their games on Linux.
Anyone who's against this is probably angered they can't head to their favorite torrent site and get the game when it's out.

[Greyed]

if you dislike music DRM - from apple store or otherwise, you simply use iTunes to burn that music to the previously mentioned unprotected CD format.

However since AAC is lossy you are burning a lower quality WAV to the CD. Then if you rerip it so you can have it in a DRMless format you lose quality again unless you use FLAC.

First of all, since when did Copy Protection = DRM?

Since copy protection is DRM. Digital Rights Mmanagement is the euphemism for Copy Protection. The only difference is semantics. DRM is copy protection on artistic endeavours in digital formats while Copy Protection is, well, Copy Protection of software which is, by its nature, in digital format. Both prevent copying of digital information. Potaeto, Potahto, it's the same thing so stop trying to score semantic points.

Next, most people saying that it will be cracked anyways, maybe this is true, but on Windows. The number of Linux users is very small, and I'm not sure how many release groups are out there that crack games for Linux.

This, of course, ignores that the actual cracking takes a good deal of computer knowledge; knowledge which is generally associated with those who run alternative OSes, especially alternatives built on the unix model. Or, in layman's terms, they have the masses but we've got the geeks.

Anyone who's against this is probably angered they can't head to their favorite torrent site and get the game when it's out.

Right, that's it! Funnily right now on my game machine I play (or have played in the past 3 months):
Team Fortress 2
Tabula Rasa
World of Warcraft
Portal
Half-Life 2
Dungeons and Dragons Online
Lord of the Rings Online
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
EvE-Online
Max Payne
Audiosurf

Every single one I have legally purchased. I have the boxes for most of the non-Steam titles. In fact I still have all the boxes of games going back to the original Half-Life. Takes up 2 document boxes to bring them along every time I move. Furthermore I am probably going to pre-order Spore.

So yes, you're right, the only reason I'm against DRM in all its forms is because I don't spend money on my games, videos or music. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I can't use my Sweeney Todd album I legally purchased through iTunes as tracks on Audiosurf without first burning it to a disc and then reripping it and suffering either further loss of quality or suffer with having FLAC + AAC taking up space. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that I've had a few DVDs bust on me over the years. Since I couldn't make copies as I am legally allowed to do under Fair Use I have to buy... sorry... "license" replacements. Ignore the few hundred DVDs I'd purchased. It's all about the yarrrrrr and not about the principle of the matter.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that as you give your rights away if that's what makes you feel better. Me, I'm fighting it, will advocate against it and will tell the truth about the effects of it.

[thedevnull]

I just got a mail from Linux Game Publishing that they've started using copy protection in their games (link) (http://www.linuxgamepublishing.com/press_releases/200806241.txt). This IMO sucks, since all copy protection can be cracked - it's just a matter of time. Secondly, this paves way to a escalating war between the game publishers and crackers, with the consumers caught in the crossfire between. Remember the copy protection on bioshock or the mess starforce caused?

Personally I'd rather see them using a model similiar to Stardock with no copy protection at all (you can even install their games without entering a serial). Too bad stardock dosen't make games for the linux platform...

What do you think, is this kind of measures really neccessarly from a game publisher?


Yes, DRM is total CR4P! But don't hold your breath waiting for the traditional media companies to care about what you and I think. Don't like it? Write them and tell them so! Don't buy their crappy DRM games! Write and speak about what you think needs to change! Trust me you and I are equally frustrated at this crap but we can collectively change it.

Honestly there are TONS of amazing FOSS games to choose from. Go support and play them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_games

[ucal]

if you dislike music DRM - from apple store or otherwise, you simply use iTunes to burn that music to the previously mentioned unprotected CD format. I learned how to do this after I wanted to not use iTunes any more for my music (whilst I had several songs I had paid for).

I could have done this, but it would have required me to go out an purchase a disk. Also, iTunes wouldn't burn anything. It didn't recognize any of the burning programs on my computer. I'm sure there was a work around, but when you have a program that rips the DRM right off, why not just use that?

[eragon100]

Anyone who's against this is probably angered they can't head to their favorite torrent site and get the game when it's out.

That's nonsense, but I don't see this as DRM, unless DRM means "you can do anything you want with the software. It it breakes you don't have to buy a new copy. You can install it on as many computers as you like. You can make 1000000 backup copies if you like! If you don't have internet, you can activate it forever in the local library if you want :)

And if we go defunct, (like the MSN music store) we make patches, or our employes are allowed to do so without orders from the company, to remove the copy protection."

Sorry mate, but that doesn't sound like regular DRM that everyone is angry about (including me). It sounds like "we are going defunct, and if we don't do this you won't be able to buy linux games anymore soon, or in any casem no (even) better titles than we currently port".

This is the reason I am going to buy sacred, because it;s going to be a fun game, and this Copy Protection is DRA (Digital Rights Allowment) and as such isn't a problem :) :popcorn:

[Vadi]

It's funny that the two arguing sides don't meet.

One side is arguing against the crappy-implemented DRM that restricts freedom to do with the stuff you paid for.

Another side is arguing for DRM, for giving the proper compensation to the authors.

These two don't exactly meet. In fact they can be stuffed into one argument for properly implemented DRM that doesn't restrict freedom to do with the stuff you paid for and gives proper compensation to the authors.

[eragon100]

These two don't exactly meet. In fact they can be stuffed into one argument for properly implemented DRM that doesn't restrict freedom to do with the stuff you paid for and gives proper compensation to the authors.

Which is exactly what LGP has done with this copy protection. Case in Point.

Kudos LGP!

[cogadh]

So these "normal people" are going to pirate everything if there is no copy protection, right?
Absolutely not. Again, the point was missed completely. Basically, copy protection, as it exists today, only prevents people who were going to buy the game anyway from pirating it. Those people have no reason to even go looking for a pirated copy.

So where do these "normal people" get their games?
1) Buy them
2) Borrow it from a friend

In both cases the copy protection does nothing but add inconvenience because there isn't anything preventing you from giving it to a friend.

Even games that require a CD are similar (and outdated!). These "normal people" will just trade CDs.

Computer newbies don't NEED to know about cracking games because they don't download games. They just borrow them.

On a similar note, my roommate gave me his Steam account which includes Team Fortress 2, Half life, Half life 2, Portal, omg_he_has_$200+_of_games_on_this_account, I_guess_that's_why_he_never_eats, Counter strike, Counterstrike: Source, Geometry Wars, I_can't_remember_anymore, etc.

Sharing an account or lending a game is pretty much "casual pirating".
Actually, I would call what your roommate did a generous gift, not piracy at all. It is perfectly legal (in most cases) to transfer a license to another user. By giving away your original media to a friend, that is essentially what you are doing. If you, as the original license holder, contiue to use the software after giving it up, that might be considered piracy, but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure.
No, sir, you missed my point. I am saying that I know people like you describe who are doing it now... And have been for years. I'm talking AOL users. I'm talking people who can barely get their Windows laptop hooked into an open wireless network while using the wizards.

Your estimation of the barrier to entry is laughable. It is erroneous. It is, shall we say, no based in this or any other reality. I honestly don't know else to put it than you are simply, 100%, flat out wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Maybe I didn't explain it as clearly as I should have, but based on the response you have given, I can only assume that you still did not understand my point or you are just to close-minded to hear another's ideas.
Before I installed Ubuntu, I used vista, and before that, XP. My primary uses were to listen to music, play games, and write papers. I didn't know anything about computers. Part of my education came with installing the game Morrowind. I didn't know anything about file systems, and adding mods to the game every other week educated me fast.

But I learned how to pirate things on Vista, when DRM gave me a hassle. I tried everything to get rid of DRM. All I wanted to be able to do was take songs that I had legally bought off iTunes, and use them in an Alarm clock program that didn't work with the AAC format. This involved converting them. I learned how to get audio mp3s, oggs, and anything else from a youtube video. (Not that I did this, but it was an option I considered to get mp3s of songs that I legally bought) I learned how to use Audacity to record protected audio and save it as the format I wanted (and I didn't do this either, because my computer was technically unable to without recording background noise). But most of all, I found a program that unprotected protected audio.

Before, I was an average computer user. After all the hassles DRM put me through, I've "grown up" so to speak. What I'm trying to say is that people do learn to get around hassles. DRM only encourages people to break it, and indeed, grow more able to pirate copyrighted material in the process. It doesn't stop people who already can pirate and do pirate copyrighted material.


tl;dr: I disagree with you.
Thank you for being the exception that proves my point. You had a reason or need to crack DRM, so you researched it and found out how to do it. I believe that most PC users will never have a need to do that. When we are talking about purchasing retail software, if you are already predisposed to do the right thing and legally purchase it, why would you ever need to try and find out how to pirate it? This is what I am talking about. If you assume that the majority of PC users are not the kind of people who will knowingly try and circumvent DRM or illegally obtain software, then the only thing DRM is doing is stopping those people from pirating software when they weren't going to pirate it anyway.

[Greyed]

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Maybe you should go back and read my messages again. I am not presenting opinions. I have cited sources to back up what I consider facts of the matter.

Maybe I didn't explain it as clearly as I should have, but based on the response you have given, I can only assume that you still did not understand my point or you are just to close-minded to hear another's ideas.

I'd say that is you. Thus far between you and me you have not cited where your ideas come from. Just because you have ideas does not mean they have merit. Keep an open mind but not so open it falls out and all that. Ideas can be judged and found lacking. That does not mean that the person is close-minded.

[cor2y]

I am no filesharer p2p game downloader, i am cool with having to use a serial to authorize a game whether single or multiplayer, hell i have quake, nwn, doom, ut2k4 etc for the penguin.
I am not cool with this LGP thing.
Also where is the data that suggests people are downloading LGP games off torrent sites?
With the exception of X2, X3 (still in beta) and Sacred (just beginning beta testing) ,games you can find way cheaper in the bargin bin for the windows OS btw what other games from LGP have been so compelling that they have ended up on the file sharing networks available for download?
Finally EA/Bioware tried a similiar thing (more draconian of course) with Mass Effect look how successful that little experiment was, what this will do is give Gamecopyworld a new section on their site, for linux based binaries.

[Vadi]

Just go search on warez sites... heck, even Cedega is getting pirated.

[cor2y]

Really the linux version of X2 is out and about on the warez sites?
Cedega i can believe (touting yourself as better than wine , then charging money could have something to do with this) but games from LGP?
I know they say they are adding the drm to appease the windows publishers so they can get the license to do linux ports but come on following that logic why not just go all out and have securom for linux while you are at it?
Like i said serial number i don't mind but ever since my windows days i HATE registering games, the only reason i used to nwn registration method was because they allow you to have the serial number stored on their servers so if you ever lose the cd case or manual you had the serial somewhere else.
Looking at LGP's version the fact you have to check into a server to be allowed to play an offline game is a no no for me.

[duglambier]

Don't forget Rune-Soft, another company that ports games to Linux, without DRM protection

[Vadi]

You mean those games require 0 activation?

(I don't know if it does, but I found ankh 2 for linux for free! Won't be getting that though - I'll buy the real thing later :))

[Greyed]

This is what I am talking about. If you assume that the majority of PC users are not the kind of people who will knowingly try and circumvent DRM or illegally obtain software, then the only thing DRM is doing is stopping those people from pirating software when they weren't going to pirate it anyway.

Sorry, you are obviously clueless as to what SecuROM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM) does to one's PC even if one legally purchases the software. Also you've obviously never lost your original documentation with your "activation key" or forgotten your password to an on-line registration service and only then realized you hadn't updated your email address to get back in.

I've hit all of those on legal games I have purchased. You're trying to tell me I am not inconvenienced in any way? Furthermore I've read dozens of stories of the same over the years. We're all exceptions?

Know who doesn't have to worry about SecuROM screwing up his machine?

The one with the pirated copy.

Know who doesn't have to worry about losing their activation key?

The one with the pirated copy.

Know who doesn't have to worry about forgetting their password to an online registration service?

The one with the pirated copy.

Tell me again how they're inconvenienced especially when most games are cracked the day of release and posted to dozens of torrent sites minutes later. Let's add one more inconvenience...

Know who doesn't have to worry about his local store being sold out of a popular title the day of release?

The one with the pirated copy.

You've just been mouthing the same rhetoric the SIIA has has mouthed for years. The same rhetoric the MPAA and RIAA use. Rhetoric which has never been proven and has often been refuted.

[doorknob60]

Don't see a problem really with paying for stuff and the game maker having some security for their work.

+1 I don't know why everyone is so against it, it's logical. I just hate when they go overboard (like MS and Apple like to do).

Just go search on warez sites... heck, even Cedega is getting pirated.

*cough* How'd you know :O JK I don't use it anymore because it sucks compared to wine but I used to.

[|{urse]

Sometimes i wish linux was copy-protected. Then i would feel like i was part of 2 cool underground scenes at once! AWESOEM =X :lolflag:

[yeaitsdark]

One one side I've always found copyright protection to be really annoying and just something to take time away from game play. However, and this is purely opinion, but I would think maybe some more proprietary companies might consider releasing theirs games on Linux as well because in their mind - they'll have some assurance of getting paid. Best case - we get some cool new games Worst case - things stay the same :D

[cogadh]

Sorry, you are obviously clueless as to what SecuROM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM) does to one's PC even if one legally purchases the software. Also you've obviously never lost your original documentation with your "activation key" or forgotten your password to an on-line registration service and only then realized you hadn't updated your email address to get back in.

I've hit all of those on legal games I have purchased. You're trying to tell me I am not inconvenienced in any way? Furthermore I've read dozens of stories of the same over the years. We're all exceptions?

Know who doesn't have to worry about SecuROM screwing up his machine?

The one with the pirated copy.

Know who doesn't have to worry about losing their activation key?

The one with the pirated copy.

Know who doesn't have to worry about forgetting their password to an online registration service?

The one with the pirated copy.

Tell me again how they're inconvenienced especially when most games are cracked the day of release and posted to dozens of torrent sites minutes later. Let's add one more inconvenience...

Know who doesn't have to worry about his local store being sold out of a popular title the day of release?

The one with the pirated copy.

You've just been mouthing the same rhetoric the SIIA has has mouthed for years. The same rhetoric the MPAA and RIAA use. Rhetoric which has never been proven and has often been refuted.

I am intimately familiar with what SecuROM is and does, I've worked in software support for years now and have had to deal with issues like lost license keys many times before. As copy protection schemes go, SecuROM was not all that intrusive until version 7.X was released last year (prior to that, it was simple activation key/original media check). It still isn't all that intrusive, but it does have an increased hassle factor with the internet access requirement it now has. The current version of SecuROM 7.X doesn't actually do anything more than what the Windows Genuine Advantage check/activation already does; it restricts the number of installs and validates the licensed copy when the software is updated. SecuROM has never actually been reported to screw up a machine (with the exception of the initial release of version 7.X on the Sims, and that has already been fixed), but it has had problems with certain software, such as Process Explorer, which has also been corrected with updates to either SecuROM or the conflicting software. The dubious honor of a copy protection scheme that consistently breaks machines actually belongs to Starforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce) copy protection (virtual driver that cannot be easily uninstalled, known to break CD/DVD ROM drives). I actually refuse to buy games with that copy protection for fear of what it may do to my machine.

Honestly, I have never lost an original CD-key or login, I actually take the time to copy that stuff to a spreadsheet so I never have to worry about it. On top of that, I don't throw away any original CD/DVD cases or manuals, I keep them in a cabinet in my computer desk, even if I never actually use them. I have manuals and cases from games and software dating all the way back to 1995, some of which belong to software that doesn't actually work anymore (I keep them in the hopes that I can get Wine to run them someday). The only thing I do get rid of is the original cardboard box the game came in, which usually does not have anything of use on it anyway. If you have managed to lose CD keys or manuals, thats your own fault, but you don't have to resort to piracy to get around it. All publishers have systems in place to allow legitimate license holders to recover a lost license key/login/password. You might have to put in the additional effort of e-mailing or calling a publisher's support department, but how is that all that difficult or inconvenient? You might consider it inconvenient if you are too impatient to await a response, but that is your problem, not theirs.

I am certainly not parroting what the license holders are saying at all, I am actually saying what they don't want to admit: copy protection does not protect them from pirates at all, it just protects them from their own legitimate customers, whom they didn't need protection from in the first place.

[MaximB]

All copy protection methods can be bypassed.
None can do anything about it and this copy protection method won't work either.
I will still buy a game with copy protection IF I really like it and the copy protection method won't disturb the gameplay, like say that you must have your cd in your DVD/CD drive all the time while playing (Diablo2) or it regularly connects to the Internet to check your copy - those methods are not acceptable !

The problem with LGP is the games they choose to port.
I have sent them an email once but got no replay.
I basically said that they making a very bad choices on the games they choose to port.
For example , they ported Heroes3 which is a great game, but then 3 more expansions came out, which allows me to generate maps and thus expand the game much much more, but I can't play those expantions on Linux and LGP didn't port them.
Thus why should I buy Heroes3 when I want to play the expansions ?

Their latest choice was to port Sacred Gold, Sacred is not a bad game, it's actually a good game IMO but damn , it's 4-5 years old and Sacred2 is on it's way out.
Why port an old game when you can license a new game that's still on the making ?
Why not make it so that the Windows and Linux clients be released in the same year ?
Why not license Sacred2 for example and make a Linux port ?

I do understand that it might cost more to license a port to a newer game, but still it's worth it.
More people would buy new games then oldies.

Why not take a game in development and port it to Linux ?
Diablo3 someone ? ;)
hack, LGP can even work as a porters and not publishers.
Like making a port to famous game in development like Diablo3 or Fallou3 but not license the rights to sell the port.
They will get payed for their job and we get a Linux port.

There are many ways to do this.
Choosing the right games is a major factor.

[ELD]

If we get more games then bugger it, i honestly couldn't care less since i do buy games i don't pirate them. If it works then i don't honestly care and neither should you.

Companies need to protect their income and i am sure you can all appreciate it, even if it gets cracked, they are still trying and it makes companies feel a little more secure for games to be on Linux.

In the end i just hope it makes more companies feel Linux is more ready.

[eragon100]

I wished everyone thought the way you did, ELD. (I am going to buy sacred, I think it will be a cool game!)

[MaximB]

I wished everyone thought the way you did, ELD. (I am going to buy sacred, I think it will be a cool game!)

The thing is that the majority of gamers already played Sacred (at least the ones who love RPG and hack-n-slash games).
Many of them already bought the Windows version, and when the Linux port will arrive , why should they buy it ? if only to support LGP.
This game is quite good, if you don't like deep RPG's Fallout1&2 style.
It's a good hack-n-slash Diablo style game.
But damn, it's old.

I think we deserve a port of a much newer games...

[ELD]

I wished everyone thought the way you did, ELD. (I am going to buy sacred, I think it will be a cool game!)

Heh i wish more people thought like it too, honestly half the people in this thread are bashing it because it is the cool thing to do nowadays, bash everything that has some form of the company trying to protect themselves.

I would like to see even half the people who complain not do the same thing if they had to make the decision to save their profits. And to try to make gaming on Linux more viable to game creators.


The thing is that the majority of gamers already played Sacred (at least the ones who love RPG and hack-n-slash games).
Many of them already bought the Windows version, and when the Linux port will arrive , why should they buy it ? if only to support LGP.
This game is quite good, if you don't like deep RPG's Fallout1&2 style.
It's a good hack-n-slash Diablo style game.
But damn, it's old.

I think we deserve a port of a much newer games...


If you have the windows version, don't buy the linux version unless you hate windows that much, it's simple.
I won't ever buy a game for the sake of it.

As what i said ealier, the copy protection and stuff will help towards newer games.
The more games LGP do the bigger their portfolio for other companies to see as well remember.
And more games are better than less, more to choose etc etc.

In the end i do support LGP.

[MaximB]

You missed my point.
I'm not bashing copy protection, well I don't like it but it's not the main idea of my thoughts.
I'm saying that the reason people don't buy LGP games is very different.
Their games are old and cost much more then their Windows/other ports.
Take Postal2 share the pain for example, you can buy a hybrid DVD with Win/Linux and Mac versions of Postal1 and Postal2+mods included from the official developers for much less money.
Now why would you buy this game from LGP ?
Similar problem with heroes3 as I've explained earlier in this thread.

They port old games.
Those games do not sell well anymore.
They need to take a good game in development and then port it.

[cogadh]

You are making the assumption that LGP has a choice in what the original publishers/developers allow them to port. They can't just walk up to EA (for example) and tell them "We are going to port Spore to Linux, here's some money" and then do it. They have to ask EA, negotiate on terms and a price, then EA has to actually agree to let them do it. It is not LGP's fault that publishers/developers only allow them to port old games.

[Greyed]

Heh i wish more people thought like it too, honestly half the people in this thread are bashing it because it is the cool thing to do nowadays, bash everything that has some form of the company trying to protect themselves.

Companies rarely need protection; esp. when they are stomping over the rights of individuals.

I would like to see even half the people who complain not do the same thing if they had to make the decision to save their profits. And to try to make gaming on Linux more viable to game creators.

You're in the wrong forum for that. You do realize this is a forum for a version of Linux and many, many people are FOSS advocates? In short, they either have made that decision or will make that decision.

Heck, let me ask two simple question to every person saying that "companies need to protect themselves" and that people against copy protection are just bashing it or don't understand what's going on in companies.

Do you believe that Canonical's refusal to copy protect Ubuntu will spell it's doom?

http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu

If not, why then the stout push for copy protection on games?

[cogadh]

Because most commercial games are not open source projects like Ubuntu. As an open source project, it would be virtually impossible to even try to copy protect Ubuntu. The closed source model used in commercial game development demands the protection of the product in order to ensure sales and therefore profits. Whether that is right or wrong is apparently up for debate.

[Greyed]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you felt the refusal of Canonical to copy protect Ubuntu would lead to its demise. If not, why the same dire prediction for games?

Seems pretty straight forward.

[eragon100]

Do you believe that Canonical's refusal to copy protect Ubuntu will spell it's doom?



No, because it's free and they want people to be able to modify Ubuntu.

Sacred Gold isn't free and LGP doesn't want people to modify it.

Also, Canonical doesn't have to make profits and doesn't need to convince people to pay them, because Mark Shuttleworth is the boss and pays for everyting, and he is a multi-billonaire. The CEO of LGP isn't a millionaira as far as I know, and so LGP needs to make money, or they go defunct. It as simple as that. And as long as people don't buy those somewhat older games they port, they will never have enough money to obtain rights to port a big new title still in development, so it's an ever-repeating proces :(

[Greyed]

No, because it's free and they want people to be able to modify Ubuntu.

It isn't free.

Also, Canonical doesn't have to make profits and doesn't need to convince people to pay them, because Mark Shuttleworth is the boss and pays for everyting, and he is a multi-billonaire. The CEO of LGP isn't a millionaira as far as I know, and so LGP needs to make money, or they go defunct. It as simple as that.

Is it?

You sure?

Positive?

Last chance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat

"Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) is a company dedicated to free and open source software, and a major Linux distribution vendor. Red Hat was founded in 1995 and has its corporate headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina with satellite offices worldwide.[1]"

As far as I know Red Hat doesn't have a sugar daddy multi-billionaire backing it. 13 years and still going.

[cogadh]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Ubuntu is free. When you buy a copy of Ubuntu, you are not buying the software, you are buying commercial support for the software. Since users (especially corporate users) will almost always need some kind of support, they are pretty much guaranteed to stay in business as long as they continue to offer the software. This is how all commercial Linux distros, including Red Hat/Fedora, stay in business.

With games, they are not free and when you buy a copy you are actually purchasing the software itself and user rights for it. Game developers/publishers do not make any money off of supporting the software after the initial sale. In fact, with their business model, supporting the software after release is a continual cost that eats into any profits that sales of the game might have made. Since the only way they can make money in the closed source model is protect the sales of the software itself, copy protection is viewed as an essential part of doing business.

[Greyed]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Ubuntu is free.

No, software to software. There's plenty of commercial applications which also operate on the same fire and forget model yet we have them under FOSS, too.

With games, they are not free and when you buy a copy you are actually purchasing the software itself and user rights for it. Game developers/publishers do not make any money off of supporting the software after the initial sale. In fact, with their business model, supporting the software after release is a continual cost that eats into any profits that sales of the game might have made. Since the only way they can make money in the closed source model is protect the sales of the software itself, copy protection is viewed as an essential part of doing business.

Yes, thanks for the lecture on what I already knew and refuted. BTW, you're forgetting these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG

They don't make their money off the individual sales.

Point is that just because its what has "worked" in the past, and yes worked is in quotes because it hasn't worked, doesn't mean it should in the future. Especially on a platform whose principle backers eschew such tripe. Which is what leads to the fundamental flaw in the anti-fair-use protection crowd. If they're so worried about other company's lack of anti-fair-use protection and going under then why are they here? Clearly they feel, at their core, that Ubuntu will disappear because it isn't protected. By gosh, it has to be! Why? Well, just look at Windows with WGA! They have 90% of the OS market. It works for them! Ubuntu must be protected! How will it survive without protection!!!! *GASP*

If that's not how you feel you have no way to reconcile defending anti-fair-use on any software ported to this platform, period. Justify how you like to yourself but don't pretend there isn't a fundamental hypocrisy there.

[cogadh]

Hipocrisy? How so? You are expecting that all users of Linux and other FOSS software are FOSS drones and that all users of closed source software are corporate lapdogs? Sorry, but I am just a software user that chooses to use the legal software that suits my needs the best, regardless of the business model used to develop and distribute that software. That is the whole point of Linux; the ability to choose how to use your PC and software, not to be locked into one method or model.

BTW - I did not forget about MMOs, I just didn't think they were worth mentioning since it is quite obvious how they stay in business (through monthly fees or microtransactions) and because they are probably the only successful example of copy protection out there (with few exceptions, you can't play without connecting to their servers with a legal copy of their software).

[Greyed]

Hipocrisy? How so? You are expecting that all users of Linux and other FOSS software are FOSS drones and that all users of closed source software are corporate lapdogs?

Nope.

Sorry, but I am just a software user that chooses to use the legal software that suits my needs the best, regardless of the business model used to develop and distribute that software. That is the whole point of Linux; the ability to choose how to use your PC and software, not to be locked into one method or model.

As am I, or did you miss the list of legal, copy protected games I play? On the other hand I recognize that the copy protection does not work and advocate against it. IE, I purchased my games in spite of copy protection, not because of it, and just because I do use software that is so crippled doesn't mean I agree with it or feel that others should be forced into the same crippled situation.

Do I expect users of Linux to be FOSS zealots? Nope. I do, however, expect them to be sensible and take a look at issues rationally, without bias, and come to sensible conclusions based on facts. Something that is sorely lacking from the anti-fair-use protection crowd since their argument boils down to, "It doesn't work but if it makes the company's feel safe then it's worth it!" Feh.

because they are probably the only successful example of copy protection out there (with few exceptions, you can't play without connecting to their servers with a legal copy of their software).

Except for those pesky private servers. >.>

[cogadh]

I think you missed the part where they said it is worth it only if it means bringing modern AAA commercial games to Linux. If adding copy protection doesn't even bring that small benefit to Linux users, then it is an even bigger waste of time than arguing the pros and cons of copy protection on a Linux forum. I don't think anyone (other that the software developers/publishers) really believes that the current methods of copy protection are a good thing for legitmate users. I do think that there must be some way to accomplish copy protection in a way that satisfies the developers/publishers and is unobtrusive to the user, but no one has come up with it yet. The closest I have seen is Valve's Steam platform, but even that has its flaws (what happens to my licensed software if Steam goes belly up, for example).

EDIT - You think the "call home" version of copy protection that is currently being touted is bad, wait until they put a TPM encryption chip in your PC that enforces copy protection locally in the hardware, instead remotely or through software:
http://www.full-disc-encryption.com/biometrics_and_encryption.htm

[starcannon]

The bottom line is, if someone is charging money for it, and it wasn't gifted to you, or you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it. "it" could be anything.

I could give a flying fudge at a rolling donut, Chicken A has a product, Chicken B received the product, Chicken A was not compensated in the way he required, Chicken B is a thief.

Can you imagine if your neighbor decided he wanted your T.V. and just came over one day and took it? given all these justifications your neighbor should be allowed to do just that, and you shouldn't be able to tell him he can not. Share and share alike man, free t.v. for everyone. Or how about the bank, someone steals your identity and cleans out your bank account and racks up an eternity of debt on your credit cards, that should be okay though right, free and open money for everyone, free and open identities for everyone.

Justify theft with FOSS doctrine, your still a thief, justify it with "try before you buy" your still a thief, justify it anyway you like, your still a thief. grrr

As for the copy protection schemes, they are a practical application in stupidity; rule number one, locks keep honest people honest; rule number two, thieves will always find ways to crack your locks. The idea of stopping your paying customers from backing up their paid for media is stupid, or that your customer shouldn't be able to play the game from the hdd once it is installed, again stupid. The idea that the game has to have a MS windows insecurity system in place, stupid (refer to rules 1 and 2).

Good Luck out there, were all going to need it.

[Greyed]

I think you missed the part where they said it is worth it only if it means bringing modern AAA commercial games to Linux.

You're right, I did miss that and was lumping you in with other who have not made that qualifier. For that I apologize.

The closest I have seen is Valve's Steam platform, but even that has its flaws (what happens to my licensed software if Steam goes belly up, for example).

This really isn't confined to Steam which, for the record, is the platform that I forgot my password and had an old, non-functional email address on my account. :( This can be said for any copy protection scheme at any time. Take, for example, SecuROM or Starforce and how they might interfere with future hardware driver/OS compatibility. I sincerely doubt that any company that believes in DRM is going to voluntarily remove it on an old title for the sake of future compatibility.

[ELD]

Well i am after this post stepping out of this thread, at the end of the day as people have said theives will always find a way to "pick locks".

TBH most people take things too seriously, it is games we are talking about heh.

LGP has already said they will release patches to remove DRM if they are ever going to go under and their staff have the ability to do so.

I still support their decision.