Starforce WAR-ROOM [Archive] - Adrenaline Vault

NetDanzr

09-13-2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Tals:
1. Not knowing its installed on your PC
OK you now know - most games publish whether they use Starforce, so whats the problem?Wrong. Most publishers are trying to hide the fact. There was a thread at the Dreamcatcher forums, where a member listed all their games containing Starforce. The post was deleted, and Dreamcatcher was claiming that the list was a trade secret.

So far the only game I've seen that had a warning on the box was The Political Machine, and even that was a generic "This game contains copy protection that may conflict with other software" message. That was enough for me, though, to hold off with the purchase until I found a no-CD crack.

3. Not being able to uninstall it
Both games I play which have Starforce (Soldiers and Chaos League) have unistall routines for itAnd did you try to see whether they work? Most games with Starforce that I have include uninstall routines, but they forget to uninstall Starforce.

4. It damages my system
This is one of the valid ones av_smile.gif OK so those who have had problems, hands up first av_smile.gif Was it on a legit copy? And what did the Support of the product say - maybe useful to include the actual developerI was getting a BSOD on my computer whenever I started up while having an external drive (be it a USB flash card or my camera memory, via PCMCIA) connected to the computer. The offending file was one associated with Starforce. The BSOD disappeared after I removed the software. Others reported lost external hard drives after trying to install their games there.

As for the developer part, Starforce is attached to the CD by the publisher. Very few if any developers would help you; in fact, quite often they encourage players to get a no-CD crack.

5. It holds information that can be sent back
Not heard this one - tell me moreI don't know about that, but I know that my ZoneAlarm has always warned me that Starforce wanted to connect to the outside, even when I wasn't playing the game.

6. It stops your virtual drives
I have virtual drives (Alcohol 120) they still work. Or do you mean when the game is working....and?Nope. What happens is that when you have a virtual drive or certain CD burning software that could be potentially used to copy games, or if you have certain CD drives that offer exact copy, including the weak sectors, Starforce will prevent the game from starting up. It will only give you a generic error message. While Starforce claims that all you need to do is to disable this software (there's no remedy for having an offending CD-ROM drive), via trial and error I found that I had to get rid of all traces of this legally purchased and paid for commercial software. So in my case, I could decide only between wasting $50 for the game or wasting $50 for the software.

Nukeler

09-13-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Wizid:
Sims 2 will have Starforce Really? If it dose im not feeling it, runs as a CCD no issues

Tals

09-14-2004, 12:33 AM

Sorry I should have clarified. Both soldiers and Chaos League have specific Starforce uninistall routines. Of course if you have more than one Starforce game and you unininstall Starforce then the other will stop working.

Both games I play Soldiers and Chaos League both stated prior to release that they would use Starforce.

I agree games should be clear on this - although there now appear to be a large amount of lists that list games with it in. Not quite sure what a game would have to gain by hiding it.

Also appretiated re virtual drive for a laptop. I hate having to keep inserting a CD into the PC to play my game - at the same time I have a real problem with the amount of warez that appears to be prevalent at the moment - it isn't good for PC games in general. So it wouldn't make me not get the game.

Regarding drivers - I think we are being a little sensitive. I have had no problems with Starforce - on the other hand my creative soundcard has given me a whole wealth of problems with its hitten apps (CDhelper) and buggy drivers,uninstall routines etc. Smooth now but certainly cost me time.

Tals

MarkN

09-14-2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by NetDanzr:I don't know about that, but I know that my ZoneAlarm has always warned me that Starforce wanted to connect to the outside, even when I wasn't playing the game.

So if you don't allow ZA to accept it then does it still play or not?

Rob M.

09-14-2004, 08:32 AM

Tals, not wanting drivers installed is far from overreacting. The #1 stability problem with Windows is bad drivers.

The driver (and copy protection in general) also artificially limit the lifetime of the game. The first thing that is going to break on a patch or OS upgrade is the copy protection. It also limits where the game can be run when it needn't. Quite a few games run on WINE with a no-cd crack, but won't without one.

Tals

09-14-2004, 01:17 PM

I'd agree with this to an extent.

Although at the same time if it doesn't prove a problem then its not an issue - not sure if that makes sense av_smile.gif

Needless to say i've not experienced any issues. A nocd would be great - however at the same time knowing that this program is not so widespreadly warezed as say Doom 3 or similar and is harder to implement is very good IMHO av_smile.gif

Tals

Quiet_Thunder

09-14-2004, 01:27 PM

At the risk of extending a discussion that has already been beat to death, I offer a few more observations.

1 - what is the big deal with having to insert a CD to play a game? I just don't understand why this is such a huge issue for people. Are you worried about the wear on the CD and/or drive? Is it because you want to use the drive for something else (music CD perhaps) while you play the game? What is the problem with requiring the CD?

2 - having worked in the software industry for many years, I have observed some very interesting attitudes. One very baffling attitude that exists both inside and outside the industry is that one should not have to pay for anything. Why is it that so many people think they should not have to pay, or that they should not have to pay full price? No one can work for free. If you can't afford something, you don't buy it. For some strange reason, when it comes to certain things (like games, CDs, DVDs, etc.) many people think they simply shouldn't have to pay full price. Starforce prevents some of these people from getting something at a reduced price, and this is why they hate it. It has also been stated that not all haters of starforce are software pirates. And while I accept that this is true, I will venture a guess that the majority, as in the vast majority (95+%), of starforce haters are indeed software pirates and those looking to pay as little as possible for a full product (which is part of the software pirate group as far as I'm concerned). And the comment, "if I try something (bootleg, for free, etc.) and I like it, I'll pay full price for it" doesn't hold water. The majority of people who say this create reasons for not paying full price.

3 - somewhat related to the previous point, there are many "customers" out there whose single purpose in life seems to be to get away with as much as possible. Whether it's cheating in an online game, cheating on a test, downloading bootleg MP3s, buying a fake ID, cracking software protection, or sneaking into a movie theater, many people try to get out of paying something. No one enjoys online players who cheat and the software industry continues to curb this as much as possible. No developer or publisher can afford to give their games away and starforce is an attempt at insuring this won't happen.

4 - for all those complaining that starforce doesn't work with virtual drives and any other devices, all I can say is, what can you do. It wasn't that long ago, and you'll still hear it today, that support for many games consisted of first turning off and removing background programs and devices. Programs have to deal with so many different hardware configurations and device drivers, it's sometimes amazing anything works at all. So while starforce has its own device conflict issues, this is nothing new to software. I only point this out to further enforce the comment that the majority of starforce haters, hate starforce because it keeps them from getting pirated software and not because it has some device conflict issues.

In conclusion, having stated all that, I hate invasive and unstable software. I hate that XP forces me to keep directories around that I don't use. I absolutely hate hidden files!! This would mean that I must also hate starforce. Oddly enough, again from my years of experience in the software industry, I appreciate what starforce is trying to prevent. I don't excuse any of the device conflict issues associated with starforce and I sincerely hope they will be fixed. At the same time, anyone who has had anything to do with computers over the last 15 years has to realize that device issues and hardware conflicts are a part of life, unfortunately. This is one reason why consoles have done so well. Again, I am not defending starforce here - I'm just trying to understand the animosity that has been expressed by some.

[ September 14, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Quiet_Thunder ]

Nukeler

09-14-2004, 06:36 PM

Just to address point number 2. I think starforce just baits people like that, that dont want to pay for anything as it provides justification for doing what they are doing. If a game has starforce im 4x more likely to get it from suprnova that I am if it has normal protection.

Quiet_Thunder

09-14-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Nukeler:
Just to address point number 2. I think starforce just baits people like that, that dont want to pay for anything as it provides justification for doing what they are doing. If a game has starforce im 4x more likely to get it from suprnova that I am if it has normal protection. It is precisely this way of thinking that is why protection schemes like starforce are being developed. I agree that starforce baits these individuals, but this doesn't justify the act of pirating software. And to suggest that you are more likely to download illegal software just because it has a specific type of copy protection is a sad commentary indeed. What exactly do you mean by "normal" protection anyway - protection that can be cracked? As far as I can tell, "normal" protection isn't working.

[ September 14, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Quiet_Thunder ]

NetDanzr

09-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Quiet_Thunder: I can only say for myself, but this is how I feel about the whole issue: I don't download copyrighted stuff for free. There's so much stuff, be it games, applications, books or music, which are in the public domain, that if I didn't want to pay I'd have a lifetime worth of entertainment for free and legally.

However, the moment I purchase something, I feel that I own it, and that I have the full right to do with it whatever I want. If I wanted to use the CD as coaster and the manual in place of toilet paper, I should be able to do so. If I wanted to copy the entire CD on the hard drive and play the game from there, I should be able to do so, because I feel that I own the game I purchased, and I don't take it kindly when somebody is trying to prevent me from enjoying my property.

OmegaBob

09-14-2004, 07:19 PM

My two-cents:

1 - I've only read what people here have said about SF. Hopefully, when I break down and purchase a game that has it, I will not have any problems.... of course my Zone Alarm will be set to block it's access as well.

2 - I have no issues with havign to insert the CD into the drive to play. Doesn't bother me in the least.

btw - I want to play Painkiller so very much! av_frown.gif

Quiet_Thunder

09-14-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by NetDanzr:
Quiet_Thunder: I can only say for myself, but this is how I feel about the whole issue: I don't download copyrighted stuff for free. There's so much stuff, be it games, applications, books or music, which are in the public domain, that if I didn't want to pay I'd have a lifetime worth of entertainment for free and legally.

However, the moment I purchase something, I feel that I own it, and that I have the full right to do with it whatever I want. If I wanted to use the CD as coaster and the manual in place of toilet paper, I should be able to do so. If I wanted to copy the entire CD on the hard drive and play the game from there, I should be able to do so, because I feel that I own the game I purchased, and I don't take it kindly when somebody is trying to prevent me from enjoying my property. So what would you propose software publishers do to prevent people, not like yourself, from installing the entire game to their hard drives and then giving their CD to someone else so they could do the same? I, for one, don't think it's too much to require the original CD to play a game. I realize this is just my opinion, and I'm really not defending starforce. This thread is about why people hate starforce so much. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and not everyone is going to like starforce, and this is fine. But the reasons just haven't been that compelling. Requiring a CD to play a game is not a big issue. For those that don't like this, I guess it's just too bad. My question for these folks is - what games are you playing, that haven't been illegally cracked? I can't remember the last (legal) game I played that played completely from the hard drive!!

[ September 14, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Quiet_Thunder ]

NetDanzr

09-14-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Quiet_Thunder:
So what would you propose software publishers do to prevent people, not like yourself, from installing the entire game to their hard drives and then giving their CD to someone else so they could do the same? I, for one, don't think it's too much to require the original CD to play a game. I realize this is just my opinion, and I'm really not defending starforce. This thread is about why people hate starforce so much. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and not everyone is going to like starforce, and this is fine. But the reasons just haven't been that compelling. Requiring a CD to play a game is not a big issue. For those that don't like this, I guess it's just too bad. My question for these folks is - what games are you playing, that haven't been illegally cracked? I can't remember the last (legal) game I played that played completely from the hard drive!! I don't propose anything. I'm merely saying that I should have the right to find out whether there are any limitations on the game, before I purchase it. This way, I can decide whether to spend money on the game or not. Of course, I could decide not to spend money on any boxed games (independent games for download don't have those limitations), but that would discriminate agains games that allow full hard drive installation, such as last year's Dark Fall and Mysterious Journey II. As long as I'm allowed to make an informed purchasing decision, I've got nothing to complain about.

Quiet_Thunder

09-14-2004, 09:09 PM

Oh, this wasn't so obvious in your first post, I apologize for misunderstanding. Would I be correct in saying that when you say limitations of the software you mean things like starforce? I agree that no publisher should try and sneak starforce onto any of us and that we should be informed so that we can make our own decisions.

NO2STARFORCE

09-15-2004, 07:27 AM

Limitations like this only hurts the customers, and in the end, the publisher when the customer is so fed up he either stops purchasing their games, and start pirating, or he finds alternative outlets for games purchases, such as totalgaming.net

Starforce, Safedisc, Securom, et.al can sod off.

Rob M.

09-15-2004, 08:24 AM

QuietThunder "normal" protection (or anything else for that matter) doesn't work, and never can work, it's theoretically impossible, all you can do is delay the inevitable.

At some point they're going to reach the balance where they lose as much from piracy as from annoying legitimate users that then leave.

If you (publishers) want to dictate what a customer can and can't run, why don't you release a boot disk or just develop for the consoles?

Nukeler

09-15-2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Quiet_Thunder:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nukeler:
Just to address point number 2. I think starforce just baits people like that, that dont want to pay for anything as it provides justification for doing what they are doing. If a game has starforce im 4x more likely to get it from suprnova that I am if it has normal protection. It is precisely this way of thinking that is why protection schemes like starforce are being developed. I agree that starforce baits these individuals, but this doesn't justify the act of pirating software. And to suggest that you are more likely to download illegal software just because it has a specific type of copy protection is a sad commentary indeed. What exactly do you mean by "normal" protection anyway - protection that can be cracked? As far as I can tell, "normal" protection isn't working. [/QUOTE]Protection that DOSENT hijack my computer

Tals

09-15-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Rob M.:
QuietThunder "normal" protection (or anything else for that matter) doesn't work, and never can work, it's theoretically impossible, all you can do is delay the inevitable.

At some point they're going to reach the balance where they lose as much from piracy as from annoying legitimate users that then leave.

If you (publishers) want to dictate what a customer can and can't run, why don't you release a boot disk or just develop for the consoles? The dev (Codemasters) has said on a number of occasions that in terms of the protection it provides they are satisfied that it is actually working well. I would guess they are able to check the downloads - just like anyone can go and get hold of cracked versions. If you take Doom 3 for example - that was seriously effected by the poor copy protection it had. That said totally different market (i.e in a different league) from these smaller publishers.

If ever I experience an issue down to Starforce i'll remove it and from then on my position would be the same as a number who arn't happy to do this. That said I now would not buy a Starforce game that didn't give the ability to uninstall Starforce if required to do so.

Tals

Patrick.Cox

09-15-2004, 03:38 PM

Star force talks out of your computer to the net? Even when a game isn't running? Can someone confirm this? Is there a license agreement with disclosure of this fact prior to it's installation?

NO2STARFORCE

09-15-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Patrick Cox:
Star force talks out of your computer to the net? Even when a game isn't running? Can someone confirm this? Is there a license agreement with disclosure of this fact prior to it's installation? I doubt it.
Unfortunately; there is a lot of hysteria and FUD associated with copywrong viruses (copyrestriction technologies).

You have a report function, that is launched should there be a failure, or you can launch it yourself, that cointains some 'leak' of information (such as everything you have installed, etc). But you have to manually sent it.

Could be some additional feature, depending on which version of StarForce the publisher has infected the title with - though. And also what features they have enabled upon the infection of the title.

dangerballs

09-15-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Patrick Cox:
Star force talks out of your computer to the net? Even when a game isn't running? Can someone confirm this? Is there a license agreement with disclosure of this fact prior to it's installation? From what I have read from interviews with the CEO, Starforce has the ability to communicate back with a developer or company with error or "quality control" data.

Tals

09-15-2004, 05:39 PM

Better get some feedback from starforce.

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/starforce_interview/default.asp

Not sure who Abbie Sommer is but the interview does provide the Starforce perspective.

Tals

NetDanzr

09-15-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Patrick Cox:
Star force talks out of your computer to the net? Even when a game isn't running? Can someone confirm this? Is there a license agreement with disclosure of this fact prior to it's installation? In my case, a file associated with Starforce has tried to access the Internet while I was not playing the game, according to my ZoneAlarm. That is all the objective information I have; to say anything beyond that would be pure speculation.

MarkN

04-11-2005, 10:37 PM

I've stickied this thread in hopes that anymore discussion or arguments for/against it could take place here instead.

NO2STARFORCE

04-12-2005, 02:24 AM

Since Chip being the post owner at the top.. I guess he gets responsibility for posting a list over all StarForce infected titles, and updating it regularly with new ones when they appear. av_smile.gif

MarkN

04-12-2005, 11:23 PM

Or, you could just go to a site such as Make A Back Up.com (http://www.makeabackup.com/modules-Protections_Database-search-starforce-1). av_wink.gif

NO2STARFORCE

04-13-2005, 02:22 AM

Not really, since a bunch of these sites just uncritically publishes any and all information they receive from the horde of uninformed masses of newbies who have no idea what they are doing.

"OMG; LOLZ0R STARF0RZE!!!!11!!!ONE!"

1. Version number of game
2. Language of game release
3. Publisher / Area of purchase
4. Copy Restriction VERSION. Possibly with a SCREENSHOT from the actual copy restriction identification application

OmegaBob

04-13-2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by MarkN:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NetDanzr:I don't know about that, but I know that my ZoneAlarm has always warned me that Starforce wanted to connect to the outside, even when I wasn't playing the game.
So if you don't allow ZA to accept it then does it still play or not? [/QUOTE]Can someone answer this? I'm planning on getting the Painkiller Gold set and would really like to know:

1 - How will I know if it's SF when ZoneAlarm asks for permission? What's the file name?

2 - If I deny access to the internet to SF, will the game still work?

Thanks

MarkN

04-13-2005, 12:37 PM

As far as I know, judging from MakeABackUp.com, Painkiller doesn't have SF, and I dunno if ZA would have any problems with it even if it did. If so then it'd probably just give ya the usual warning about a new program that ZA needs permission for, Obob, so I wouldn't worry about it.

MarkN

04-14-2005, 12:04 AM

The other day I sold a copy of X2: The Threat to a couple for only $3.48 on clearance after warning them about SF first. I suggested they check up more fully on that before opening the game cuz we can't refund money for opened videogames; we can only exchange it for another of the exact same thing. I'm not sure but that might've been the last copy of that that we had, too.

AlphaMoose

04-14-2005, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by MarkN:
The other day I sold a copy of X: The Threat to a couple for only $3.48 on clearance after warning them about SF first. I suggested they check up more fully on that before opening the game cuz we can't refund money for opened videogames; we can only exchange it for another of the exact same thing. I'm not sure but that might've been the last copy of that that we had, too. You turned them away from one of the best space games ever for $3.48!! You are crazy!

One-Winged Angel

04-14-2005, 12:17 AM

Hmmm...shouldn't that be X2: The Threat? Or am I going crazy?

MarkN

04-14-2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by AlphaMoose:
You turned them away from one of the best space games ever for $3.48!! You are crazy! *Ahem* "...I sold a copy of X2: The Threat to a couple...warning them about SF first." av_wink.gif

Originally posted by One-Winged Angel:
Hmmm...shouldn't that be X2: The Threat? Or am I going crazy? Thanks, OWA. Fixed it.

AlphaMoose

04-14-2005, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by MarkN:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by AlphaMoose:
You turned them away from one of the best space games ever for $3.48!! You are crazy! *Ahem* "...I sold a copy of X2: The Threat to a couple...warning them about SF first." av_wink.gif
[/QUOTE]Well, uh... Attempted graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

NO2STARFORCE

04-14-2005, 02:32 AM

Did X2: The Threat even use StarForce?

According to the release .nfo it used SecuRom. The biggest 'issues' with X2 in the release period was that they only made their patches available through their web page, in an attempt to foil piracy.

This also resulted in it being that much harder to get the patches for customers, as they were not available on your 'normal' gaming sites.

The biggest current issues with X2 is that they STILL use Securom and do not want to remove the Cd-in-drive check, which I have emailed them on a few occasions about - Usually prior to a patch.. "will this be the one?".. - I think I have even gotten a reply from them, but with no explanation..)

NO2STARFORCE

04-14-2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by DavidStallard:
What's so bad about Starforce? And if there's such a movement against it, why do companies still opt to use it? Why did Atari(?) release Pools of Radiance II Ruins of Myth Dragor with an uninstaller that deleted your hard-drive.

Why did CDV bastardize Breed before releasE?

Why Söldner!.. OH WHY!!!! (I hear it has become really good now, but it still uses some crap..)

Why did Morrowind have lots of issues and lackluster performance on release.

Why.. why.. and why.

Publishers dont care about their customers.

AlphaMoose

04-15-2005, 11:54 PM

I've never had problems with Starforce!

*Runs away*

NO2STARFORCE

04-16-2005, 06:48 AM

I had to reinstall av_smile.gif

Derek Smart [3000AD]

04-25-2005, 01:19 PM

/me fanning the flames (http://www.starforcemeat.tk/) <---- be sure to scroll down the page. If you weren't scared before; maybe you should be.

NO2STARFORCE

04-25-2005, 04:51 PM

hehe av_smile.gif

To much FUD on the page though, but if it works, hey! Nice =)

Couldn't access the source code though.

Would be funny if someone creates a virus/trojan that targets Starforce drivers av_smile.gif

Patrick.Cox

04-25-2005, 05:23 PM

http://www.starforcemeat.tk/

Proof of concept virus code now cirulating on IRC... McAffee is to catagorize and name it some time this week. Apparently the kit that was released with proof of concept can generate an infinite number of footprints and tails, making new viruses simple to create and completely undefeatable by existing scanners until they are updated by their home companies, and it's a potentially endless train.

NO2STARFORCE

04-25-2005, 06:28 PM

The antivirus industry is still selling their ancient snake juice...

Wonder if Normans virtual machine 'thingy' would catch this.

JadedMage

04-25-2005, 07:04 PM

So how can I tell if a program uses Starforce, before I buy it?

Is it written on the box?

Is there a requirement somewhere that they actually tell us what it is we are consuming?

(Not rhetorical questions.)

It does seem like it is getting to the point where we need a nutritional value chart on our gaming boxes.

JadedMage

MrLipid

04-25-2005, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by JadedMage:
So how can I tell if a program uses Starforce, before I buy it?Search the boards for indications from folks who've paid to find out.
Is it written on the box?Maybe. Maybe not. Usually the protection is not identified. At best, you may run into something like May conflict with some drives, etc.
Is there a requirement somewhere that they actually tell us what it is we are consuming?
Nope. Not yet.

JadedMage

04-25-2005, 11:46 PM

I'm not against copy protection at all. If someone writes a good book, I definitely am willing to pay to read it.

But if I bought a book, I sure as hell would want to know if the pages had been treated with some substance that would give me aching joints unless I took the big bottle of pills that also came with it.

Okay, so it's a slightly wierd analogy...

JadedMage

MarkN

04-26-2005, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by JadedMage:
So how can I tell if a program uses Starforce, before I buy it?

Is it written on the box?

Is there a requirement somewhere that they actually tell us what it is we are consuming?

(Not rhetorical questions.)

It does seem like it is getting to the point where we need a nutritional value chart on our gaming boxes.

JadedMage I've not seen it specifically stating that this or that game has any particular copy protection, just a vague sentence highlighted in yellow talking about "technology" that's been integrated or included (or however they put it) to prevent unlawful copying. I've seen it on the PC packages for Splinter Cell games Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory. That alone's enough to keep me from buying the game.

MrLipid

04-26-2005, 07:43 AM

The vague tiny print warning was also on MYST IV.

ColdFace

04-26-2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by MrLipid:
The vague tiny print warning was also on MYST IV. Yeah I did not see that until after I bought it av_frown.gif

But I now look for the famous yellow box or sentence on the back.

I think what I am going to do is dedicate a single offline (not on the network) PC that deals with nothing but games. I will ghost the system so if anything goes wrong I will just reimage the system.

JadedMage

04-26-2005, 07:18 PM

That's pretty much what my gaming computer is like. I don't game online, so it works.

Haven't tried to install HL2, but I was wondering at the time if I even could...

JadedMage

NO2STARFORCE

04-28-2005, 02:45 AM

Try, would be fun to see the results av_smile.gif

ColdFace

04-28-2005, 09:05 AM

Well I can give the box a dedicated internet connection so that will not be a problem for *certain* games av_smile.gif

Kobra

04-29-2005, 08:36 PM

I like Starforce so much I bought their security product called "Safe'n'Sec".

Any company that can defeat hardcore hackers, certainly can shutdown virus/trojan makers - is what I figured. Turns out I was right.

av_biggrin.gif

OmegaBob

05-03-2005, 05:59 PM

Really? I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

If true, then linky plz....

MrLipid

05-03-2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Kobra:
Any company that can defeat hardcore hackers......or legitimate buyers... av_biggrin.gif av_biggrin.gif av_biggrin.gif ... deservers an extraordinary...and I do mean EXTRA ordinary...website like THIS (http://www.star-force.com/).

NO2STARFORCE

05-04-2005, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Kobra:
I like Starforce so much I bought their security product called "Safe'n'Sec".

Any company that can defeat hardcore hackers, certainly can shutdown virus/trojan makers - is what I figured. Turns out I was right.

av_biggrin.gif R O F L O L

IdaGno

06-13-2005, 09:34 PM

Ribbitance is Croaktile

NO2STARFORCE

06-24-2005, 07:26 PM

http://www.larian.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=BDTECHNICAL&Number=180762&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=83&id=509

... how happy x64 users will be...

No game with SF atm will work under WinXP 64bit, as far as I've read on forums/etc up to now. yay!

Best part is, that it does'nt even get installed. So you can safely download demos for games, and if they are infected, your computer will stay clean.. (However, the demos wont work...)

13thHouR

02-09-2006, 11:02 AM

There are several camps of peeps oppossed to Star force.

Personally I am involved directly with the situation concerning system security and stability when using SF.

IN some instance the fixes have been easy, as the DMA step down and code 41 errors are reasonably common with other applications. So it did not take to long to convert them into format that was easy for the average user to resolve.

Currently their is no work around for the SATA/SCSI issues, this is mainly because of the nature of SF itself.

SCSI is commonly used for virtual drives, although legit uses for virtual drive are abound. SF have seen fit to attack the functionality of them (Even when the game is not running) because some end users use virtual disks to mount pirate copies of SF enabled games. OK it can be argued that they are protecting their own interests as well as that of the Game/Application manufacturers. However this does create serious issues about just how far copy protection firms will go to prevent copying. At what point does it stop being protection and become malicious. (This is what a lot of organisations are now trying to clarify with various Governments, as clearly self regulation is not working)

Ring 0 accesses, there are several issues concerning this.

1. The virtual protection drivers install silently and exist in Ring 0 (System wide)
2. They have open communications with applications in Ring 3 (User level)
3. No standard monitoring software like, Anti-virus, Anti -spyware or Software Firewall apps directly monitor or even check the validity of SF.

So not only do we have serious security issues with the legit versions of SF. Now that its moved into the Demo and Free game arena. The potential for cracked versions with SF replaced with software that has Genuine malicious intent becomes a greater and very real possibility.

Another problem that arises with ever increasing intrusion of DRM's, the security companies are inadvertently teaching Viri and Trojan writers ever more complex ways of circumventing system security.

Basically if it can be done silently with legit software, it can be done using exactly the same processes with malicious applications.

So in their determination to meet sales quotas, software producers are in fact increasing the security threats that we face as computer users, exponentially.

btw for those of you thinking SF is safe for software security, I will let you in on a little known fact. The average life time of new version of SF is about 6 hours.

Unlike SF sales spiel, we do not take into account applications/Games that crackers just can't be bothered with.

Let me explain. If your average is 6 hours. and you include several applications that nobody really wanted or would bother to crack. What would happen to your average if somebody decided out of boredom to crack it six months later?

SF does include those types of cracked applications in its figures. As it sounds so much more favourable to them.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-09-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by 13thHouR:
There are several camps of peeps oppossed to Star force.Personally I am involved directly with the situation concerning system security and stability when using SF.Liar, Liar, pants on fire. Prove it.

...in other words, a pirate? Oh, btw, we're still waiting for you to address issues raised in this thread (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=8#000 190). You're not going to deflect it and kill that thread history by resurrecting this. Nice try though.

You're all smoke and mirrors.

surrender903

02-09-2006, 12:23 PM

my mom says im all smoke and mirrors too

13thHouR

02-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 13thHouR:
There are several camps of peeps oppossed to Star force.Personally I am involved directly with the situation concerning system security and stability when using SF.Liar, Liar, pants on fire. Prove it.

...in other words, a pirate? Oh, btw, we're still waiting for you to address issues raised in this thread (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=8#000 190). You're not going to deflect it and kill that thread history by resurrecting this. Nice try though.

You're all smoke and mirrors. [/QUOTE]As I said dude you are not entitled to that information. If you had of been you would already have it.

It would be highly irresponsible anybody closely linked with resolving these issues to disclose privileged information.

This is about coming to compromise between securing both software houses and the end users rights.

Like would you expect a trial lawyer to hand away the entire contents of his case to the media whilst a case is ongoing?

Get real.

Now this thread is an open discussion, it is not place where you can see who can P*ss the furthest in the snow.

So for the sake of persons who actually want to discuss the pro's and con's of DRM's will you please tone it down a bit.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion and you have voiced it so loudly that I think half the planet knows where you stand.

Lets clear up a few issues, everybody involved is fully aware that the DMA step down, code 41 error, Plextor and Samsung CD/DVD rom drive failures etc can be attributed to conflicts that occur in many other types of hardware/software.

What we are concerned about, is that in those other instances Software/Hardware manufacturers have tried to resolve those issues.

Where these conditions occur as the direct result of SF installs. Or go away after its removal. One would assume SF would have worked to resolve these issues.

In reality the only work they have actually done is to call people who try and work with them, frustrated hacker or Frustrated Pirates.

They have even accused all persons with technical problems (Problems will arise with any software with platform as diverse in structure as the PC). "Frustrated Pirates" and openly treat them as such in their technical support forums.

Some more issues that can be disclosed today.

Game-overdrive.com are now blacklisiting companies that use Starforce.

http://www.game-overdrive.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=734

Game Overdrive today announced that they have added all game publishers using the Starforce anti-piracy program to a blacklist. Making an ultimatum by email on the first of February, Game Overdrive's Press Officer, Ben Halpern, told the publishers "Game Overdrive is extremely upset over your choice to use the Starforce anti-piracy software in your products. We have taken great pride in playing your games as gamers, and some are even reviewed on Game Overdrive. However, because of your choice of using Starforce in your software, we have no choice but to choose not to review your products until the software is removed or replaced with a functioning yet safer anti-piracy software. "Starforce have admitted that the SF removal tool does not work with XP64

I had been expecting this to occur, but in recent weeks I have not had XP64 on any of my systems to verify the problem.

This was posted by Simon in his blog: http://www.photogabble.co.uk/2006/01/31/starforce-copy-...move-tool-dont-work/

This is the official response:
1. Remove these files:
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfsync03.sys
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfhlp02.sys
%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\sfdrv01.sys

2. Remove these registry keys:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfsync03
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfhlp02
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\sfdrv01

This is the method I found to work:

1. Device removal
Go into the device manager and show non-plug and play devices. There will be three Starfoce items.
Select the first one and Uninstall -> Are you sure -> YES -> Do you wish to restart -> No.
Select the second one and Uninstall -> Are you sure -> YES -> Do you wish to restart -> No.
Select the third (final) one and Uninstall -> Are you sure -> YES -> Do you wish to restart -> YES.
*computer restarts*

2. File removal
open the search window (F3) and look for any of the following files on ANY drive:
sfsync*.sys, sfhlp*.sys, sfdrv*.sys
When you find any of them, remove them.

3. Registry cleanup
open the windows registry (Start -> Run -> Regedit) and look for any of the following items:
sfsync
sfhlp
sfdrv
Again, remove anything even related to any of these items. Be sure to search for KEYS, VALUES and DATA. You will get more hits then just the ones given by the Starforce crew.Anyway setting aside you very heated comments, if you are willing to calmly talk then I will continue to respond to you in the same clam manner. However If you want to continue with Troll like flame bait then I will ignore your comments. It’s your choice as to if you want to respond in a professional and civilised manner.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-09-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

Game-overdrive.com are now blacklisiting companies that use Starforce.
http://www.game-overdrive.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=734
graemlins/av_rofl.gif

Your friends over there are really delusional. Until today, I never even heard of that site...and am I'm sure the rest of the free world hasn't either.

I guess they won't be getting any free games any time soon. What wankers.

btw, can you please get them to add 3000AD, Inc to their blacklist? Thanks a bunch.

Anyway setting aside you very heated comments, if you are willing to calmly talk then I will continue to respond to you in the same clam manner. However If you want to continue with Troll like flame bait then I will ignore your comments. It’s your choice as to if you want to respond in a professional and civilised manner.If wanted to talk in a polite and calm manner, you would've answered my questions. I'm not interested in foolish circular arguments.

OmegaBob

02-09-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by 13thHouR:
As I said dude you are not entitled to that information.HA! Why? B/c it deals with pirating software?

Well, Im not a developer, so tell me!

/guffaw

13thHouR

02-10-2006, 12:44 AM

Quite simply internal contractual agreements within companies is not a matter for the public domain until they choose to make it so. I will not disclosed privileged information just to make a point to some loud mouthed individual.

Other specifics relate to technical issues that Derek knows full well would be handing techniques to Viri writers which 95% of the systems on the planet have no protection against.

He may be irresponsible but thankfully the rest of us do not let our ego's over step common sense.

You know he is way out of order when Starforce reference him as a basis for their arguments.

As for DMA step down cured in SP2, I still have not stopped laughing at that one and the post was ages ago and he wonders why nobody takes any notice of his questions?

I honestly thought nobody could be stupid enough to buy that Microsoft spiel, even the guys in Microsoft laugh at it, but along comes Derek and shouts it out as part of his pro starforce argument.

Btw Derek where is the factual evidence to show that SP2 cured DMA step down? graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-10-2006, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by 13thHouR:
Quite simply internal contractual agreements within companies is not a matter for the public domain until they choose to make it so. I will not disclosed privileged information just to make a point to some loud mouthed individual.Resorting to personal insults again, are we? Very well.

Apart from that, none of the questions I asked you bear ANY relevance to contractual agreements. Why would anyone want to sign a contract with YOU (or anyone for that matter) related to their use (or lackof) of Starforce.

Man, you're such a liar, its embarrassing to watch.

Other specifics relate to technical issues that Derek knows full well would be handing techniques to Viri writers which 95% of the systems on the planet have no protection against.Bullsh*t. Yet another dodge because you have NOTHING to backup your claims. NOTHING. Here are my questions again from this post (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=8#000 190).

 Excluding the obvious technical issues. This is clearly not the package the industry was sold by Starforce's sales spiel Q: Please post evidence where a Starforce licensee, has made such a statement. and that is why some of the major players in the industry have decided in the past few days to look into alternative less invasive DRM's for future releasesQ: Please post evidence where it is stated that the aforementioned players have decided in the past few days to take the aforementioned action but if there is no problems then the Industry would be defending Starforce, not dumping them at the first chance they get for breech of contract.
Q: Please post evidence where a Starforce licensee has taken the aforementioned action
He may be irresponsible but thankfully the rest of us do not let our ego's over step common sense.....and you're just a lying sob on a forum.

You know he is way out of order when Starforce reference him as a basis for their arguments.They did? Thats news to me. But so what? I am a well known developer and I stand by my statements. Other developers are tied to publishers and they have to tow the corporate line. I don't. F*ck the man.

As for DMA step down cured in SP2, I still have not stopped laughing at that one and the post was ages ago and he wonders why nobody takes any notice of his questions?There you go, lying again. I quite clearly stated that it wasn't fixed in SP2 and that I had to resort to a registry hack to fix it. (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 004) I even posted the links to the articles (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 000).

I honestly thought nobody could be stupid enough to buy that Microsoft spiel, even the guys in Microsoft laugh at it, but along comes Derek and shouts it out as part of his pro starforce argument.Again, you're a lying sob who is desperately seeking his five minutes (which was up after your first post on this board) of fame.

Btw Derek where is the factual evidence to show that SP2 cured DMA step down? [Cheesy Grin]Here is what I said, in my VERY FIRST (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 000) and SECOND (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 004) posts. The joke's on you. http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/graemlins/moonie.gif

13thHouR

02-10-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
Resorting to personal insults again, are we? Very well.Did I specifically state Derek is a loud mouth?

If you want to interpret that meaning yourself then thats your choice, oh well if the hat fits.

Apart from that, none of the questions I asked you bear ANY relevance to contractual agreements. Why would anyone want to sign a contract with YOU (or anyone for that matter) related to their use (or lack of) of Starforce.

Man, you're such a liar, its embarrassing to watch.Er.....I think you should read your posts before you go calling somebody a liar.

You have been asking for specific information relating to which companies are dumping SF etc.

Bullsh*t. Yet another dodge because you have NOTHING to backup your claims. NOTHING. Here are my questions again from this post (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=8#000 190).
OK so I was attributing knowledge to you that you clearly do not have, my apologies for thinking your where intelligent individual who was aware of the security issues.

[list=1]
Excluding the obvious technical issues. This is clearly not the package the industry was sold by Starforce's sales spiel Q: Please post evidence where a Starforce licensee, has made such a statement.Now here we have the contradiction again, you claim to not be seeking this information concerning contractual agreements then you go onto ask for them again. Which is it?

and that is why some of the major players in the industry have decided in the past few days to look into alternative less invasive DRM's for future releasesQ: Please post evidence where it is stated that the aforementioned players have decided in the past few days to take the aforementioned actionHere we go again, do you not understand what falls under contractual agreements?

but if there is no problems then the Industry would be defending Starforce, not dumping them at the first chance they get for breech of contract.
Q: Please post evidence where a Starforce licensee has taken the aforementioned action
That is 3 questions in row that all relate to Licensees and their contractual agreements with Starforce.

....and you're just a lying sob on a forum.In your terms show one instance in which you have single shred of evidence in which I have lied?

In fact unlike yourself. I have a reputation that precedes me of honesty even when that honesty has been detrimental to myself. Can you honestly make such a claim?

They did? Thats news to me. But so what? I am a well known developer and I stand by my statements. Other developers are tied to publishers and they have to tow the corporate line. I don't. F*ck the man.If we where talking about an above board developer that would be a good recommendation of your abilities. Sadly we are talking about developer who is even prepared to falsify their own news items on their site to try and show themselves in a better light.

Their end user support is some of the worst on the net and they rarely cure technical problems relating to their software.

That’s a lovely level of recommendation (NOT). Any body with an ounce of sense would want to distance themselves from Security Technologies (Starforce) at this point of time

There you go, lying again. I quite clearly stated that it wasn't fixed in SP2 and that I had to resort to a registry hack to fix it. (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 004) I even posted the links to the articles (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001087;p=1#000 000).Maybe you should go back an look at your later comments in that thread.

Again, you're a lying sob who is desperately seeking his five minutes (which was up after your first post on this board) of fame.Dude I do not need to post here to be famous (anybody who thinks this was the place for that is sadly mistaken),I was already famous, however I normally prefer the quiet life. Hence why I have dropped into the back ground in recent years.

No I said factual evidence of DMA step downfix in SP2 not just comments and links. av_biggrin.gif

I am only using your own interpretation as to what is factual. In reality nothing can be proven either way via this medium of communication. So much like anything in working with computer technology, it comes down to probability. 850,000 peeps and several Major Games manufacturers, IT Magazines saying SF has issues and one lone guy on his own that is not willing to say. On the balance of probabilities it looks like there is an issue or two here.

Btw Keep an eye out on Toms Hardware, lets just say you are going to look very silly (if that is at all possible given your current level of stubborn ignorance to the facts).

Patrick.Cox

02-10-2006, 01:21 PM

I hate toms but I will bite... when should we be looking, I don't want to give that site any hits it doesn't deserve from me.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-10-2006, 03:32 PM

...I started to type up something. The said, ...f*ck it, aint' no way I'm give this idiotic troll any more of my valuable time, I'm off to see Firewall instead

Chip

02-10-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
...I started to type up something. The said, ...f*ck it, aint' no way I'm give this idiotic troll any more of my valuable time, I'm off to see Firewall instead Lets us know how it is. Fords last couple of movies have been duds.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-11-2006, 05:54 AM

I loved it. Its classic Ford; comple with stressed out scowl. If you liked Air Force One, then you'll love this.

stingray

02-11-2006, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I loved it. Its classic Ford; comple with stressed out scowl. If you liked Air Force One, then you'll love this. I doubt it was very educational. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

Did it have a lot of scrolling hexadecimals in it? graemlins/av_rofl.gif

Chip

02-12-2006, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I loved it. Its classic Ford; comple with stressed out scowl. If you liked Air Force One, then you'll love this. Now if I can just get around him supporting Roman Polanski. That makes me want to vomit.

Evilpenguin

02-12-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I loved it. Its classic Ford; comple with stressed out scowl. If you liked Air Force One, then you'll love this. i just saw it last night
was a very kickass movie, the ending was a little cheesy however, but thats to be expected.

Moosehead92

02-13-2006, 12:16 AM

Ok. I'm confused. Is this thread about Starforce or movies now? av_eek.gif

graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

Sno

02-13-2006, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Evilpenguin:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I loved it. Its classic Ford; comple with stressed out scowl. If you liked Air Force One, then you'll love this. i just saw it last night
was a very kickass movie, the ending was a little cheesy however, but thats to be expected. [/QUOTE]The trailers make the movie look horrible, but everyone has been raving about it.

I actually kind of dug Air Force One, so i might have to go see this one.

Johannes

02-13-2006, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Chip:
Now if I can just get around him supporting Roman Polanski. That makes me want to vomit. [/QB]Isn't he kind of old for Polanski? av_razz.gif

Patrick.Cox

02-13-2006, 02:35 PM

I hate toms but I will bite... when should we be looking, I don't want to give that site any hits it doesn't deserve from me.Still waiting...

13thHouR

02-13-2006, 08:30 PM

I hope Derek is getting ready to start eating humble pie.

The first of many... Toms Hardware--- Starforce Revisited (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/02/11/starforce_revisited_uk/)

Patrick.Cox

02-13-2006, 09:33 PM

Interesting.

My comment is 'so?'. Where is the technical knowledge or information a reader needs to actually understand what the hidden/illicit driver(s) in question are doing to systems, what the symptoms are, etc. The Ring 3/0 issue is a biggie, I agree, but the article is more of a musing and report and minor bit of editorialization with not enough substance to really be impactful. What game companies too?

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-14-2006, 04:57 AM

Why are you folks even paying any attention to this fool?

Even the Ring 0 issue is a non-issue and a non-starter. If it was such a big deal, it would have been exploited by now and made waves in the industry much like that whole Sony DRM.

It is a non-issue and any programmer worth his salt, knows that. Hence the reason only idiots are harping on it. They're yelling about it like one would yell about programming a nuclear reactor...as if it is something that any person can do.

Everything so far is based on speculation, musing, conjecture etc and with zero substance, proof or evidence. This guys is just a rumor mongering troll who has long since outlasted his five minutes of fame. Heck, even the forums where SF was usually hotly debated, have moved on and nobody gives a toss anymore.

Patrick.Cox

02-14-2006, 10:15 AM

Even the Ring 0 issue is a non-issue and a non-starter. If it was such a big deal, it would have been exploited by now and made waves in the industry much like that whole Sony DRM.I am NOT a SF fan in the least... far from it. Intrusive, system slowing copy proection schemes in general tick me off.

That eing said I don't think the root kit/ring 0 issue will get as much press simply because it is found in a game. I think we all know what the word game evokes in the avg joe person, wrong as that may be. Hence less waves.

Cosmonaut_Roger

02-14-2006, 11:49 AM

http://www.quartertothree.com/

Tom Chick doesn't like Starforce either. That guy must be an idiot, he doesn't know what he's talking about. And his systems crashing? Pffsshaw! That could have been anything! Right Derek?

13thHouR

02-14-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by GNNR:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Even the Ring 0 issue is a non-issue and a non-starter. If it was such a big deal, it would have been exploited by now and made waves in the industry much like that whole Sony DRM.I am NOT a SF fan in the least... far from it. Intrusive, system slowing copy proection schemes in general tick me off.

That eing said I don't think the root kit/ring 0 issue will get as much press simply because it is found in a game. I think we all know what the word game evokes in the avg joe person, wrong as that may be. Hence less waves. [/QUOTE]This is not just in 'A' Game:

# 7 Sins
# American Conquest: Divided Nation
# Anstoss 4
# Bandits: Phoenix Rising
# Bet on Soldier
# Beyond Divinity
# Black Mirror
# Blitzkrieg 2
# Blitzkrieg: Rolling Thunder
# Breed
# Brian Lara International Cricket 2005
# Broken Sword 3: The Sleeping Dragon
# Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
# Castle Strike
# Chaos League
# Chaos League: Sudden Death
# Codename: Outbreak
# Codename: Panzers - Phase One
# Codename: Panzers - Phase Two
# Cold War
# Colin McRae Rally 2005
# Cossacks II: Napoleonic Wars
# Cross Racing Championship 2005
# Curse: The Eye of Isis
# Cycling Manager 3
# Cycling Manager 3
# Cycling Manager 4
# D-Day
# Dead to Rights
# Demonic Speedway
# Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps
# Domination
# Emergency Fire Response
# Enigma: Rising Tide
# Etherlords II
# Fire Chief
# Fire Department
# Freedom Force vs The Third Reich
# Gangland
# Garfield
# Gooka: The Mystery of Janatris
# GT Legends
# GTR: FIA GT Racing Game
# Heroes of Might and Magic V
# Horse Race Manager
# Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter
# Keepsake
# Kicker Manager 2004
# Kill Switch
# King Kong
# Knights of the Temple 2
# Korea: Forgotten Conflict
# LMA Professional Manager 2005
# Lock On: Flaming Cliffs
# Medieval Lords
# Namco Museum 50th Anniversary
# Neuro Hunter
# Nibiru
# Obscure
# Pac Man World 2
# Pac Man World 3
# Pariah
# Pax Romana
# Perimeter
# Perimeter: Emperor's Testament
# Pferdehof - Pferd und Pony
# Pop Star Academy
# Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend
# Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones
# Pro Rugby Manager
# Psi-Ops
# Pure Pinball
# Rally Championship Xtreme
# Restaurant Empire
# Restricted Area
# Revolution
# Runaway: A Road Adventure
# Scrapland
# Second Sight
# Silent Hunter 3
# Silent Storm
# Silkolene Honda Motocross GP
# Singles 2: Triple Trouble
# Singles: Flirt Up Your Life
# Sniper Elite
# Soldiers Heroes of World War 2
# Sommerspiele 2004
# Space Rangers 2
# Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory
# Star Wolves
# Steel Saviour
# Still Life
# Street Racing Syndicate
# Sudeki
# SuperPower 2
# Syberia II
# The Fall: Last Days of Gaia
# The Moment of Silence
# The Suffering: Ties That Bind
# The Westerner
# TOCA 2
# TrackMania
# TrackMania Nations
# TrackMania Sunrise
# Traitors Gate 2: Cypher
# UFO: Aftershock
# V8 Supercars 2
# Virtual Skipper 3
# Virtual Skipper 4
# Vivisector
# Wildlife Park
# Wintersport Pro 2006
# World Racing 2
# World War II: Frontline Command
# Worms 4: Mayhem
# X3: Reunion
# XIII
# Xpand Rally
# Xuan-Yuan Sword 4

Security Technologies are now securing contracts with major applications producers. So how many of you will be so happy when your latest £500+ app also Slows your system down, makes your burner virtualy unusable, screws with your registry and leaves your system wide open.

SF is not only disk checking it is now used in Demo's and Free games/applications.

Despite the irresponsible attitude of certain persons here. Ring0 access is not a non starter, if it was a non starter then Microsoft would not have spent so much time and money closing the hole in the first place.

Derek manybe you can remind other posters here what Ring 0 access actually is and lets see if they believe its a non starter.

As for exploits, Derek should be already aware that several thousand exploits already exist from the previous holes and that it does not take a genuis to modify the code to use the SF streams.

Having anything on your system that exists in Ring 0 and Ring 3 (user level), without any type of monitoring is a potential security nightmare.

Saying its a non starter is like saying,

Don't use a firewall.
Don't use an antivirus
Don't run spyware checks.
Don't check security certificates.

Then feel free to use your credit card online.

Lets just clarify yet again, very few peeps refer to the Sony Rookits scandal as a non starter, yet the main issue there is Ring 0 access.

To resolve this issue about SF not being Marks definition of a Rootkit a sub term has been developed call "TrojanKit" which relates to software like SF, Secure ROM etc.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-14-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Cosmonaut_Roger:
http://www.quartertothree.com/

Tom Chick doesn't like Starforce either. That guy must be an idiot, he doesn't know what he's talking about. And his systems crashing? Pffsshaw! That could have been anything! Right Derek? Yes, in fact, he is an idiot. Just because he is a writer doesn't rank him any higher than the average wanker.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

Derek manybe you can remind other posters here what Ring 0 access actually is and lets see if they believe its a non starter.

As for exploits, Derek should be already aware that several thousand exploits already exist from the previous holes and that it does not take a genuis to modify the code to use the SF streams.

Having anything on your system that exists in Ring 0 and Ring 3 (user level), without any type of monitoring is a potential security nightmare.

Saying its a non starter is like saying,

Don't use a firewall.
Don't use an antivirus
Don't run spyware checks.
Don't check security certificates.
Rubbish. Complete.Utter.Rubbish.

End of story. Once more you post complete rubbish based on conjecture and falsehoods...again with absolutely no evidence to backup your claims.

Cosmonaut_Roger

02-14-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
[QUOTE]Rubbish. Complete.Utter.Rubbish.

End of story. Once more you post complete rubbish based on conjecture and falsehoods...again with absolutely no evidence to backup your claims. Derek, every time anyone has posted anything that disagrees with your steadfast opinion on copy protection, your response has been the same. Look back at your posts, and you'll see a trend of "Rubbish" "Conjecture falsehoods" "No evidence to backup claims".

Those are not appropriate responses when someone has posted something that is a fact. When someone says, "X reactant causes Y product", you cannot say "Rubbish, or Conjecture, or lacking Evidence." Terms like that are not applicable to a situation where a person states something that is common knowledge. You will have to come up with a better defense/argument if you wish to sway anyone. There have been 3 or 4 people on this forum that have humored you and gone ahead and posted detailed accounts of problems with SF/copy protection and you just refuse to acknowledge them.

- From Dictionary.com

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.

Idiom:
in evidence
Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

I would say that we have seen MUCH evidence here. Both direct and circumstantial. Therefore, you should stop complaining about a lack of evidence and begin explaining why you disagree with or find hard to believe the results of the some of the evidence and experiences people have put forth on this forum.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-15-2006, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Cosmonaut_Roger:
Derek, every time anyone has posted anything that disagrees with your steadfast opinion on copy protection, your response has been the same. Look back at your posts, and you'll see a trend of "Rubbish" "Conjecture falsehoods" "No evidence to backup claims".

Those are not appropriate responses when someone has posted something that is a fact. When someone says, "X reactant causes Y product", you cannot say "Rubbish, or Conjecture, or lacking Evidence." Terms like that are not applicable to a situation where a person states something that is common knowledge. You will have to come up with a better defense/argument if you wish to sway anyone. There have been 3 or 4 people on this forum that have humored you and gone ahead and posted detailed accounts of problems with SF/copy protection and you just refuse to acknowledge them.Shutup! Shutup! Just shut the f*ck up. I'm sick and tired of reading crap from you and your girlfriend. Its the same circular argument and with NO facts about ANYTHING.

I have given detailed arguments in 99% of my posts. When I revert to curt, short, STFU style replies, it means simply that - and pay attention here - I'm not going to repeat myself and regurgitate what I'd already stated.

YOU should be the one to lookup what the words fact and evidence mean.

You know what? You two carry on, I'm not even going to bother anymore. The smart gamers who have already read both threads, already have enough information to make up their minds. You and your [pirate] friends can continue vying for your few minutes in fame.

CodeZero

02-15-2006, 04:16 PM

This thread has been locked by me, the comments made, and everything therein and in similar threads is being considered.

Sno

02-15-2006, 06:12 PM

Umm... but the thread isn't locked.

Just sayin` av_razz.gif

Angus McFeargus

02-15-2006, 06:23 PM

UNLOCKED THREAD UNLOCKED THREAD

/runs rampant

Patrick.Cox

02-15-2006, 06:38 PM

*runs around like hair is on fire screaming like a little girl and waving hands in the air* UNLOCK!

One thing... Derek... if you said your peace on the subject then let it drop... you don't come off so good with posts like your last and you lend them credence, which surely isn't your goal. Don't be baited if that is the game here.

Flip side: Why so agitated if it's not true?

surrender903

02-15-2006, 07:12 PM

my post is a moot point

Patrick.Cox

02-15-2006, 08:13 PM

Actually this thread was unlocked because it really wasn't discussin that other issue. That other issue is not to be brought up right now according to Sean until they sort it out. Per his post in General.

Laffman

02-15-2006, 09:39 PM

My moot is a post point.

Johannes

02-16-2006, 01:36 AM

Derek, if it is such a big deal to post then why do you do it?

I don't particularly like to repeat myself others and at times it is downright annoying. But if you have already written it, take the extra minute to cut and paste it. Writing silly things like "shut up" in a message board is just absurd and makes you look like a jerk.

There is nothing worth get angry about here, so just relax. If you need to stop posting since it gets you so worked up, stop for a while until you're more relaxed and better able to handle it.

13thHouR

02-18-2006, 01:23 AM

SF the bigger picture......

I think its time that I posted what SF is really about. TrojanKits are software/hardware limiters.

For those of you that understand what this is, its the first real Step towards TCPA (to test the water).

For those of you that don't. here is an PDF file from about 3 years ago that will open your eyes.
TCPA (http://www.cypherpunks.to/TCPA_DEFCON_10.pdf)

I don't think anybody with an ounce of sense will call this issue a non starter. TCPA is here and unless you stand up now you will lose all your current freedom of speech online.

Barzenak

02-21-2006, 08:53 PM

Here is my take on Starforce. I have sold off any games using starforce and will not purchase any software using it. There is too much out there to not believe what you here. It may be there IP but it is my PC. I will not risk my hardware or security to play a game. Just a side note...I also will never purchase a Sony music cd. They are taking things too far.

Copy protection is only hurting customers and not harming pirates. They break all these meathods - and more and more consumers are having trouble getting the darn game to work.

Unless the goal is to move all gamers to a console there has to be a better way.

It is far superior to have no copy protection on the cds but make any patches require registration and a key. Galactic Civ uses this scheme and you know what..they are making money. ALso all games comes unfinished...it is the nature of the beast. Deadlines must be met even if the code is not ready. Yes, people could burn the game and give it to a bud but if the bud liked it and wanted it he would have to register and get the needed patches. A sell was made..

I prefer this method , steam or something similar. Starforce and similar stuff must go. I want nothing messing with my software or hardware. A game is just that...a game. I may have to give up this hobby and move on if things continue this way.
Oh..and I am no pirate..just a 40 year old gamer. Oh..and Cnet also had a negative story on Starforce. They are all over the net. I did get a response from Activision on Starforce:
[Mine]Customer - 02/20/2006 05:13 PM
I really love your products and hope you do not go the UBI SOFT way by using Starforce copy protection. I will never purchase a game using this invasive and potentially damaging software. Just reading over the net there is way too much negative info on it to risk my gaming rig. I am no pirate and I will not risk my hardware just to play a game.

I hope you continue to use other protections and I will always support Activision.

Thanks,
DBS- pc gamer

Response:
----
Response (Dov Carson) - 02/21/2006 04:12 PM
Hello Dave, thank you for contacting Activision Customer support. Starforce actually conflicts with the copy protection software that we use and some of our titles also. We do not use Starforce...and do not have any plans to use this copy protection software...

Thank you for your support....

Should you have any further need of assistance, feel free to contact us again via email or phone.

http://www.glop.org/starforce/boycott-starforce-nemt.gif (http://www.glop.org/starforce/)

Sno

02-21-2006, 10:00 PM

Well, nice to see that one of my favorite publishers has no plans to utilize Starforce.

Vomitmeister

02-22-2006, 02:18 PM

PC Gamer's April edition has a negative article on Starforce as well.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-24-2006, 06:07 AM

A blast from the past (http://forums.avault.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005286#000007). Oh what a difference two years makes. av_biggrin.gif

Barzenak

02-25-2006, 06:12 PM

Ok, it still holds true today and a majority of publishers are not using Starforce. UBISOFT seems to be the biggest user. I quit buying games from them period. Codemasters started using it more and more so I also have to watch but I wonder why they stopped using Fade? That seemed a good way to go..game would only work a short time. Enough to almost be like a demo and if you liked it they made a sale.

I know you are pro SF and your software is using it Derek. It is your choice but it is my pc and I know you want proof. I just do not want my pc being the beta ground for this proof. I spent a ton of money on this gaming rig and with a family and all I do not have it to spend again.

There is just too much noise for it all to be hogwash or pirates. And for those having trouble they have no support...they are told tough crap pirate your loss.
I have no problem with copy protection that is safe for my pc. I just do not believe SF is safe for my pc. Digital downloads or steam works fine for me.

I have been using pc's since 84 and I don't open attachments, keep my pc clean of virus and spyware and hide behind firewalls etc. I keep my software updated and I read alot about what is coming and what is new. I work to prevent problems and that is why I have taken the stance I have taken. I would be in this position alone if I had the info about what SF has caused users. Even in PC gamer Greg speaks of experiances he has HAD using SF.

Not all game users are good with the pc. Not a game uers are gamers as there is a diff. Casual users get screwed and think it is all hardware related. Take it to a shop who charges them big bucks for nothing. It happens all the time and I bet more and more it has to do with simple things including copy protection issues. Getting rid of SF doesn't fix this problem but it is a step in the right direction. We all should be working to make things easier for everyone. Make a quality title- make it digital download so the money goes where to those who make the game and make it so nothing is on a pc that the owner needs to worry about. Simple as that and that is my message as a pc gamer who is not a pirate.

OmegaBob

02-25-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Barzenak:
I have been using pc's since 84... Maybe you should learn how to correctly display your signature at AVault. I am tired of seeing blah blah blah.

Barzenak

02-25-2006, 06:44 PM

Barzenak

02-25-2006, 06:47 PM

Did they change the ubb images to no longer allow them? I removed that no starforce logo for now.

OmegaBob

02-25-2006, 08:15 PM

No. They never allowed them here (as far as I know).

btw - Though I don't care about SF in the least (as my many posts indicate), I'll say this much: you can add the URL to your site in your sig (like I have).

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-26-2006, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Vomitmeister:
PC Gamer's April edition has a negative article on Starforce as well. Rubbish. There was nothing negative about it. Greg's editorial outlined his thoughts and experiences, as well as reports of incompatibilities with some systems and apps. The same things I've been talking about, when I say that it is no more a problem that any other piece of software.

The article itself basically explains how the various protection programs (Safedisk, Starforce, SecuROM) work.

Barzenak

02-26-2006, 08:28 AM

Yes it does explain how they work and also says he has had first hand trouble with Starforce. That is not rubbish.

Barzenak

02-26-2006, 08:30 AM

Oh..and his trouble was explained not in that article but in his Letter from the editor (pg 4). I should of stated that..my mistake.

Quote:
..but some of these anti-piracy software programs are so potent that they cuase issues for legitimate games buyers. One fo the leading brands, StarForce, is notorious for not only making it difficult for a small percentage of legitamate users to load up StarForce-protected games, but also for leaving potentially problem causing StarForce software behind on your pc, even after you've deleted the game it was protecting. And this isn't just some story that I 've read about onlinne or in emails from readers. No, it happened to me.

Last year, my work pc suddenly began blue screening (crashing) any time I poped an audio cd into either of my two optical drives. I went online and learned that other people were having this problem and that it appeared to be StarForce -related. Deleting my StarForce protected games did nothing. I had to run a StarForce removal utility before my system- filled only with legal, licensed softwaree-could play audio cds again.

To you it may not be a big deal but for the casual game player they probably will spend a ton of money to have this fixed. Replacing drives..etc.

The industry thinks this is a minor deal but as a gamer I do not. It is bs simple and plain .

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-26-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Barzenak:
Yes it does explain how they work and also says he has had first hand trouble with Starforce. That is not rubbish. Yes, it is widely known that some people seriously don't read and comprehend what is written before replying. So here, let me help you out.

Here is what you said

PC Gamer's April edition has a negative article on Starforce as well.That, is rubbish.

1. There is no such negative article.

2. To say that Greg's editorial - while informative not unlike what has been posted before - is negative, is just a way to add more fuel to an already burning fire in order to further the Starforce is evil agenda.

Starforce is no more problematic on some systems, than the very OS - or other programs - that reside on said computer. It just happens to be news (at least to some) and a matter of heated debate because of the subject matter: copy protection

Laffman

02-26-2006, 01:12 PM

Patrick.Cox

02-26-2006, 02:43 PM

Okay... riddle me this. I just bought Rainbow Six Lockdown in desperation for something new to play. Friggen thing loaded SF on my system, crud drivers and all. Now it is chugging at boot, chugging when loading any application other than IE and OE... and every other attempt to launch this game (which is turning out to be one expensive 5CD crapfest) it bombs with some kind of SF load runtime error. I just went over the packaging... the outside label has nothing on it, the oversized CD/DVD case has a small yellow label in system specs that says only that it has some copy protection that may conflict with your CDRW/DVDRW or virtual drives.

Color me po'ed... now my system is infested. I am going through now and loading some games, but so far even the older titles are running like slag, and my system is no slouch and I do know exactly what I am doing. Damnit.

stingray

02-26-2006, 03:48 PM

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-26-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by GNNR:
Okay... riddle me this. I just bought Rainbow Six Lockdown in desperation for something new to play. Friggen thing loaded SF on my system, crud drivers and all. Now it is chugging at boot, chugging when loading any application other than IE and OE... and every other attempt to launch this game (which is turning out to be one expensive 5CD crapfest) it bombs with some kind of SF load runtime error. I just went over the packaging... the outside label has nothing on it, the oversized CD/DVD case has a small yellow label in system specs that says only that it has some copy protection that may conflict with your CDRW/DVDRW or virtual drives.

Color me po'ed... now my system is infested. I am going through now and loading some games, but so far even the older titles are running like slag, and my system is no slouch and I do know exactly what I am doing. Damnit. Thats funny, because I have that game and it causes no problems on my system.

Also, the drivers are not in session when not being used i.e. by a game that uses the drivers. So, there is no way in hell that SF would be responsible for your other games running like slag.

And with all the anti-SF sentiments around here lately, being that R6LD is a Ubisoft game, lemme guess: you had no clue that it used SF; even though that game is quite prominent on every anti-SF gaming list. Yeah, right.

Man, you guys crack me up.

Originally posted by stingray:

So I don't see what's so hard to understand that paying customers don't like to be treated like this? Think about it for a second, you wouldn't find this acceptable in any other business operation, so why should it be tolerated here? I'm confused, so please enlighten me: who asked games to buy games with copy protection? Did anyone twist their arms? Did anyone con them out of their money? I don't get it. If you don't like copy protection, then don't buy games!

You talk about other businesses. Well gee, if I bought a brand of vehicle and the seats wore out everytime, I'd look for another brand of vehicle after getting my money back. As to the money back issue, its not like games that use SF, use different methods. Its the same scheme used in various games. So, if you have a bad experience with one game that uses it, heck, then don't buy ANY games that use it. *sheesh*

Barzenak

02-26-2006, 06:00 PM

I don't buy any that have SF on them Derek. And Greg's Letter from the editor was saying showing SF in a negative light.

I could care less what Copy protection is on my cd as long as it doesn't cause trouble but it seems there are many with issues with it. Enough where I won't risk my pc to any game using it.

Is this what the industry is aiming at...actually pushing customers away merely by using a specific copy protection? Where do you make money that way?? Ok..less people are pirating it and less people are buying it...a win win huh??!!

Patrick.Cox

02-26-2006, 06:23 PM

Thats funny, because I have that game and it causes no problems on my system.Good for you. And the other SF title I own, that xcom wannabie I believe, on my laptop causes no issues either. So?

Also, the drivers are not in session when not being used i.e. by a game that uses the drivers. So, there is no way in hell that SF would be responsible for your other games running like slag.No SF expert, sorry. All I know is what is happening. Nothing else changed, so go figure. FEAR and DOW (but not the expansion) as well as the PE Action Demo are not wanting to run any more and I can't get online with JO (though that might not be related). BF2 is actually fine, as is COD and COD2 - I thought BF2 was acting funny but it was a PB update issue instead since I haven't played it in a month or so. Haven't fired up UT2K4 yet but I don't expect a problem there, nor with RTW and GTA:SA (thats' all I have installed on my gaming rig right now). I was playing FEAR all week last week with no issues but now half the time it says I have the wrong CD in the drive when I try to launch it and it bombed out at least once - and the same thing is going on exactly with R6:Lockdown (craptacular gameplay aside).

And with all the anti-SF sentiments around here lately, being that R6LD is a Ubisoft game, lemme guess: you had no clue that it used SF; even though that game is quite prominent on every anti-SF gaming list. Yeah, right.Yes, right. I did look at the outside label, but it was a spur of the moment choice while I was in Target with the wife to get some cleaning supplies and DVDs. I have been so bored lately replaying COD2 and FEAR over and over. I don't think I even have that list book marked on any of my PCs... come to think of it.

stingray

02-27-2006, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I'm confused, so please enlighten me: who asked games to buy games with copy protection? Did anyone twist their arms? Did anyone con them out of their money? I don't get it. If you don't like copy protection, then don't buy games!Now that's rubbish. That's like saying if you don't like artificial additives to your food then don't buy food. Well, a man's got to eat you know and what food doesn't contain any artificial stuff in some form? And a gamer wants to play. What SF equals to is that your car doesn't start up in the morning when you turn the key and you want to drive off to work. You don't like that, well don't buy cars. Hey, your copy of Windows crashes all the time, well don't buy Windows. Sure, with that philosophy we'd still be hanging out on trees. If all devs think like that, then PC games are sure to die. A very sad thing indeed.

BTW, GTA:SA was causing me problems too, it wouldn't validate my DVD after installation. Guess what? Nothing else was changed on my rig before that and other SF games ran perfectly.

Solution: a NO-DVD patch fixed the problem. You don't like that, tough. I paid for my license to play the game, I should be able to play it on my rig, so now I do. My point is, I shouldn't have to do that. I don't pirate software, but I'm nobody's fool either.

The Amish got it right, they don't have to deal with all of this. I don't think you have many Amish customers though, do you? Oops, gotta go, time to milk them cows. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-27-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by stingray:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
I'm confused, so please enlighten me: who asked games to buy games with copy protection? Did anyone twist their arms? Did anyone con them out of their money? I don't get it. If you don't like copy protection, then don't buy games!Now that's rubbish. That's like saying if you don't like artificial additives to your food then don't buy food. Well, a man's got to eat you know and what food doesn't contain any artificial stuff in some form? And a gamer wants to play. [/QUOTE]Ah yes, the old apples to oranges argument again.

Pay attention: Food is a required sustinance. Gaming is a hobby, albeit a luxury.

Your argument is silly and without merit and is just the same arguments that pirates make: that games are buggy, so they want to steal them before they buy (which they almost never do) them or that games are too expensive (e.g. in Russia), so they have to steal them. If I wanted an apple, I'm not going to go and steal it first before I settle on buying one.

stingray

02-27-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
[QUOTE]Ah yes, the old apples to oranges argument again.

Pay attention: Food is a required sustinance. Gaming is a hobby, albeit a luxury.

Your argument is silly and without merit and is just the same arguments that pirates make: that games are buggy, so they want to steal them before they buy (which they almost never do) them or that games are too expensive (e.g. in Russia), so they have to steal them. If I wanted an apple, I'm not going to go and steal it first before I settle on buying one. Who said anything about stealing? I bought the game at an online store from a popular online retailer, just like most of the games I play.

You don't even listen to what people (your customers) have to say. graemlins/av_sad.gif

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you need to come back to Earth and smell the coffee.

What are you doing up so early anyway? Can't sleep? Is your little "pirate" keeping you up all night? graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

This just in: Prohibition doesn't work. You can dance around the issues all you want. You may not agree, but I don't think that it matters if you do or not. The open market has a way of regulating itself... you just sit back and watch.

BTW, not all the bad guys wear black hats. Your so-called industry is full of those so-called pirates. How many do you think use pirated copies of 3D Max? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sorry to say, but for a 43-year old you are pretty thick-headed. Well, I won't hold the early hours against you. av_wink.gif

I think of your stance as some pharmaceutical company who insists that its new drug (say VIOXX for instance) does more good than harm, no matter that there are people dying from its use.

I'm not going to argue with you since you made up your mind and don't want to see our POV or choose to ignore it. It's just sad to see someone so very smart to be so unwilling to accept other opinions but their own.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-27-2006, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by stingray:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
Ah yes, the old apples to oranges argument again.

Pay attention: Food is a required sustinance. Gaming is a hobby, albeit a luxury.

Your argument is silly and without merit and is just the same arguments that pirates make: that games are buggy, so they want to steal them before they buy (which they almost never do) them or that games are too expensive (e.g. in Russia), so they have to steal them. If I wanted an apple, I'm not going to go and steal it first before I settle on buying one. Who said anything about stealing? I bought the game at an online store from a popular online retailer, just like most of the games I play.erm, you're kidding me, right? Are you even paying attention? I was speaking specifically to the excerpt I quoted. I never said you stole anything, I was using stealing as an example of the foolishness of your argument about food. *sheesh*

You don't even listen to what people (your customers) have to say. graemlins/av_sad.gif
Thats funny. Seriously.

stingray

02-27-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
You don't even listen to what people (your customers) have to say. graemlins/av_sad.gif
Thats funny. Seriously. [/QUOTE]I practice, I hope it shows. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

Barzenak

02-27-2006, 02:30 PM

So, you think if people do not buy your games based solely on SF that is aok with you. How many missed sales before your U.S. might get a different protection. Or it doesn't matter..you love SF no matter what? Just curious and trying to see things from your point of view. Yes gaming is not food but many take this hobby seriously and enjoy it. I prefer it to tv..the interaction although I usually play RPG games.

I know you are in the business but do you really think all the noise is about nothing? It is really all just angry pirates??

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-27-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Barzenak:
So, you think if people do not buy your games based solely on SF that is aok with you. How many missed sales before your U.S. might get a different protection. Or it doesn't matter..you love SF no matter what? Just curious and trying to see things from your point of view. Yes gaming is not food but many take this hobby seriously and enjoy it. I prefer it to tv..the interaction although I usually play RPG games.

I know you are in the business but do you really think all the noise is about nothing? It is really all just angry pirates?? The people who buy my games have no problems with my use of Starforce. Especially since - thus far - it hasn't caused any problems with my game nor their system. So, I could care less what anyone else thinks.

Mara

02-27-2006, 03:15 PM

I know zilch about Starforce, but your opinion of gamers seems abysmal. I don't understand why you don't seem to care what they do or don't want. I do understand your desire to protect your property. That is reasonable. But if said protection keeps gamers from playing your games, what is the point of making them??? Aren't they your audience??? If your games don't sell, you won't be able to continue to make them. Gamers are supposed to be the reason for designing games.

The-Rack

02-27-2006, 03:28 PM

I think his ego is all the audience he really needs.

Patrick.Cox

02-27-2006, 03:30 PM

Well, I know if I was in his shoes I wouldn't be basing my comments solely on his niche audience and generalizing the bulk of gamers to them... that's just idiocy. And ego.

Barzenak

02-27-2006, 04:42 PM

None of your users have had SF issues ? Really....I wonder if that is so? Have to do some reading and see to get some info from your actual users. If so I understand your thought that it doesn't matter but it seems almost ever other game using this protection has users complaining about a product not working correctly.

I have had little issues with my pc but I do know the last sf demo I tried didn't work on my pc. It has the latest drivers, updated virus protection, updated spyware that I run often. I am not saying I know it was because of SF but I suspect something with the protection kept it from running after it loaded.

My specs just for the info
3.2 ee processor
1 gig 3200 ram
ATI x850xt 256 card -updated
aud 2 sound card( latest drivers)
pc cillian security/virus protection
adaware se

GT Legends was the demo- but even though it has good reviews I will pass. I picked up rFactor instead. NO SF on it..

killrtech99

02-27-2006, 09:02 PM

I say we are losing sight of Derek's original claim. Specifically that SF is no more problematic that any other piece of software. He has never claimed that it is never problematic, just that it is not more so than other software. I have to disagree that it is as problematic (or not) as just any other piece of software.

I would say that it seems to be about as problematic as, say, antivirus software. In similar style to SF, antivirus does indeed work just fine on a solid majority of systems. However, when it jacks a system up, it tends to really jackity jack a system up. Seems SF is pretty close to that pattern. All of this is anectdotal of course, but I think it's a pretty fair assesment.

That being said, we just return to the real core of the argument which is whether or not it's necessary in the first place or whether it is simply one more burden to the legal gamer that does nothing to stop determined pirates from pwning the copy protection. I dunno, the research I've done seems to indicate that SF3 has proven to be very resitant to pwnaging. This is indeed a good thing as P2P/Torrent has proliferated pirating to a level undreamed (unnightmared?) in years past.

For me, my final opinion on SF is going to be personal experience. I have, as of now, never installed a SF protected game. Not due to any vigilance on my part, just none of the games I've installed have it. Sooner or later it will happen and if it jacks my system, that's going to be the end that.

OmegaBob

02-27-2006, 10:07 PM

...I say we are losing sight of Derek's original claim. Specifically that SF is no more problematic that any other piece of software...Good post killer! (all of it, not just the quote)

* * * * *

As I was just told in another thread about mine and MANY others problems with Steam & HL2:
Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth:
...it was not something that impacted the majority or even a large minority (considering what you might think is large I guess) of customers....Exactly like the so-called big name developer Valve does not care about its customers, I do not care that SF frells up someone else's PC as... wait for it... it doesnt affect me or mine.

Are the so-called SF problems really widespread? if so, please provide me some actual numbers... not rants by fanbois on forums.

All I know is this: I don't have ANY issues with SF.

Now, I am not saying I WON'T have any problems in the future... I can only go by my own experience: in the past and currently, no problems.

I've had major problems and issues with commercial anti-virus, firewall and other utilities and yet I am not aware of any anti- Nortons, Mcafee, Zone Alarm, AVG and more movements... yet there is an anti-SF movement...?

To quote the famous Jubal Early: "Does that seem right to you?"

btw - dont give me that poo that SF is installed unknowingly, etc. The fact you people are posting lists of games on forums, proves this argument moot.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

02-28-2006, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by The-Rack:
I think his ego is all the audience he really needs. I regard that to be a personal attack. Sean clearly posted new forum guidelines recently about this. Please refrain from this behavior. Thank you.

Originally posted by GNNR:
Well, I know if I was in his shoes I wouldn't be basing my comments solely on his niche audience and generalizing the bulk of gamers to them... that's just idiocy. And ego. Wait a minute!! Just because I say I could care less what happens outside of my install base as far as SF is concerned, so now I'm generalizing? Are you folks really serious?

Listen to me: If it doesn't pertain to my game, I don't give a toss. Its that simple. WHY should I care about someone else's game when it bears NO relevance to me? Not to mention the fact that - as a gamer - I have EVERY GAME WORTH HAVING and have NO problems with their copy protection schemes. Would you like to see pics of my 5000+ game library?

Originally posted by killrtech99:
I say we are losing sight of Derek's original claim. Specifically that SF is no more problematic that any other piece of software. He has never claimed that it is never problematic, just that it is not more so than other software. I have to disagree that it is as problematic (or not) as just any other piece of software.Thank you

I would say that it seems to be about as problematic as, say, antivirus software. In similar style to SF, antivirus does indeed work just fine on a solid majority of systems. However, when it jacks a system up, it tends to really jackity jack a system up. Seems SF is pretty close to that pattern. All of this is anectdotal of course, but I think it's a pretty fair assesment.And that is the debate isn't it? But no, people are going to continue ignoring what I'm saying and instead manufacturing their own understanding and engaging in circular arguments.