Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
And they can give a patch to make sure you dont have to in the future. I mean lets not start this whole what if arguments, there is nothing wrong with online activations.
|
This very point is covered in extensive detail in the
Authorization Servers article - if a company goes bust, users have no guarantee of
anything. And for a utility like Daemon Tools (which can affect a user's ability to run dozens of other games), being confident that it will continue to work 2, 5 or 10 years into the future is more important than with a single game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
You know the amount of people who moaned about SF being too intrusive etc, now they moan about online activations which are not. Its rather simple and easy and most these days dont require media bar exception of one or two titles.
|
And where is StarForce now? Largely dead and buried, due in no small part to the consumer boycott. Online activation may avoid the need for a media check (with some exceptions as you note) but you are then continually dependent on the developer/publisher continuing to support (ho ho) the game and not change their activation policy to disadvantage users further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
The stardock thing is totally irrelevant, its when ownership changes hands which when you agreed to when installing a specific game that it was for you only as was your account, and to swap ownership there would be a cost. So they just didnt invent a charge to charge everyone with.
|
They
changed their conditions of use when they implemented that charge. Their online activation system means
this change is enforced. It restricts your ability to sell (or buy) Stardock's products second-hand (which in some countries is considered a
consumer right) and it raises the possibility of users being unfairly charged if Stardock make a mistake and think their software has been resold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
As for the EA thing, that was one person from EA who went too far when they shouldnt have and EA explained why.
|
It was a volunteer moderator of long standing in their forums. Do you consider it plausible (or even possible) that he would have made such a policy statement without clearing it with EA first? Someone senior at EA would have had to OK it and their ability (and willingness) to disable products that people had paid for is what should be of concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
So now EA is the big bad wolf? Why?
|
Because their policies show contempt for their paying customers - leaving them with crippled products that are inferior to warez.
This isn't about stopping piracy - it's about extracting more money from legitimate purchasers (killing the second-hand market, forcing a move to digital distribution and controlled pricing, etc). The more people that accept such measures, the more effective this strategy will be (and the greater the likely costs long-term).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DABhand
limited installs are to stop installing games on numerous machines, and the installs can be regained by applying for them, its easy and painless.
|
Except that there are several conditions that prevent people from being able to "reclaim" unused installations (hard disk failure, any snafu requiring a Windows re-install, network problems during the uninstall, etc).
The key thing for any "anti-piracy" measure is that paying customers should not have to worry about it. The problems with online activation, while different from media checks, have the same long-term impact of reducing the lifespan of software that should otherwise be usable for decades to come.