Sacred 2 - More on Copy Protection

Ascaron has contacted us with the information that one of our previous newsbits about the copy protection of Sacred 2 contained incorrect information that damaged the image of Ascaron. The newsbit has been updated with the new information we received from Ascaron about this issue.

More information.

It's all "durrr hurrr" according to me. It's still the most annoying DRM no matter how many retarded tweaks they do to it and try to cover it up with words. It's even worse than starforce.

Originally Posted by AmShegar
It's all "durrr hurrr" according to me. It's still the most annoying DRM no matter how many retarded tweaks they do to it and try to cover it up with words. It's even worse than starforce.

Um… worse than something that could physically fry your DVD drive? How?

Starforce used to fry dvd drives? Maybe. Haven't heard about it.
All these restrictions securome forces are getting under many people's skin and it definitely is becoming a bigger fuss than Starfoce.

There are a lot of changes but am I correct in understanding the major change is the license is transferrable? And two people can play but it's only one license, not two?

The first is significant, the second doesn't make much sense as a player.

Yes, that´s the only significant one. The rest are only minor tweaks without practical relevance, although they might be of legal importance.

Furthermore now 2 people can play officially with 1 license, except online MP.
Sacred 1 was unofficially playable with 4 players in MP with 1 CD, but only 1 in SP. The MP thing was found out by the Ascaron forum support upon request by a customer. Sort of an accident. They discovered "4" was the correct number.

Originally Posted by AmShegar
It's all "durrr hurrr" according to me. It's still the most annoying DRM no matter how many retarded tweaks they do to it and try to cover it up with words. It's even worse than starforce.

Actually, no it isn't. At least not from my perspective. And it is a better copy protection than most the systems I've seen to date.

And just to voice another opinion on this sometimes really annoying "COPY PROTECTION IS THE EVIL!!!!!!!!!" crusade: I can live with this kind of securom protection and I'm not lying awake at night debating the ethical impact of buying the bloody game.

My take:

(1) I prefer games without copy protection.

(2) I have significant doubts about how much it does to deter piracy anyway.

(3) I am willing to live with it.

(4) I am not willing to live with more annoyance than occasionally popping in the DVD. Electronic activation is perfectly OK with me. I'm even happy to register my game if that's what it takes, as long as the registration requires no personal information beyond an e-mail address.

(5) I am not willing to live with hard installation limits.

(6) I am willing to live with installation limits if I have a way to deactivate an installation that does not depend on use of the activated software (e.g. in case I lose the data on my hard drive and no longer have a usable installation of the software).

(7) I am not willing to live with something that does actually evil stuff, such as installing a rootkit to hide itself.

IOW, Sacred 2's CP seems pretty benign to me. I won't be buying Spore because of the installation limit on it, although I was rather looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by AmShegar
Starforce used to fry dvd drives? Maybe. Haven't heard about it.

Considering that that was the biggest problem with Starforce, I find your lack of knowledge rather surprising.

[ http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30…-malware-.html ]

All these restrictions securome forces are getting under many people's skin and it definitely is becoming a bigger fuss than Starfoce.

If you hadn't heard about Starforce frying DVD drives, I don't know how much weight we should lend your expert opinion on how much fuss it is. Perhaps it's more fuss to *break*, if that's what you meant…

Me, I'm thinking far into the future.

I wouldn't want to have a hassle with current copy protections in 10 years because "the big publishers" don't want to patch it away because they believe a game is only a snack for easilyy throwing away afterwards.

Of course, if the heads of such a "big publisher" once decide to take a look at it, then they'll receive an special forged copy-protection-free speciment from the company's fault. Because they're the big and mighty people.

Customers ? They're just Peanuts …

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Me, I'm thinking far into the future.

I wouldn't want to have a hassle with current copy protections in 10 years because "the big publishers" don't want to patch it away because they believe a game is only a snack for easilyy throwing away afterwards.

Of course, if the heads of such a "big publisher" once decide to take a look at it, then they'll receive an special forged copy-protection-free speciment from the company's fault. Because they're the big and mighty people.

Customers ? They're just Peanuts …

Where do you get this idea from though? Are there many examples of companies NOT removing DRM after a long period of time? I can think of several examples where they have done.

Alternatively if I'm still playing the same game 10 years later I think I've got enough value for money out of it that I'd be willing to purchase it again from a site like GOG.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Considering that that was the biggest problem with Starforce, I find your lack of knowledge rather surprising.

[ http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30…-malware-.html ]



If you hadn't heard about Starforce frying DVD drives, I don't know how much weight we should lend your expert opinion on how much fuss it is. Perhaps it's more fuss to *break*, if that's what you meant…

Thank you for enlightening me so, dear sir. From now on, if I have any questions regarding copy protections and the gaming industry as a whole I will directly PM you. There is no point in using google, when we have such precise and educated gentlemen, with expert opinions such as yourself.
And please do excuse this poor, dirty peasant for stating his opinion. I assure you, that this will not happen ever again.
Feel free to quote me again, as many times as you want - the pleasure is all mine.
I hope that you will not consider me wrong and go to bed early this evening.

God bless you!

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
IOW, Sacred 2's CP seems pretty benign to me. I won't be buying Spore because of the installation limit on it, although I was rather looking forward to it.

I agree with that … heck, I got Mass Effect and Bioshock and a host of StarForce infested games in spite of opposing their DRM. But I am getting increasingly annoyed at the way we seem to be 'frogs in boiling water' in how we are getting more and more used to worse and worse DRM.

But my objections to Sacred 2 are more philosophical and I will be getting it.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Me, I'm thinking far into the future.

I wouldn't want to have a hassle with current copy protections in 10 years because "the big publishers" don't want to patch it away because they believe a game is only a snack for easilyy throwing away afterwards.

Of course, if the heads of such a "big publisher" once decide to take a look at it, then they'll receive an special forged copy-protection-free speciment from the company's fault. Because they're the big and mighty people.

Customers ? They're just Peanuts …

I really don't even begin to understand what you are trying to say here.
If the publisher still exists, an activation/install shouldn't be a problem.
If not than there is most likely a patch available, fan made oder developer made (aka 'crack').

And honestly, if I would want to play a game in ten years I would be more worried about the OS I'm running or the hardware changes, than some evil copy protection conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
I really don't even begin to understand what you are trying to say here.
If the publisher still exists, an activation/install shouldn't be a problem.

But as I said in the other thread, I'm doing loads of 'retrospectives' lately of games from 5 - 25 years old. The vast majority of those companies are defunct, web sites that might be helpful have come and gone, and if they didn't work by themselves I would be lucky to get them going.

Originally Posted by txa1265
But as I said in the other thread, I'm doing loads of 'retrospectives' lately of games from 5 - 25 years old. The vast majority of those companies are defunct, web sites that might be helpful have come and gone, and if they didn't work by themselves I would be lucky to get them going.

Sure, I also do some retro gaming here and there. But I never had a problem with a copy protection system. Even for all the old games with those manual codes like Wing Commander there are pdf files or complete cracks on retro gaming sites around the web.

The problem with running these games has more to do with my Windows Vista 64 or Windows XP and my new shiny hardware (and the drivers for it) than with any copy protection.

And honestly, these new cp schemes are far more tolerable than some Starforce crap (I look at you Spellforce 2). And yes, you can and should criticize those protection systems. But all these extreme yelling and screaming against it sounds like EA (substitute for hate publisher of the month) is wrapping their games in human skin and forces you to undertake black magic rituals in order to play it.

True, but we should remind them that treating their customers like assumed criminals tends to have unintended consequences … I am of the belief that Stardock has it right - treat your customers like partners and they will join with you, treat them like enemies and they will actively try to screw you over.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
Sure, I also do some retro gaming here and there. But I never had a problem with a copy protection system. Even for all the old games with those manual codes like Wing Commander there are pdf files or complete cracks on retro gaming sites around the web.

The problem with running these games has more to do with my Windows Vista 64 or Windows XP and my new shiny hardware (and the drivers for it) than with any copy protection.

And honestly, these new cp schemes are far more tolerable than some Starforce crap (I look at you Spellforce 2). And yes, you can and should criticize those protection systems. But all these extreme yelling and screaming against it sounds like EA (substitute for hate publisher of the month) is wrapping their games in human skin and forces you to undertake black magic rituals in order to play it.

I would think a pdf file and this are two totally different things since one doesn't make you log on and authorize your copy and the other does, but you're sorta right. There will be someone somewhere who has a page dedicated to the game with a crack that gets rid of the copy protection. Like Starflight, without a crack I would never get past the space station. Still you are putting your faith in the publisher to do what's right. If it was CD Projekt Red then I bet they would make a patch a few years down the line but anyone else is a crap shoot.

I didn't know EA was publishing this I thought it was CDV? However, I do believe that EA is always the most hated publisher. It's not just what they did with Spore. They always choose the low road when it comes to their products. CDV is like cute, fluffy, little kittens when compared to what EA is.

Edit: Publisher Deep Silver for everywhere other than North America.

I'm there with you, I also like the Stardock approach more than any cp scheme.
But this doesn't mean that any developer or publisher investing in cp is the devil incarnate.

Securom is a big money saver for me. Since I won't buy a game that has it, I wait until it's patched away. By that time the title is at a bargain bin price. Bottom line is people can bitch and moan all they want on these fourms against such copy protection software but the only thing publishers are ever going to 'listen' to are your wallets…