Over on his blog the other day, Coyote posted a rant about the protection methods used on Bioshock. I can’t blame him; the CP is very definitely not player-friendly.
This is nothing new. Copy protection has been with us from the beginning. In the days of 5.25″ floppies and 8-bit machines, the first attempts were made with the way the games were physically written to the disks.
It was a mysterious world of half tracks, Track 0, nibble counts, and other arcane techniques. None of them did the least good. At best, these methods may have prevented some “casual copying”, but all could be circumvented one way or another. In fact, there were several programs on the market to overcome protection.
I recall the time I logged onto a pirate BBS (early ’80s). It was called “Pirate’s Cove” and ran out of Long island. It wasn’t until then that I really believed software piracy actually existed.
My jaw dropped as I went through message after message offering this or that game as a copy or cracked copy. It was simply incredible. It also demonstrated how useless protection was.
With “recorded protection” not doing a good job, companies added the infamous lookup. It could be a hard-to-read sheet of codewords, a wheel to align letters, symbols or figures, or the one everybody hated: “type in the word from page 16, paragraph 2, line 6, word 8”.
These lookups proved as valueless as anything else. When the computing world moved to 16-bit machines and hard drives, along came what we still have today: the key disk. This is where, after installation, the disk has to stay in the drive for a verification check.
Now here we are today, and the publishers are only getting worse, what with the abominable Starforce and equally odious SecureRom. We all know these and other techniques don’t work.
Any “hot” game, whatever the protection method(s), can usually be found within a week or so of release on file-sharing systems and pirate websites. In the meantime, honest buyers of the game are treated as potential thieves and forced to jump through hoops in order to get their games to run.
So, why do publishers do this, when they know better? They’re protecting their profits. However a long a game may last, the big push is the intitial release.
That’s where companies make back what they invested in a game and where they will obtain their profits. Anything beyond that is pretty much gravy. So the longer it takes for illegal copies to show up, the better. Ergo, the nastier the protection, usually the longer it will be before copies start appearing on the ‘net.
The original Neverwinter Nights came with key disk protection. By the time I bought it in the platinum pack, the 1.66 patch came out, which removed that requirement. This was also the third (I think) re-issue of the game. Obviously, there weren’t too many worries anymore about “pirated copies” of the game.
In like manner, 2K said that “sometime in the future” they would dispense with SecureRom protection. You can be sure that, unless there is a really severe backlash where potential customers don’t buy now because of SR, 2K will issue such a patch only after the game sales have dwindled down, when it won’t matter as much.
So that’s really the point of copy protection today: not to prevent piracy, but to keep it at bay until the companies have made back their money.
I certainly can’t blame them for wanting to recoup the (usually) millions that went into the creation of a game, or in the case of the indies, wanting to stay in business. They have every right to protect their property and investment.
What they don’t have the right to do is to use copy protection methods that put honest users at risk in terms of security, system operation, or inability to play a game at a later time.
So yeah, companies should protect their investment, but not at the expense of the gamers who are keeping them in business. Not now, not ever. But will they listen? I have my doubts.
Too many players are too eager to have a game, whatever CP is on it, that they simply don’t care. They want it now, because in a short time, something else will come along, and the “hot” game will be “cold”.
Those who hold back and complain are a small minority. Until that minority becomes a majority, nothing will change. And we will continue to be afflicted by onerous methods that show concern only for money, not gamers. 
Coyote on Bioshock’s protection
A SecureRom thread on 2K forums
2K Bioshock forum (in case you want more)
2K Games has at least said they will make an application that will de-authorize a PC and allow you to install it elsewhere.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/pc_faq.html
2K increased the maximum computers you can install the game simultaneously on from 2 to 5. We are also preparing a new “revoke application†that will allow you to de-authorize computers so that you may move the game to another computer without “using up” one of these activations. This increase in the limit will cover most users’ issues, and the revoke application should alleviate remaining concerns. Of course, if you still experience any issues, please feel free to contact support.
That shows that they are listening to their customers at least. I don’t feel so strongly about the online activation. I had to do it with Windows XP and Half Life 2, and XP even requires you to reauthenticate using Windows Genuine Advantage every time to download updates (which incidentally the WGA servers had an outage today). It’s definately improved from Half Life 2 which at first required you to go authenticate online EVERY time even if you were playing the offline single player game. Bioshock only requries you to do so the first time you install it or subsequent installs. What I think they should have did though is have a temporary authorization in case of failure. XP gives you 30 days to authorize it, they should have at least gave you a couple days to play while you are getting the matter resolved. They also should have had the revoke application ready at launch, and they should have also been more up front with the details of process.
I think the rootkit stories were a little sensationalist. A rootkit is something that hides files from the OS, which wasn’t the case this time unlike Starforce. I think the reason it was showing up in the Rootkit Revealer application was due to a * in the registry key name.
Has anyone heard any complaints from the Two Worlds players? I think it was using the same system for online activation.
I hate DRM and Copy Protection, but this one wasn’t really as intrusive as some I have seen, they should have just been more forthcoming with the details. I do think that there shouldn’t have been a DVD check afterwards since you had already activated it.
That was my $0.02 on Bioshock, but for copy protection in general I think it is a waste of time and adds to the cost and frustration of the legitimate users. I said in a previous post, the pirates are already beating the publishers on price, but when they start beating them in usability too, they really have trouble. Too often I find that’s the case.
I usually try to find a “no cd” patch for most of my games. I have young children and I don’t want to leave the discs laying around. I tried to keep them up out of there reach but once a friend was over while I was out of the room he got one down off the shelf to look at and didn’t put it back, instead putting it down on the table. The kids were attracted to the bright shiny package, and the even brighter, shinier disc inside and in seconds it had a deep irreparable scratch on it. I called the publisher and asked if I could get a replacment disc and offered to pay a reasonable amount since it was my fault it was damaged. I was told that I had to buy the entire thing again, that they didn’t ship replacement discs unless it was defective within 90 days.
I don’t think copy protection is very effective at all. Show me any major release that is not out in the wild within days of it’s release, if not hours. It’s not slowing down the pirates, only inconveniencing the legitimate users who are unable to make backups or have to jump though hoops to get the software working due to the copy protection.
I don’t fault the publishers as much as they want to protect their investement, but when their paying customers are treated as thieves, it’s not a good sign. How much would Bioshock actually lost due to casual copying? Oblivion was released with only a cd check, no dvd protection or activation and was one of the best selling titles of 2006.
I totally disagree with the current state of P2P file sharing. If you were my friend, I would let you borrow my Bioshock DVD when I was finished playing, but making it available online for thousands of people that you don’t know isn’t sharing.
I also think that copy protection is stifling innovation. One of the most useful things I ever bought for my PS2 was a program called HD Loader. It allows you to copy your PS2 discs to a hard drive and run them from there. From my perspective it was great, I just kept the boot disc in the drive and when my young children booted the PS2 they had a menu to select a game from. I didn’t have to worry about them handling and scratching discs. Load times were greatly improved, for example Crash Bandicoot used to take nearly a minute to load levels off of the DVD, off the hard drive it was
I the board has a post lenght limit. The last part of my comment was cut off.
I also think that copy protection is stifling innovation.
One of the most useful things I ever bought for my PS2 was a program called HD Loader. It allows you to copy your PS2 discs to a hard drive and run them from there. From my perspective it was great, I just kept the boot disc in the drive and when my young children booted the PS2 they had a menu to select a game from. I didn’t have to worry about them handling and scratching discs. Load times were greatly improved, for example Crash Bandicoot used to take nearly a minute to load levels off of the DVD, off the hard drive it was
Ok, I think it didn’t like the symbol. I used a less than symbol so probably trying to interpret it as html.
Last attempt.
One of the most useful things I ever bought for my PS2 was a program called HD Loader. It allows you to copy your PS2 discs to a hard drive and run them from there. From my perspective it was great, I just kept the boot disc in the drive and when my young children booted the PS2 they had a menu to select a game from. I didn’t have to worry about them handling and scratching discs. Load times were greatly improved, for example Crash Bandicoot used to take nearly a minute to load levels off of the DVD, off the hard drive it was less than 10 seconds. They also had a built in check in the program that would only allow you to copy original discs to the hard drive. Sony came down on them like a ton of bricks. Their reason was that there was nothing to stop you from renting a game or borrowing one from a friend to put on the hard drive, all the program did was check for an original.
I understand the need for copy protection / DRM. I really do. I’ve heard enough anecdotal evidence from companies that have gone from weak or non-existant protection to a stronger form, and heard how sales skyrocketed (we’re talking 5x sales).
I want to believe that people are basically honest, but the numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate that the majority of people WILL cheat if it’s easy and relatively risk-free.
But there’s got to be a balance. Because of this behavior, it’s clear companies HAVE to do something to protect their intellectual property.
But consumers have rights, too. And the more these copy protection schemes harm our ability to play and enjoy these games the way we feel we should, the more lashback there’s gonna be.
Some people will roll over and take it, of course, especially those who get blindsided by the schemes.
Some people will move over to the consoles out of frustration.
Some will just refuse to buy products with onerous copy protection (like me). There are too many choices for good games out there. I expect folks making that kind of decision are in the vast minority, though.
Some will just get too impatient with games altogether and just give up on gaming.
The problem I have with these online activations is what happens when I want to play it in the future? If 2K Games goes bankrupt 5 years from now, I don’t think removing Securerom from an old release is going to be high on their list of priorities when they are going down the tubes.
I really think this is going to be the new method of copy protection, having to verify online that you have a legitimate copy. That’s a lot harder to hack or bypass than a cd key and physical disk protection.
My feeling is that, in the long run, PC game publishers have been cutting their own throats with copy protection schemes. By squeezing every last dime from people who will buy despite onerous DRM, they’re losing some customers who become unwilling and failing to cultivate future potential buyers. People giving friends a copy is a good thing, in the long term, as the book publishing and music markets have shown. How many people are frequent book buyers now because they got hooked through free library copies, or family and friends, from which publishers didn’t make a dime? Me, for one. I sure couldn’t afford it as a kid — I wore hand-me-downs and got no allowance.
Would the console game market be anywhere as big as it is without a decade or more of game rentals and used game sales? I suspect the “free” distribution of console games is a big factor in the relative sizes of the PC vs console game markets.
Charles Stross, a SF author who has had the eBook versions of his novels sold with and without DRM, strongly opposes DRM. Not because of idealism but because of the above reasons and because he believes he’ll make more money that way. He points out that Baen Book’s webscription.net offers all their eBook titles without any DRM at all. Their sell rate is 10:1 over all the other eBook sellers who use DRM.
On the other hand, PC game publishers are not concerned with the long term. Studios are almost fly-by-night, creating one or three titles then disappearing (or bought out, which amounts to the same thing). Publisher names (e.g. “Atari”) may stick around a long while, but they change behind the scenes into different companies. The long term isn’t important to businesses that aim only for the next quarterly or fiscal year earnings.
So maybe copy protection is the best way to go for PC games. They won’t build any future, but more money will be made while they last. As for me, unless an exceptional PC game that interests me comes out, I’ll be sticking to older games if I play at all. I’m fed up with it.
I forgot the exception: I have no hesitation in buying non-DRM games if they interest me at all. Heck, I bought the GalCiv II expanson even though I wasn’t in the mood at the time to play it again. I bought their multi-computer integrating software (Multiplicity) instead of another because of no DRM. Stardock doesn’t think I’m a thief. That counts for a lot.
P.S.- Also, my paragraph about eBooks doesn’t fit. It’s not about the long term. Baen sells more eBooks (by 10:1) apparently because of goodwill (they trust their customers) and rational eBook prices. If I just want to try a new author/novel, not a specific one, I’ll go browse webscription.net first. I like to reward those who treat me with respect.
I hate copy protection. I buy all my games and never pirate and I feel offended by copy protection that must use the internet to verify. What if the company folds and you reload? Your hosed.
It’s like the danged code wheels for SSI Gold Box D&D, you lose the wheel, you were screwed unless you hacked it which was a violation of copywrite laws.
I hate copy protection, from the grinding 5 1/4″ disks when unformatted sectors and other methods were employed on the physical disks, to the look up a word in a manual/code wheel. One of those I remember had black text on brown paper to prevent copying, but it nearly preventing reading too. I can see where it is a necessary evil though, as Coyote said studies have shown that sales increase when those methods are in place. I see it as a lose/lose situation. The publisher isn’t getting the latest copy protections for free, I remember reading on one blog that it can be 10% or more of the cost of the product, and the user sure isn’t getting any benefits from it.
The only thing that has changed with Bioshock is the online activation and limited number of installs. Securom is used on many games, probably some on your shelf now. Neverwinter Nights 2, F.E.A.R., Titan Quest, all had it but didn’t have the activation requirement.
One problem I had in the past with some versions of copy protection is blacklisting. If it detected that certain programs were running, it would refuse to run the game. Process Explorer from Microsoft was one. Safedisk, a competitor to Securom was worse. It blacklisted something I use quite often, Daemon Tools. DT emulates a CD/DVD very well so you can mount an image or iso of a cd instead of the real thing. What I used it for was with some Akai sample disks. I have Reason (some might disagree, but I am referring to the application), which turns your PC into a digital sampler, synthesizer, and drum machine. The Akai format disks are not readable by Windows. These are disks that cost $100 or more with samples of real instruments for use with a digital sampler. I can make an iso of the disk and mount it in Daemon Tools then it works fine with Reason. But Safedisk doesn’t care if you have legitimate uses for a product, it might be used for piracy so adds it to a blacklist and your game won’t run if it’s installed.
This is exactly why I didn’t buy Bioshock on the day it came out. I think my days of buying on release day are over. I’ll happily wait a few weeks, maybe a few months, and pick up the game in a better state at a better price, and hopefully with fixed DRM.
I have to hand it to the various publishers though, without their efforts, I wouldn’t have learned where to go to find the dozens of NO-CD cracks I’ve utilized over the years. I’m certainly not a pirate, but I could easily tell anyone where to go to get a pirated game online. When this is what you force your paying customers to do, your doing something woefully wrong. Short sighted indeed.
In doing research for today’s blog post, I discovered that I was not alone in claiming that strict copy protection may actually encourage piracy.
Your story, Darkbridger, is far from unique. I’ve got a couple of my own just like it.
As an indie game developer, it certainly presents food for thought.
I can’t remember their name… whoever it is that handles GalCiv. They seem to have a good idea… but I don’t know how well it works. They don’t use copy protection… or at least I don’t think they used to… and rely on people registering honest purchases in order to get added features and patches.
I always wondered how well the key system (like what Spiderweb uses for their games) works. Does it prevent illegal copies or is it just as “hackable”? I like being able to play a small portion of the game and then deciding whether to buy it, but I don’t know if it actually prevents piracy to any degree.
Stardock is the maker of Galactic Civilizations. Good company. I like Brad Wardell’s philosophy.
They do have copy protection, but it’s a simple license-key scheme. The license key isn’t installed with the software, so someone can’t just upload their game directory.
It’s not a strong way to defeat piracy. But they believe they don’t need it.
Other schemes actually tie the license key to your hardware (which I’m not so fond of) or to your name (which I do like). I think people are more reluctant to share their license key if it also requires them to share their name.
I’m beginning to believe that the Stardock philosophy might be for the best. Put minimal protection in place — nothing that causes the user any grief. Don’t lock it to CD’s, or anything like that. But provide lots of incentives to be legit… so that it’s more convenient to own the real game than to use a pirated version.
Just ran into another snafu with Bioshock. It was too slow on my PC even though I meet the minimum requirements. My son has a faster PC so I installed it on there under my profile and it runs much faster. During the install it asks if you want to install it for all users on this pc. I activated it and had no troubles. Today he went to play it and it was asking to be activated again under his profile. So is that going to count as 2 activations, even though it is the same computer, just different user profiles? I called 2K Games to ask and they didn’t have the answer either. Why have an option to install it for all users but not activate it for all users? Is the activation per user profile and not per computer? I don’t believe they think things through with these activation schemes.
Wow Xian, sorry to hear that. I’d bet that will count as two installs, since it was put on two machines. Maybe the SecureRom people would know.
I am thinking it will count as 3, even though 2 of them are on the same PC. It looks like they didn’t plan for multiuser PCs. It should be activated per pc, not per profile in my opinion.
Hmm, yeah, it does look that way. So that leaves you only two more, until that patch they promised comes along, and likely not anytime soon. Bummer.
That is just… just…
Incredible. And not in a good way.
Sorry Xian. At least they upped the install count from 2 to 5.
Anybody else feel like we PC gamers are being treated like the third-class citizens of the gaming world? Well, could be worse, I guess. We could be Mac gamers, those poor sorry souls…
Mac users are too busy trying to conquer the world to worry about games.
Heh. Ag, they have a long way to go in that case.