🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Bloodstar <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> It DOES have a liscense/activation scheme, but even then you only need to
>> enter the key if you want to patch the game.
> 
> So it does have a copy protection. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Depends on what you call copy protection. If by copy protection you
mean a mechanism that prevents you from installing it, copying it and
playing it on as many computers as you like, GalCiv doesn't have copy
protection. If you mean something else, then it might, depending on
your personal definition.

> Ah, Stardock have sold you story that they are better then others. LOL.
> As I said this is very effective copy protection if your new patches will 
> not work on pirating copies that went on black list. So it is a copy 
> protection. Even very effective copy protection if you add great new things 
> into patch and pirates cannot play it.
> What is use of 1.0 version of some games when 5th patch change a game so 
> much and when you cannot play multiplayer etc...

Stardock gives excellent support to their games, and keeps adding new
features long after the initial release, so yes, not having the patches
sucks. However, as long as you have entered the activation code, you
can easily install those patches on every machine you installed the
game on.

It's meant to discourage piracy, it's not meant to prevent you from
enjoying the game on whatever machine you want to play it on.

But if you really want, you *can* pirate the game and install patches
on your pirated version. It's just more work. Stardock is of the
opinion that paying customers should be rewarded, encouraged and
otherwise cuddled, while non-paying customers should be encouraged
to pay anyway. Some other companies insist on punishing paying
customers in a futile attempt to stop non-paying customers from
playing the game. But it's the paying customers who usually suffer.

>> There are plenty of other PC games that don't use copy protection, DRM, or
>> will trash my hardware simply because I want to play it.  I'm voting with
>> my feet.
> 
> Ah, yes... Splendid. Battlefront.com. Storm Eagle Studios, Paradox 
> Interactive are all for boycotting? They use product activation. That 
> crusade like pc games is really out of reality.

Product activation isn't necessarily the same as copy protection. It
can be a form of copy protection, but it doesn't have to be.

> In fact there should be a debate what is better and effective: product 
> activation where you don't get pirated or patches that pirates do not crack 
> (game is too obscure - OK sometimes they crack the patch but mostly for 
> mainstream games!) which gives a adverstising as some who pirated game will 
> want to move from 1.0 version and will buy the game (many wouldn't I agree 
> on that).

Pirated versions of GalCiv are availlable, and it's not too hard to
download the patches. It's just that your life is so much easier when
you pay. Some other companies make it almost easier and more attractive
to download the pirated version than to get the paid version to work.


mcv.
-- 
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real.                  -- Zachriel