sfhand

From a practical point of view this is a distinction without a difference... It is pretty clear that you are trying to control unauthorized use of your software and I have no problem with that. However, you are doing it by activating what? (installations)

DRM schemes are controversial and instituting new ones will lead to more controversy. I am, and have always been, very sorry to hear about BF's sales numbers declining between CMx1 releases. I have always thought that casual piracy - someone letting their buddies install off of their CD - was the culprit. But that is only a hunch on my part. A DRM that limits installations to 3 events is similar to one that limits installations to 4 events - they are similiar in that they limit installations. A DRM that limits installations to 3 events is more similar to one that limits installation events to 4 events than one that limits them to 10 events (because the numbers are closer in value) but all 3 share the similarity of limiting installations. If there is anyone else on this board who can't or won't understand what "similar" means, whether for rhetorical purposes or not I can't say, there isn't much else I can do to explain. I bought Bioshock. After the fact it became known that Bioshock's DRM included limited installation activations. There was much uproar. Within a month or two 2K released a revoke tool even though they said the user could call Tech Support in the event of problems. Within 2 years 2K removed this feature of Bioshock's DRM. Saying a person who reformats regularly should buy more licenses, as is said on the previous page, undercuts those who are saying people should trust BF's motives. So far I have been a loyal customer and BF has more than upheld their side of the bargain, but we are entering new terrain here. A revoke tool would reduce the amount of customer support you will need to supply if you are going to deal with your DRM scheme in good faith.

Nice catch! It was also pointed out in the other thread... but updating systems every year or two is fairly common for enthusiasts, I did cpu's in both last year and will be rebuilding the desktop soon. That coupled with the potential for unforseen events leads me to think a revoke tool would be a welcome addition to the plan. Hopefully rootkits are not involved...

Elmar... While you're pointing and laughing try researching "Securom online activation"... and do a little researh on revoke tools as well - you will find my concerns far more common than idiosyncratic. Installing and reinstalling can use up a license if there is a significant system change in the interim, and as has been pointed out earlier the license accomodates installation on 2 machines. I am not an outlier, btw, I know many people with 2 computers. In the last year I've changed CPU's in both my Desktop and Laptop. And lastly, pirates don't install and uninstall licensed software, they crack DRM schemes and install unlicensed software so this scheme will not affect them once it is cracked. Which existing DRM scheme(s) do you think is/are currently uncracked and for how much longer will it/they remain so?

It's not really a matter of OS reinstallation, although that will from time to time happen. For me it is more a matter of disk space. I have a large game library and I don't keep them all installed all the time. So, in a year or two I may have installed and uninstalled on my 2 machines more than the allotted amount - as is my right and preference on my machine. Should I really have to ask permission? Another question is, when did uninstalling and reinstalling software to which I hold a valid license become a threat to BFC's intellectual property? Pirates certainly don't do this, they crack DRM schemes and install unlicensed software. Why can't a revoke tool be released with this scheme as is done with many other limited installation schemes?

Elmer, most of your argument seems pretty nonsensical to me... Forget the EA bit. [2nd edit: you do know what "similar" means? hard to see how this is irrelevant, but I don't want to derail the discussion because you are unable to grasp how "similar" situations might add insight to this circumstance] The only people this will affect are licensed users AND!!! installing, uninstalling, and reinstalling does not contribute to piracy! If the game is installed on 2 computers, per the license, the user then has 2 activations left. Now if the user is someone like me, someone who plays many games, there is no guarantee I will want to keep the game installed on either computer all the time because of disk space considerations. But this in effect is telling me I have to keep it installed on the machines I've got it installed on. AFAIK, many games that use installation limits like this issue a "revoke tool". That is what I am asking for. Got a conceptual problem with that? edit: and yes, in my book trying to control how often one installs and uninstalls licensed software on ones computer is a draconian measure.

Well... it isn't fair at all. At its core it is a draconian measure. The problem of piracy is not licensed users installing, uninstalling, and reinstalling software. The only people who this will negatively affect are licensed users. Or, as another site, talking about another game with a similar situation put it: "If you are a Pirate: BAD: You do have the same bugs that those with legal copies have, plus new ones depending on how the cracked copy was programmed. GOOD: Unlimited Activations! GOOD: No SecuROM to deal with GOOD & BAD: It’s free, but illegalIf you are a Legal Customer: BAD: Limited to 3 Activations BAD: Your computer is plaqued with SecuROM BAD: Game contains errors and bugs GOOD & BAD: You support Maxis by purchasing the game, but you are also supporting EA, and if you support them, you support SecuROMHonestly…what looks better to you?" I had actually expected better from BF on this issue.

If something like this short thread is how this will work I will have no problem with it: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27212282

The easiest solution to installation limits, as implimented by other game software developers, is to have a "deactivation tool" so the user doesn't go through their allotted activations. I'm not planning on reformatting. Last year I added a hard drive to my laptop, it runs in a RAID configuration, which means I re-installed the OS. My desktop was rebuilt for CMSF and I will be rebuilding it again in the coming year. I've been toying with the idea of switching from Vista to the latest Windows offering. When I rebuilt the desktop I used the hard drives I had already which means they're getting older. Who knows when/if they might fail. What if my AV protection manages to interfere or, worse yet, fails to protect me from an OS crippling virus? There are just so many things that could reasonably happen, some I'm quite sure I've overlooked, that it is not "outlandish" to question why one would want a "deactivation tool".

AFAIK I don't ususally buy games that use this type of DRM. I know Bioshock added a "deactivate" feature to a DRM scheme similar to this one after massive outcry on their forum. I'm all for you guys protecting your product but not at the expense of a license holder's unfettered access to it.

Ummm... this is a surprise. The beauty of elicense, for me, was that I could unlicense and then relicense without there being a finite number of licensing events available (other than the 2 allowed). So, the result was I could have a copy of the game on my desktop and my laptop, I wouldn't have to have the CD to play (I always get a CD), and if I needed/wanted to re-install the Operating System for any reason - it has happened a couple of times on both machines so far - I wouldn't bump into any "activation limits" if I remembered to unlicense - which I did. This new system, presents some potential problems in the above scenario, depending on how many times I wish or need to fiddle with my computer. Generally I don't buy software that limits activations unless there is a way to deactivate that resets the activation counter. So, the first, most obvious question I have is, will I still be licensed to install the software on 2 machines? Second question, are you willing to be more flexible on the number of activations (4 seems rather sparse for 2 machines)? Third question, are the yearly activations cumulative? Fourth question, are you willing to develop a deactivation tool to replenish the number of activations available to the software license holder? Thanks for considering these questions...

Two posts in one thread? Apparently, sir, neither are you! I've been a lurker here, and mostly still am (if defined by age of account and number of posts). Not being a grog makes it difficult to even contemplate entering some of the discussions here - it also removes any desire to do so . One thing posting does is timestamp my opinion of things. I recently revisited a thread from a few years ago and was startled to find that my feelings about things have changed quite a bit, e.g., I am now not in favor of command delays whereas 2 years ago I was. It is actually refreshing to see that even in my declining years I am able to take in new information and change my opinions. Hmmm... sorry for the off topic rambling - yet another reason to keep my post count low.

Oh, and a thread spamming off topic gigantic hat tip for the Ramadi map and scenario!

You're also going to learn to be the Germans 1/2 the time...

I have no way of knowing what happened but, as one who likes conjecture, my money is on feature creep and if that's the case more power to BF.

You are, of course, entitled to feel any way you like about this, but in my view a QB should not be held to the same victory conditions as an "historical" scenario. But then, I don't think QB vegetation should fall under the type of scrutiny you apply to it either...

Was rereading your "The road ahead... a recap" thread from a couple of years ago. That was a great thread about the direction of the CMx2 franchise. You're probably really busy right now -I imagine you're usually pretty busy - but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find a recap of the recap, i.e., how you percieve things now in terms of feature sets for the next family/ies, a fascinating bit of reading. Also, having reread that thread, I'm inwardly glowing with optimism about the timeline for the CMBN modules. You guys (BF + BETAs) are amazing! http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156

This got me thinking about hull down units. When we talk about seeing the center of an action spot, and now action spots being part of the terrain mesh and terrain features, I default to thinking one needs to be able to see the actual terrain mesh or feature to spot there when in fact I don't as evidenced by being able to target hull down units which are on action spots whose terrain mesh and features are out of sight of the targetting unit. (wow, talk about a run-on sentence) This leaves me more unsure of how it works than I thought I was before...

I was a rabid gamer back in the day... I had a subscription to PC Gamer (I think that was the magazine - I'm too old now to remember) and I saw an article on CMBO so I went online looking for BTS. I ordered the game and downloaded the demo. Like most here I still play a wide variety of games but the CM franchise is one of the oldest and of the oldest is the only one still in production which is quite a feat when one considers its closest competition, in that regard, in my game library is the Doom series.

I have never been inside a tank, much less a WW2 tank, much less commanded a WW2 tank during a battle, but it doesn't seem like too much of a reach to me to assume that if I were commanding a WW2 tank in a battle I would know of the hits it suffered including the direct results of those hits (unless I died). And, since being the commander of all the tanks on my side is part of the role I play when I play, then it doesn't seem gamey to me to have hit detail texts in game for those tanks.

English for beginners... simile: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simile

Well, it has been so long since I've played any of the CMx1 games that I have forgotten the details of the UI I guess. However, my belief that a "hull down" command is unnecessary is unchanged since I've never had a problem achieving hull down in CMx2 - with the exception of the M707(?) which has no targetting feature and therefore no LOS tool.

With the enhanced spotting of CMx2 what is hull down in regard to one location might not be hull down in regard to another which makes a "seek hull down" command difficult to impliment. The way I seek hull down in CMx2 is to plot my waypoint and then click on it and issue a target command without selecting a target (this is the CMx2 LOS tool). This lets me know if I am hull down in regard to my target area or not (it is also why I'd like movable waypoints! because I frequently waste time plotting my new "trial waypoint" to the same action tile rather than a different one - hopefully this not being the desert will help with that). This method works really well and, IMHO, no hull down command is necessary.

Okay, I'm feeling guilty about razzing Steve without offering anything even remotely constructive to the discussion, so let me say this about CMBN QB's. In the build I saw, the only hands-on I did was to select a German force for a QB. I am not a grog and was somewhat overwhelmed by all the choices and the flexibility of the system that were available to me along with the limitations imposed by the point and rarity systems, which is a very good thing, IMHO. After the force was selected there was a glitch that caused us to restart the QB and I stepped aside and let someone else check it out, but I left thinking that QB's are going to offer players the chance to dig very deeply into the selection process if they want, or not. And while I know that a very large amout of work has been done on QB AI plans and maps, for me QB's will be the crown jewel of pvp battles (for me after I get to explore the system without a sense of urgency).

CMSF is a living testament to that...:D:D