E-License

[Her Klink]

There's no unease for me. If I had enough in my budget to upgrade my PC every 3 months I figure I'd also have enough in the budget to buy another copy of CMBN.

I regularly read on forums about people spending $1000+ for a new PC to be able to play a new $50 game. But spending $50 to buy a game because you're spending $1000+ upgrading your PC is a problem?

[sfhand]

You guys are kidding right? Already mad at a licensing program that gives you 4 activations and you havent even used it yet. You guys need a cup of coffee, a hug, or a nappy. Some of you even complained about e-license for CMSF. Not like BFC doesnt have a right to protect its product from being pirated. Oh well cant please everyone I suppose. But unless BFC goes to a F2P format, you guys are gonna have to deal with some form of copy protection. Thats the reality and that will not change.

What are you talking about? I'm sure there are many things in life you are concerned about that I wouldn't get, but that doesn't mean your concerns aren't valid. And who are you talking about when you say "some of you"? I know it wasn't me, but my concerns about DRM are hardly fringe.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1125148&postcount=78

[sfhand]

sfhand,

I am repeating myself, but let's try it one more time: you will not have any problems doing all these activations. And in the future, if you want to replace a hard drive or motherboard, you will be able to do it as well, because you will be able to add one activation to your key per year. You will not have to contact support for that, it's an online tool. It's just like a revoke tool except it's called differently

Martin

Martin, thanks for taking the time to try again. As with game design decisions I don't expect you to change things to suit me. Besides, I know who to contact if I should have any problems...

[flamingknives]

If the police were given the right to beat up colored people, I wouldn't say "I find it difficult to get upset about this, because I am white".

I'm not comparing the DRM to beating people up, I'm just saying that you can be upset about an unjust policy even if you're not personally affected by it.

Clearly, as is evident by what have been written in this thread, some people do upgrade or reinstall their computer systems frequently enough to be affected by the limited number of activations, and that is very wrong.

At the same time, aren't you using the same sort of argument to support your case?

Not wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm getting a vibe of:

"I find it difficult to support DRM, because piracy doesn't affect me."

If there was no DRM, there would be no barrier to piracy other than the slim chance of being caught. BFC would lose a great deal. Obviously they would want to choose the least intrusive method of DRM because that would alienate customers. On the other hand, if their DRM has unlimited activations instantly and freely available, then pirates would not need to circumvent the DRM. At that stage, what is the point in having it?

[sfhand]

Anyone who buys software with DRM is affected by piracy... This isn't an either or situation, btw. One can support the idea of DRM if the implimentation isn't overbearing, and we each have our own idea of what overbearing is. Are you familiar with the DRM Ubisoft has on it's current games?

But because I am a BF fan and because I love CM and because I know of their customer support I will buy this game (already have...). But I didn't buy the 2 best modern flight sims on the market because of a similar scheme and if I had no history with CM and BFC I wouldn't buy this because of this scheme - as I currently understand it. But maybe you would buy Ubisoft games without regard to their current scheme and this scheme is very mild in comparison so you would have no problem with it either.

[Lt Belenko]

I would buy a game if it interested me, the demo was good, and the price was right. Piracy protection would never enter in to the buy/don't buy criteria. But in this case I pre-ordered without seeing the demo.

[flamingknives]

sfhand, I think that you are mistaking the comparison.

In the event of no DRM, with pirates given free rein, one might find comparison with JSj's example.

If I muck the words about a bit, I can generate an argument in support of DRM:

If the police were given the right to beat up colored people, I wouldn't say "I find it difficult to get upset about this, because I am white".

Becomes:

If [Pirates] were given the [ability] to [illegally copy and distribute software], I wouldn't say "I find it difficult to get upset about this, because I am [not affected by piracy]"

Here, the unjust behaviour is piracy, and the enabler is the lack of DRM.

So if DRM is required (and I maintain that it is), the argument is then narrowed to the form it takes. Given BFC's choice (4 activations plus one per year) then the argument is further defined by the number of activations. Taking BFC's position as the minimum, and unlimited as the maximum, then the question becomes how many activations are right?

Unlimited plays into the hands of piracy, so where is the balance between unfettered use and unacceptable risk for BFC?

[gnorffy]

We can go back and forth about this all day, but in the end, we will make no progress.

It is pretty obvious to me that the only solutiopn is for BF to launch CMBFN immediately, with the new E-License scheme in place, and allow us to try it out for ourselves.

That should resolve the debate once and for all, no?

Can I get an amen?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Can I get an amen?

Oh, good effort on steering the conversation away from DRM and to something less controversial such as religion.

[JRMC1879]

sfhand,

I am repeating myself, but let's try it one more time: you will not have any problems doing all these activations. And in the future, if you want to replace a hard drive or motherboard, you will be able to do it as well, because you will be able to add one activation to your key per year. You will not have to contact support for that, it's an online tool. It's just like a revoke tool except it's called differently

Martin

Yes but Moon - that IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The QUESTION is - what happens if you DO exceed four activations within the first year ? or the number of valid activations you have left - at any stage - What are battlefront going to do then ? Do you have to wait for your new activation before you can activate again or are battlefront going to allow you to exceed this at any point? From your previous answer I would suggest no ... the point is not whether you are likley to or how someone exceeds that limit - but - given they are a genuine paying customer - what is going to happen if they do ... if battlefronts answer is simply "tough luck" then we are in effect renting the game and it stinks. Your answer above is a politicians answer - in that it singularly just repeats what you have said before and everyone already knows and understands - but absolutely fails to answer the question everyone is actually asking.

[BDW]

The anti-DRM people seem to always base their arguments on two false assumptions:

1. that they have a divine right to consume other people's copyrighted work on their own terms

2. that the copyright holder desires to do business with them

The reality is that the copyright holder can restrict the use of their work as they see fit through the use of the EULA and DRM protection. There is a strong incentive for the copyright holder to find the best balance of ease-of-use and protection, in order to enjoy the largest possible market for their product. The companies that get this right are the winners, and the ones that don't are the losers - and the market will determine the outcome.

For someone who finds it a deal-breaking hassle to play CMBN because of the DRM, BFC will probably find that person to be too much of a hassle to do business with. BFC has to draw the line somewhere with DRM; it has nothing to do with right and wrong, it is just a business decision. Sometimes people need to get their head around that fact not ALL companies want to do business with them. Companies that identify who the "bad" customers are do well to create systems that eliminate them before they are forced to engage with them via customer support (which almost immediately consumes the profit from the sale of that single license).

Just my two cents, as an attorney and someone in the business world - and someone who has been a BFC customer from the beginning and knows that they have the best interests of their customers in mind.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yes but Moon - that IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The QUESTION is - what happens if you DO exceed four activations within the first year ? or the number of valid activations you have left - at any stage - What are battlefront going to do then ? Do you have to wait for your new activation before you can activate again or are battlefront going to allow you to exceed this at any point? From your previous answer I would suggest no ... the point is not whether you are likley to or how someone exceeds that limit - but - given they are a genuine paying customer - what is going to happen if they do ... if battlefronts answer is simply "tough luck" then we are in effect renting the game and it stinks. Your answer above is a politicians answer - in that it singularly just repeats what you have said before and everyone already knows and understands - but absolutely fails to answer the question everyone is actually asking.

But this question has already been answered.

I'd reproduce it again but your attitude displayed here doesn't really provide me with adequate incentive.

[Guest]

Yes but Moon - that IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The QUESTION is - what happens if you DO exceed four activations within the first year ? or the number of valid activations you have left - at any stage - What are battlefront going to do then ?

This has been asked and answered:

And if really everything fails, and you have a legitimate reason for an extra activation within the 365 day period, you can always go to www.battlefront.com/helpdesk and explain why. We won't grant every request (especially not if you make them every week ) but at the end of the day the licensing system is not there to deny paying customers their activations (even if they may sneak out a few more than they should), but to prevent uncontrolled widespread distribution of our intellectual property... and that isn't undermined by being flexible on the rules, if need be.

Here's a link to the post:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1241076&postcount=231

Edit: Oops, sorry Elmar. Took me a few minutes to get my post together, didn't see your post. I'll let it stand, though, so the conversation can move on.

[TheVulture]

Yes but Moon - that IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The QUESTION is - what happens if you DO exceed four activations within the first year ? or the number of valid activations you have left - at any stage - What are battlefront going to do then ? Do you have to wait for your new activation before you can activate again or are battlefront going to allow you to exceed this at any point? From your previous answer I would suggest no ... the point is not whether you are likley to or how someone exceeds that limit - but - given they are a genuine paying customer - what is going to happen if they do ... if battlefronts answer is simply "tough luck" then we are in effect renting the game and it stinks. Your answer above is a politicians answer - in that it singularly just repeats what you have said before and everyone already knows and understands - but absolutely fails to answer the question everyone is actually asking.

That question has already been answered, on this thread and elsewhere:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1241076&postcount=231

to quote the most relevant bit:

Moon wrote

And if really everything fails, and you have a legitimate reason for an extra activation within the 365 day period, you can always go to www.battlefront.com/helpdesk and explain why. We won't grant every request (especially not if you make them every week ) but at the end of the day the licensing system is not there to deny paying customers their activations (even if they may sneak out a few more than they should), but to prevent uncontrolled widespread distribution of our intellectual property... and that isn't undermined by being flexible on the rules, if need be.

Te new system gives you 4 activations plus one per year that are handled entirely automatically without needing any time spent by BFC staff. If you need more than that, you contact the helpdesk.

As opposed to the current system, where you have 2 installations, if if you lose one without unlicensing it you have to contact the helpdesk. I had to do that once, and they sorted it out very quickly, no questions asked.

I'd guess that the driver behind the change was just the amount of time needed per week dealing with all the license resettting on the helpdesk. And I'd guess that the great majority of cases were one offs where people had some hardware failure (or other rare events). They may have looked at that and thought: "if we give people one free activation per year completely automated, that saves 90% of the time we spend on helpdesk activities." The small number of people who need more activations than that can still be handled by the helpdesk, which just checks that they aren't taking the piss by asking for an extra activation every week.

That's my rose-tinted interpretation of the change . But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the move was simply intended to reduce the amount of time spent dealing with lost licenses.

EDIT: ...joining the list of people who posted the exact same quote at the same time...

[bodkin]

The anti-DRM people seem to always base their arguments on two false assumptions:

1. that they have a divine right to consume other people's copyrighted work on their own terms

2. that the copyright holder desires to do business with them

The reality is that the copyright holder can restrict the use of their work as they see fit through the use of the EULA and DRM protection. There is a strong incentive for the copyright holder to find the best balance of ease-of-use and protection, in order to enjoy the largest possible market for their product. The companies that get this right are the winners, and the ones that don't are the losers - and the market will determine the outcome.

For someone who finds it a deal-breaking hassle to play CMBN because of the DRM, BFC will probably find that person to be too much of a hassle to do business with. BFC has to draw the line somewhere with DRM; it has nothing to do with right and wrong, it is just a business decision. Sometimes people need to get their head around that fact not ALL companies want to do business with them. Companies that identify who the "bad" customers are do well to create systems that eliminate them before they are forced to engage with them via customer support (which almost immediately consumes the profit from the sale of that single license).

Just my two cents, as an attorney and someone in the business world - and someone who has been a BFC customer from the beginning and knows that they have the best interests of their customers in mind.

So your saying it's not really about protection from piracy but weeding out 'bad' customers who have the misfortune to require tech support?

I think most people who have raised concerns on this thread have conducted themselves in a civil manner and only requested clarification of how the new systems works to allay their fears whether real or imagined. Some of the responses however have just been unhelpful and divisive and have just attempted to marginalise the persons point of view as being one of a troublemaker and serial complainer.

Personally I don't have a problem with BFC having a DRM, if it helps protect their product and financial security then that's great. I think the method in which this is being done is the issue. An extra activation top up every six months rather than a year would make this alot more palatable and suck up less of the company profits through people bothering the support staff as suggested.

Two cents spent.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well damn it Phil (where did Phillip go?) and Vulture. One thing to join in for a reply in triplicate, but did you both have to show me up in the kindness and diligence stakes?!

[A Canadian Cat]

The anti-DRM people seem to always base their arguments on two false assumptions:

1. that they have a divine right to consume other people's copyrighted work on their own terms

2. that the copyright holder desires to do business with them

<snip>

An excellent argument indeed. I would counter that you have cast these two assumptions made by anti-DRM people in a light that offers your argument an opportunity come out on top.

I certainly do not feel I have a divine right to anything. When I become a paying customer for a product what I do expect is the ability to use the product I paid for without undo hassle (in other words I want the product and its licensing scheme to work). When I am deciding to enter into an agreement to purchase I take the likely hood of support hassle into account before I buy. One of those factors is the history of their chosen licensing scheme. Once I do make the decision I expect the other party to resolve problems that may arise in their product. This does not seem unreasonable. If a company fails to live up to that, as you say, they will not be successful. I believe that some people have expressed concern about how a particular licensing scheme will effect them. I think in a free market potential customers should be able to express their concerns. Providers can decide if they want to address those concerns or not.

With regard to argument two; while at the point of having a discussion about licensing schemes etc. you are correct. However once someone has bought the software the copyright holder has in fact expressed the desire to do business with them. So if a customer runs into problems there should be some attempt to assist them. You are correct if a company decides that 'n' activations is all you get and they are clear on this then someone that will have a technical problem with that will have to make the decision to buy or not. But again in a free market potential customers should be able to say "I don't like this aspect of your product would you please change it or make some declaration that given my personal circumstance you will make some kind of allowance".

While some would lobby for no blocking licensing scheme in CMBN - count me as one of them. I will settle for a reasonable level of confidence that the scheme will work most of the time and that support will be offered to help me out of a jam. I personally do not expect to have issues with the 4 activations decision but as you can see others are concerned. Perhaps it will not be a real issue perhaps it will. I just hope that Battlefront can do its best to offer us assurances that they will help out legitimate paying customers. I would like them to succeed in the free market.

Ian

[JRMC1879]

But this question has already been answered.

I'd reproduce it again but your attitude displayed here doesn't really provide me with adequate incentive.

You shouldnt presume to know my "attitude" - Unfortunately I dont have the luxury of time to read every post in a twelve page thread. My point was absolutely valid - illustrated by the fact that Moon felt the need to answer it from someone else - given I didnt know he had.

So thankyou to the other two who posted the answer I was looking for without the "attitude" you felt the need to impart yourself... especially it now puts my mind to rest about this subject.

Point of fact I have bought a new machine and had two subsequent hard drive failures in the first three months of this year plus got hit with a virus that required a clean install - so I would have hit my limit by march - hopefully BF wouldnt have presumed I was one of those taking the piss.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

So your saying it's not really about protection from piracy but weeding out 'bad' customers who have the misfortune to require tech support?

No, but it is a part of the equation. BFCs stuff needs protecting, and there is always peole who fall foul of that or object to it. BFC should do all they can to please as many of those as they can. But there is a cut off point where it does more harm then good to try and do so.

I think most people who have raised concerns on this thread have conducted themselves in a civil manner and only requested clarification of how the new systems works to allay their fears whether real or imagined. Some of the responses however have just been unhelpful and divisive and have just attempted to marginalise the persons point of view as being one of a troublemaker and serial complainer.

Sure, most people are quite reasonable. Most.

Around here people tend to get the reply they deserve, from the forumnites as well as BFC. It's why I like this place, no blanket PR bull.

Personally I don't have a problem with BFC having a DRM, if it helps protect their product and financial security then that's great. I think the method in which this is being done is the issue. An extra activation top up every six months rather than a year would make this alot more palatable and suck up less of the company profits through people bothering the support staff as suggested.

Two cents spent.

Yup, I've said the exact same thing too, somewhere. (see, I don't exclusivly deal in snarky replies) An additional activation every six months should take care of all reasonable needs of customers yet still protect against mass piracy.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You shouldnt presume to know my "attitude"

I think I should.

...that IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The QUESTION is...

Your answer above is a politicians answer...

All that is indicative of a conversational tone that cannot suddenly insist on courteous and helpful replies. That you got that anyway in two out of three is well above the internet average.

Moon has exhaustively replied in this thread and others like it and to me it seemed staggeringly unfair for him to be reproached in that manner.

[Dingchavez]

I would be pleased if we could un-register a CMSF module on the internet, I mean, without having the game installed on a computer.

For instance, during the last 8 months I've lost my data twice (once thanks to a thunderstorm, the second thanks to a crappy hard drive).

In this case I had to re-install all the modules and guess what ? I had to contact BF to reset my keys. Loss of time, loss of activations.

An unregistration tool on BF website would be really useful, and wouldn't create more piracy.

This is just an opinion of course ^^

[JRMC1879]

I think I should.

All that is indicative of a conversational tone that cannot suddenly insist on courteous and helpful replies. That you got that anyway in two out of three is well above the internet average.

Moon has exhaustively replied in this thread and others like it and to me it seemed staggeringly unfair for him to be reproached in that manner.

And you are who ? His mother ? All it shows, indeed, is that they had better manners than you do. I would respecfully suggest that Moon works for battlefront - so answering my question - in whatever tone it was phrased - is his Job.

As you yourself said

Around here people tend to get the reply they deserve, from the forumnites as well as BFC. It's why I like this place, no blanket PR bull.

I expect if he had a problem with what or the way I said it he could have said so himself - and besides - if thats the way the forum works - you have to be able take it as well as dish it out so your umbrage at the way I said it seems somewhat contradictory.

[stikkypixie]

I would be pleased if we could un-register a CMSF module on the internet, I mean, without having the game installed on a computer.

For instance, during the last 8 months I've lost my data twice (once thanks to a thunderstorm, the second thanks to a crappy hard drive).

In this case I had to re-install all the modules and guess what ? I had to contact BF to reset my keys. Loss of time, loss of activations.

An unregistration tool on BF website would be really useful, and wouldn't create more piracy.

This is just an opinion of course ^^

You can unlicense CMSF. Of course you need a working HDD for that.

[sfhand]

I would buy a game if it interested me, the demo was good, and the price was right. Piracy protection would never enter in to the buy/don't buy criteria. But in this case I pre-ordered without seeing the demo.

Are you interested in sub sims? If so do you own Silent Hunter 5? If so do you really not mind having to be logged onto the internet to play the single player portion of the game? There are people who bought and played the game under those conditions, I hope they are having a good time, but that doesn't mean it should become the defacto norm because there are plenty of others who feel consumers have rights too...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Only 2 kinds of DRM bother me.

1. The kind that installs programs on your computer that run even when the game is not running. Starforce and some versions of SecureROM come to mind.

2. Ones that require a constant internet connection.