E-License

[Battlefront.com]

I think the majority of reasonable minded customers are similar to Vanir Ausf B (er.. in this ONE regard at least ). I know when whenever we look into DRM solutions we rule out any that have these two side effects.

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.

Not really how it works here. When people agree to participate here they explicitly agree to the Forum code of conduct. When questions are posed in accordance with the code of conduct, then answers are delivered as quickly and as accurately as we can. If someone can't conduct themselves in a civilized, respectful, and polite manner then the question being asked becomes less important than the manner in which it is asked. We continue to try and answer the question, but at some point we may feel compelled to disinvite that person from further participation.

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.

Objecting to offensive behavior is not the same as being offensive. Not knowing the difference between the two does tend to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about personal responsibility for one's own conduct. In short, worry more about your own behavior and less about the behavior of others'. The latter is our job.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

One thing to consider here is that we've had this discussion many times before. When we used to have a CD check people complained, as if the game was no longer playable, they were being treated like criminals, etc. One point, however, was quite readily apparent to us. And that is it wasn't very useful as piracy protection. While it did discourage casual copying (which USED to account for about 90% of piracy) it was easily cracked and those who wanted to avoid it could do so.

As gamers became increasingly active in using pirated software, they developed easier means to acquire work arounds to DRM. This shifted the average illegal user from casual copier to someone who actively sought external means of stealing our property and forcing paying customers to pick up the costs. This wasn't something we felt was good for anybody BUT the pirates, so we looked into a serious DRM solution to replace CD checks.

When we looked around we found tons we hated. Both as users and as publishers. We settled on eLicense because at the time it offered very good protection and very few end user problems. We've been using it for a very long time and the incidences of our software being pirated have been extremely low. Extremely. The amount of customer headaches caused by the DRM have also been extremely low. Until recently.

Technology changes and hackers learn. If a DRM doesn't keep ahead of the curve then it becomes useless either because it is too problematic for legitimate users or is easily hacked (or both). While eLicense isn't useless yet, it's not something we see as a viable long term solution for us any more. Paying for DRM that is easily bypassed, or has a high frequency of pissing off customers, isn't good for anybody. Hence why we have moved away from eLicense after so many years of excellent experiences with it.

Additionally, we are getting back to making Mac products. eLicense is not available on the Mac and we can not have two different types of DRM for newly sold products. It just isn't a viable option for us. So on top of having to look for a technology and user experience that was superior to what eLicense has become, we also had to look for one that worked on the Mac. Fortunately, we found one. And so we switched.

Our new DRM effectively stops pirating and yet doesn't inconvenience our customers most of time even after years of use. Our old DRM actually is likely causing more people problems now than the new DRM, so this move by us will be an overall improvement to Battlefront's customer base.

Lastly, when we announced eLicense we had people running around the Forums screaming that the sky is falling. Years later the sky is still very much where it was before eLicense and it is likely to remain where it is after. Why? Because we are extremely sensitive to what you guys will tolerate for DRM and we've planned accordingly.

Steve

[LJFHutch]

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.

So I take it you don't like steam?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I've never used Steam, so I can't really comment on it. But yeah, there's probably a reason I've never used it

[Ales Dvorak]

Ones that require a constant internet connection.

What? If I understand correctly you can not play if you're not connected to internet. This is really downside, because I play this game in spare time and on this location there is no internet.

[Vanir Ausf B]

on this location there is no internet.

Apparently that is not entirely true

AFAIK you only have to connect to the internet once, when you activate. After that you don't need a connection.

[LJFHutch]

Apparently that is not entirely true

AFAIK you only have to connect to the internet once, when you activate. After that you don't need a connection.

Yeah, and there's manual activation if you can't get to the net I think.

[stikkypixie]

What? If I understand correctly you can not play if you're not connected to internet. This is really downside, because I play this game in spare time and on this location there is no internet.

He wasn't talking about the system that Combat Mission uses.

[Ales Dvorak]

He wasn't talking about the system that Combat Mission uses.

Uppssss.... sorry, my fault.. *glad about that info*

[Ales Dvorak]

Apparently that is not entirely true

And this is not my spare time.

[bodkin]

Lastly, when we announced eLicense we had people running around the Forums screaming that the sky is falling. Years later the sky is still very much where it was before eLicense and it is likely to remain where it is after. Why? Because we are extremely sensitive to what you guys will tolerate for DRM and we've planned accordingly.

Steve

Good to hear Steve, and thank you very much for contributing to this thread.

I guess my concerns are that I want to enjoy this game at least as long as I did CMBO, I've been through several new PC's plus upgrades of hardware since I first discovered CMBO in 2003. I just think the current system of 1 activation a year once you've used up your initial 4 is a bit tight. I'm thinking long term here, I don't want to be playing CMBN in a few years time feeling the sword of Damocles is dangling above my head if want to buy a new video card.

Fair enough?

[born2lose]

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.

Wow nice attitude !!! anyway on a side issue can we have a button added to forums so we can block people like this so i don't have to read there post's

[sfhand]

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.

You might want to add a third category to the list...

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/drm-run-amok-how-bioware-and-ea-are-screwing-users-right-now.ars

[sfhand]

And yes, there are people in the gaming industry who make the points I tried to make earlier about DRM and piracy.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/04/11/gog-drm-drives-gamers-piracy/1

Witcher was a great game and I will most definitely be buying Witcher 2, for both the game and to support their actions on this issue.

[flamingknives]

I'm sure that there is some known trope for the argument being pulled here.

Position: DRM is bad

Justification: Here is some DRM that is bad

Conclusion: All DRM is bad.

It simply is not intellectually honest.

Three pages ago (post 107) I asked a question, and I shall ask it again.

What is your suggestion for a BFC DRM solution?

The default (and shall we assume minimum?) is the posited situation: 4+1 per year

The other extreme is unlimited, which offers no control over piracy and is therefore of no use.

So, how many activations per year would be acceptable to you?

[ChrisND]

I'm sure that there is some known trope for the argument being pulled here.

Position: DRM is bad

Justification: Here is some DRM that is bad

Conclusion: All DRM is bad.

It simply is not intellectually honest.

Three pages ago (post 107) I asked a question, and I shall ask it again.

What is your suggestion for a BFC DRM solution?

The default (and shall we assume minimum?) is the posited situation: 4+1 per year

The other extreme is unlimited, which offers no control over piracy and is therefore of no use.

So, how many activations per year would be acceptable to you?

Actually I think that's been answered. By Someone. Can't remember who. The request was 1 activation every six months.

[JRMC1879]

Double post...

[JRMC1879]

I think the majority of reasonable minded customers are similar to Vanir Ausf B (er.. in this ONE regard at least ). I know when whenever we look into DRM solutions we rule out any that have these two side effects.

Not really how it works here. When people agree to participate here they explicitly agree to the Forum code of conduct. When questions are posed in accordance with the code of conduct, then answers are delivered as quickly and as accurately as we can. If someone can't conduct themselves in a civilized, respectful, and polite manner then the question being asked becomes less important than the manner in which it is asked. We continue to try and answer the question, but at some point we may feel compelled to disinvite that person from further participation.

Objecting to offensive behavior is not the same as being offensive. Not knowing the difference between the two does tend to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about personal responsibility for one's own conduct. In short, worry more about your own behavior and less about the behavior of others'. The latter is our job.

Steve

Accepted - but point out to me please what was "Offensive or Disrespectful" about the post he replied to ? It was merely a question to Moon - the disprespect shown was to his reply - not to Moon - and something he entirely deserved if he wanted to reply to me in the way he did.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Accepted - but point out to me please what was "Offensive or Disrespectful" about the post he replied to ? It was merely a question to Moon - the disprespect shown was to his reply - not to Moon - and something he entirely deserved if he wanted to reply to me in the way he did.

What way was that?

That I didn't like the tone of your post and thus would not go hunt down the relevant post again? What staggering injustice you have suffered, sir. Will you require psychological assistance? The number of the ICC?

In post #50 I did look up the answer you were looking for for someone else. I made a point of not doing it for you. Either I really don't like people with a number in their handle or there was a difference in the posts. I generally don't go around bullying people. Well ...not at random. *ahem*

[JRMC1879]

What way was that?

That I didn't like the tone of your post and thus would not go hunt down the relevant post again? What staggering injustice you have suffered, sir. Will you require psychological assistance? The number of the ICC?

In post #50 I did look up the answer you were looking for for someone else. I made a point of not doing it for you. Either I really don't like people with a number in their handle or there was a difference in the posts. I generally don't go around bullying people. Well ...not at random. *ahem*

You miss the point -there were two replies that accepted I had missed the answer and helpfully pointed out where it had been. If you didnt like the tone of my post (for what reason I still cant fathom) you could have simply not replied rather than, self importantly, pointing out why you were not going to be helpful. If you werent going to be helpful - what was the point in posting a response other than to pick a fight. I could care less about your opinion, you obviously think otherwise and that I should have the benefit of it, thats your problem not mine.

[flamingknives]

Actually I think that's been answered. By Someone. Can't remember who. The request was 1 activation every six months.

I had spotted that. However; it wasn't the sfhand, who has made a number of posts where DRM is bad without identifying what might be acceptable.

Also, there were a number of requests for one per month, which I would regard as excessive and liable to lead to casual piracy.

[flamingknives]

Elmar can be abrasive (he's Dutch, you can't take them anywhere) but:

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.

Is also pretty sharp in tone. Sections in ALL CAPS ARE LIKE SHOUTING. If you shout at someone in ordinary conversation you would not expect a cordial response. Plus the conversation is recorded throughout the thread. Common forum etiquette is to review the thread rather than DEMANDING THAT I BE ANSWERED NOW!!! Considering that Moon answered that question you apparently got in a state about two or three times in between your posts, following that etiquette would have been useful, no?

[Tank Hunter]

The way I see it there is one much more viable option then what is in place right now.

If you buy you copy as download only then you obviously have access to the internet.

When you buy your copy you get assigned a serial number that is directly related to your user name and from your account you should be able to see and administrate your license.

Let's say you get two licenses as with E-license.

You then install the game and verify your key online. Your account is then updated and you have one license left.

Every time you launch the game it checks connection to internet and verifies your license. If there is no connection then it should still allow you to run for a month after the verification failure.

If you don't go online within a month the game stops launching until you can verify the license again. I'm sure everyone that buys the game online will at least be online once per month. That gives you some time for traveling if using laptop for example.

If something happens to your PCs and you need to reinstall you can go online to your account and restore your licenses manually. You then install the game on your new rig and you are good to go. In that way there will be no hassle for either users or Battlefront support.

This is the way several software packages are deployed.

[JRMC1879]

Elmar can be abrasive (he's Dutch, you can't take them anywhere) but:

Is also pretty sharp in tone. Sections in ALL CAPS ARE LIKE SHOUTING. If you shout at someone in ordinary conversation you would not expect a cordial response. Plus the conversation is recorded throughout the thread. Common forum etiquette is to review the thread rather than DEMANDING THAT I BE ANSWERED NOW!!! Considering that Moon answered that question you apparently got in a state about two or three times in between your posts, following that etiquette would have been useful, no?

No - the caps were for emphasis - for some reason I cant make anything bold or italic or underlined as those particular buttons dont appear for some text highlights - go figure, I probably should have explained that - as I said - I didnt have time to read all the posts on the thread - I accepted that Moon had answered the question.

The point with his actual answer however is that it seems to me that should I run into issues with the activation count - then it appears I am reliant - from what he said - on the "goodwill" of battlefront technical support to to let me play the game and if they "believe" me. the fact is - should battlefront ever deny me use of a game I have legally paid for - for any reason, DRM included - they are actually breaking every consumer law in quite a few lands. My point is - it is not up to me to manage their DRM scheme so I can use their product. Their DRM scheme should allow me to use their product - if I have paid for it, under any circumstances. The problem I have with DRM and Moons answer is that there is a fundamental conceit on the part of software companies that they have the right under certain circumstances to break consumer law to service their DRM system. This is not the case and an EULA is no defence for that. No one has tested it yet, irresepective however that is why many independent countries - the US trade commision and the EU are reviewing all forms of DRM system to see if they are actually breaking the law under certain circumstances.

I have no problem with DRM per se - what I have a problem with is the fact the onus appears to be on me to manage it for them so my game works.

[sfhand]

I'm sure that there is some known trope for the argument being pulled here.

Position: DRM is bad

Justification: Here is some DRM that is bad

Conclusion: All DRM is bad.

It simply is not intellectually honest.

Three pages ago (post 107) I asked a question, and I shall ask it again.

What is your suggestion for a BFC DRM solution?

The default (and shall we assume minimum?) is the posited situation: 4+1 per year

The other extreme is unlimited, which offers no control over piracy and is therefore of no use.

So, how many activations per year would be acceptable to you?

Not sure if this is directed at me or not. If so, as Moon said earlier, I've already made my position clear on all of these points. But, like Moon, I'm willing to repeat myself, but bear in mind one thing, I don't think anyone of us can know what is best for anyone other than ourself. That I have been able to post a link to a mainstream game developer who thinks DRM causes more harm than it solves should carry some weight with a reasonable rational person and bolster the notion that my position isn't some extreme anti-industry position (and they are walking their talk on the issue so their opinion is far more meaningful than yours or mine, IMHO).

My preferred option for CMBN: activations as outlined with an activation revoke tool. For the life of me I can't see why you, as a fellow customer, would object to that.

That is it.