CRYTEK THANKS! make this THANKS thread! no dvd protection.

[pxc]

I'm happy to report that the south of the border fix works great to "opt out" of activation.

DRM: 0, Me:1

 

[GibsonEX]

This kind of DRM has nothing to do with piracy, that's just a cover for EA/Crytek team. What they're targeting is sale of used games on Ebay or wherever and every used copy sold by you, they see as a lost sale they could have made. It makes no sense to try to sell this DRM as a tool to prevent piracy. Basically, they want to have total control of your copy throughout whole life cycle of the game and that's why they want you to call them and explain why you need so many activations. Sad what it has come down to really, you pay for it and still have no control over your copy whatsoever.

 

[RX3]

This kind of DRM has nothing to do with piracy, that's just a cover for EA/Crytek team. What they're targeting is sale of used games on Ebay or wherever and every used copy sold by you, they see as a lost sale they could have made. It makes no sense to try to sell this DRM as a tool to prevent piracy. Basically, they want to have total control of your copy throughout whole life cycle of the game and that's why they want you to call them and explain why you need so many activations. Sad what it has come down to really, you pay for it and still have no control over your copy whatsoever.

Exactly!

 

[BlindedByScience]

You guys can complain about the DRM all you want but when it gets personal count on a Mod or Admin stepping in and the results may not be what you had in mind. Completely up to you.

 

[Jakalwarrior]

Already hard enough to sell a PC game. Guess this means that even though the judge said that you buy a copy of the game they are subverting that and turning it back into a license to use.

 

[CptFalcon]

I found the game enjoyable. Now if I could get my piece of shit PC up to the task maybe I won't be running it at Minimum at less than 20 FPS.

Is that Crytek's fault that the game doesn't run good? No. They have $3000 rigs they can play it on.

However the No-DVD requirement was really nice. Thanks for that Crytek.

 

[wildfire99]

Oh wow is securom annoying.

I may not really want to know the answer, but if the game is authenticating online why in the world do they still need SecuROM to protect the disc? I mean, shouldn't it be pointless to make 100 copies if I can't install it until it phones home anyway?

My game box is getting a new HD/BD combo drive and I'm worried that it's going to get trashed because of these retarded disc schemes. At least I have Steam...

 

[pxc]

I may not really want to know the answer, but if the game is authenticating online why in the world do they still need SecuROM to protect the disc? I mean, shouldn't it be pointless to make 100 copies if I can't install it until it phones home anyway?

My game box is getting a new HD/BD combo drive and I'm worried that it's going to get trashed because of these retarded disc schemes. At least I have Steam...

I installed it in a system with a HD/BD drive. I was worrying about the same thing.

Securom was probably added to prevent "casual copying", but it doesn't really do anything to prevent online piracy. It can be backed up once in a DVD emulation friendly format and game over.
-----

But anyways, the game is pretty fun and with the crack you don't have to deal with the activation nonsense for the single player game. I recommend it if you have a fast video card, especially for under $25.

 

[Scali2]

I have 3 Windows installations on my system.
I run XP Pro, XP x64 and Vista x64.
I suppose this means I should stick to one OS for playing Crysis Warhead (I played Crysis in all three... I only had to install it once, as long as the DVD was in the drive, I could start the game from any OS... Warhead asked for my key when I tried to run it in another OS... I decided to click Cancel).

Apparently I didn't need the DVD in the drive to play either Warhead or Wars, which is good. It was annoying to always have to insert the Crysis DVD before playing.

 

[mope54]

I may not really want to know the answer, but if the game is authenticating online why in the world do they still need SecuROM to protect the disc? I mean, shouldn't it be pointless to make 100 copies if I can't install it until it phones home anyway?

My game box is getting a new HD/BD combo drive and I'm worried that it's going to get trashed because of these retarded disc schemes. At least I have Steam...

lol, do you guys really not know the story of copy protection?
so many ignorant people worked up over their own doing...

I'll make it short: the legal argument for legal dvd decryption and digital storage was that it was a hardship for consumers to keep the original disk in use due to component wear and tear as well as scratches, etc.

In fact, the PS2 console's reported scratching of discs when the PS2 was placed vertically was an often cited concern of consumer groups.

It can be argued that EA, et al. has responded to those valid consumer concerns with negating the need for the original disk in the drive. It makes a lot of customers happy.
It also, however, negates the primary reason courts sided with consumers on making perfect copies of their original media.


Anyway, companies only care about their paying customers. Obviously they don't care about the tiny percentage of people who refuse to buy their products. If you really want to be a thorn in EA's side, don't neg-bomb amazon, buy Warhead, install it 5 times on different computers and then fill up their customer service ques with requests for reactivations.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Anyway, companies only care about their paying customers. Obviously they don't care about the tiny percentage of people who refuse to buy their products. If you really want to be a thorn in EA's side, don't neg-bomb amazon, buy Warhead, install it 5 times on different computers and then fill up their customer service ques with requests for reactivations.

And get denied the permission to have more installs and/or wait a week or two before you get an official reply from them.

 

[Silus]

From what I've been gathering, this version of SecuROM in Crysis WarHead, is applying the EXACT same limitations as Bioshock did, except one: Install limits per user.

In Bioshock, if you installed the game on the admin account (1 activation) and then played it on a regular user account, the game would ask you to re-activate it again i.e. another activation. That's two, just by following the usual procedure of installing software on our computer. This far, I've read nothing to indicate that Crysis WarHead does the same, but someone with the game (willing to test this that is), could probably verify if they are "hiding" this feature.

 

[mope54]

If you try to install Warhead as a user, it won't activate.
You have to activate as an administrator.

If you play as a regular user, there are no additional activation requests.

@jonneymendoza
you're free to create all the doomsday predictions your mind can conjure up.
In the case with Vista and Bioshock, the process of obtaining re-authorization was a matter of minutes over the phone.

Of course, Bioshock is an interesting example because it's the most recent evidence I can cite that paying customers requesting a solution to the SecuROM issue resulted in the removal of the installation limits. AFAIK, neither company gave a shit about non-paying potential customers complaining about it...but maybe you know something about businesses that makes them care more about a tiny slice of the population more than the overwhelming portion that I don't :\

 

[wildfire99]

I'll make it short: the legal argument for legal dvd decryption and digital storage was that it was a hardship for consumers to keep the original disk in use due to component wear and tear as well as scratches, etc.

That doesn't address the question. DVD encryption (CSS) is there because the data is in plain view. Anyone can copy a DVD (or could, unless software-level trickery is at play) and it would be a bit-perfect copy of the original, including the bit-perfect, still-encrypted video files.

SecuROM (physical-level disc corruption among other things), by my estimation, is an attempt to prevent these kinds of bit-perfect copies. It would make sense with games that were only protected with a serial number, since theoretically without bit-perfect copy protection you could make 100 copies, put the same serial number on all of them, and all would play with no other level of security offered to the publisher.

Attempting to address the disc-copy scheme while you already have an online activation scheme is, to quote Leonidas, sheer madness. As another poster said in another Warhead thread, this is like putting on a condom, then putting on another condom, then duct-taping the whole thing just to be safe.

Since I'm sure EA is paying royalties to SecuROM/Sony for their services, as well as incurring an additional per-disc replication fee, it doesn't even make economic sense.

It can be argued that EA, et al. has responded to those valid consumer concerns with negating the need for the original disk in the drive. It makes a lot of customers happy.
It also, however, negates the primary reason courts sided with consumers on making perfect copies of their original media.

I don't follow. Online activation may make disc-based authentication moot, but it does not address the issue of getting the disc contents onto your hard drive in the first place. Even with online authentication, you still must be able to have a valid disc image, thus it should not impact the needs of consumers to have their purchased (if I can still use that term with a straight face) media protected against loss, damage, or mechanical failure.

Anyway, companies only care about their paying customers. Obviously they don't care about the tiny percentage of people who refuse to buy their products.

Well like I said, it doesn't even make sense from a paranoia point of view. The addition of disc-level authentication along with online authentication offers no additional protection to the IP holder, while adding to the production cost and support costs, even adding onto the development costs to integrate the copy protection into the software. Even if I wanted to pull out a fat cigar and pretend to be an ignorant exec, I still can't fathom the business case for this kind of paranoid excess. And I can understand why SecuROM would be included in a Steam install.

The only reason that makes sense (going by the axiom of not attributing to malice that which can be explained by incompetence) is that EA is in a state of transition and didn't think the whole copy protection thing through, thus they kind of just threw everything they had in the cupboard into the soup. Even if it isn't malicious it's still amazingly wasteful.

...install it 5 times on different computers and then fill up their customer service ques with requests for reactivations.

I doubt the issues being presented to the CSRs get funneled up in any meaningful way to the CFO or anyone with decision-making power. They'd just wonder why their call center costs are up and offshore more positions with the left hand while adding a few more zeroes to that check to SecuROM with the right hand. There is a reason why big business fails often and with majestic repugnance. Maybe that's really the answer. EA isn't evil, it's just too fricking big.

 

[mope54]

There is no consumer right that requires a company to protect against "loss, damage, or mechanical failure." The argument was that consumers had a right to move digital content from one medium to another in order to protect the longevity of their purchases themselves. With the current implementation of SecuROM, neither EA nor Crytek requires the constant use of the media. In fact, SecuROM merely requires a valid key to activate your product. The necessity of a physical copy is merely a convenience/benefit for some end-users who prefer traditional marketing and packaging materials.

If you're curious about the current development of this, start to follow "managed copies" in newspaper and/or tech publications. I'm sure we'll soon see some legal articles about it very soon.


Bioshock is the most recent example I can think of where paying customers' concerns resulted in removal of installation limits. Unless you know a bizarre business environment where corporations care more about a vocal minority who refuse to buy their products than the majority who paid them, I don't know what else you'd attribute their change of operations.

 

[Reality]

will not buy

bought the first one (online, via EA downloader), worst purchase decision I ever made
I had to wait 3 days after I bought it before my key worked properly, and mine was a preorder. people who bought the store-copy were enjoying their game before I was able to even play mine

now, whenever I try to play the game, I have to turn on EA downloader before I can run the game in 64-bit mode. i have to launch the EA downloader, launch crysis (which is 32-bit by default), exit the game, then launch the 64bit exe

such a fucking joke

i just recently downloaded a cracked exe for my copy though, so I don't have to deal w/ that nonsense anymore

screw EA, and Crytek for all I care, they aren't getting my money, and it sounds like a lot of other people's money as well

 

[zsec]

I would like to give my thanks to Blizzard Entertainment for not having any limits on how many times you can install their games. Considering how many times I re-installed Diablo 2 over the years... Feels good to dust off a game's CD case, pop it in the CD Drive 4-6 years down the road and give it a go again.

Blizzard does well without imposing how many times their customers can install their games, go figure huh? Maybe if a certain company didn't put out shit game after another, they would sell well enough to the point where they would not need to force their customers to buy multiple copies of he same game a few years later.