More on BioShock Activation

A post to the 2K Forums by 2K Elizabeth goes a little further into how the SecuROM online activation required to play BioShock (story) works when attempting multiple installs:
first, let me say this. you DO NOT NEED TO USE THE INTERNET EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THIS GAME. it is only the first time.

second, you can uninstall and reinstall this game, and if, by chance, you have 2 computers you want to simultaneously play this game on, you also can do that.

if by some chance you are reinstalling this game without uninstalling it first, a lot, there is a chance you may have to call securom and get a key, or deactivate some older installations.

but if you upgrade your hardware next week, you'll still be able to play the game. if you revamp your system and need to reinstall bioshock, just uninstall it before you go through the overhaul, and then do your reinstall.

calling it "hardware fingerprinting" is a bit alarmist. we do not transmit any of your data to any companies.

really, the only people who will be concerned about any of these security measures are those who are rapidly putting bioshock on many pcs... if you use the game as you normally do, you won't notice this at all.
View : : :
85.
 
hmmm
Aug 22, 2007, 19:33
85.
hmmm Aug 22, 2007, 19:33
Aug 22, 2007, 19:33
 
So how else are they to prevent hundreds of thousands of people downloading it and installing it without buying it on release day???
How???

Those people are STILL downloading and installing it without buying. The fact the game has SecuROM doesn't mean shit. It's already cracked.

And how to prevent it? I dunno. Make a great game that people will want to play, and stop worrying about the piracy? Oblivion had no copy protection whatsoever, just a simple disc check. It sold... what? Four million + copies?

Stardock has put no copy protection on their Galciv 2 game (nor its expansions). All they asked was that if you install it on multiple PCs, that you please don't play it on those PCs at the same time. There's no check for that. They just asked, and NICELY, I might add.

Galciv2 has sold enough that they've already released several patches that includes tons of new features, they've released a patch that implemented a whole new GRAPHICS ENGINE, and they're working on their second expansion pack.

Much as the publishers would like for you to believe it, it's definitely possible, and FEASIBLE, to release a game without copy protection and still make plenty of money. Bethesda and Stardock have done so, and made out like bandits.

Egosoft, to quote another example, chose to go with Starforce, and found their sales to be very low for X3, partially because of it.
(and partially, I think, because X3 = X2 + better graphics, but okay.)

If I buy a game I expect to be able to install it 75,000 times if I want to, without having to call Pradip in India who doesn't speak english, and having to try to explain to him that if my fucking harddisk dies, it means I have to reinstall shit.

Creston

Where is a working crack and download for the game? I am not aware a real working version is out there to bypass the online authentication yet. As for the securom disk check, yeah that does nothing and is easy to bypass.

Starforce sucked hard and needed to die, I don't really put securom into the same bag yet.

Stardock just had great timing with so much starforce hate. They announced no copy protection, were applauded for it. I even applauded them for it. But not every game can do that today, they had great timing because people were at the apex of starforce hatrid.

I still think the solution is remove the ease of piracy, something few fighting against copy protection really want to see happen. Remove the actual cause, then devs don't have to fearful of putting their business and lives on the line in trusting people not to download it for free. I couldn't trust my patrons to buy things and not steal. I wouldn't do it in a retail store by leaving it up to peoples ethics (some people don't have them), nor can you really do it online.

Overall, copy protection is crap and is worthless and penalizes the buyer. I understand this quite well. An online authentication is what I have been asking for for years and is far better, but seems to have it's drawbacks with this implementation. I Ghost too so I won't be immune, but I am not going to attack the game or devs for these decisions. I still think it makes perfect sense that 2k can have Securom pull the 2 install limit in a few months when the game sales severely decline.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
146.
Aug 26, 2007Aug 26 2007
147.
Aug 26, 2007Aug 26 2007
153.
Aug 31, 2007Aug 31 2007
154.
Aug 31, 2007Aug 31 2007
2.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
3.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
4.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
11.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
5.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
7.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
14.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
15.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
19.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
8.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
10.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
68.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
9.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
6.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
12.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
13.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
16.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
25.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
29.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
30.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
33.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
37.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: The Advocate
42.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: The Advocate
47.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: The Advocate
49.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         was gonna buy it
64.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: The Advocate
62.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: The Advocate
86.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: The Advocate
87.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
          Re: The Advocate
88.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
           Re: The Advocate
89.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
            Re: The Advocate
100.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: The Advocate
34.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
76.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
 85.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     hmmm
90.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: hmmm
131.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
132.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
133.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
134.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
135.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
        Re: like it or not ...
136.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
         Re: like it or not ...
31.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
66.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
70.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
17.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
18.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
20.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
21.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
22.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
23.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
24.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
26.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
48.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
96.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
27.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
28.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
32.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
73.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
77.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
79.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
84.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
80.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
35.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
38.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
36.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
39.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
43.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
46.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
50.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
55.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
57.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
58.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: No subject
71.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: No subject
98.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: No subject
104.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: No subject
105.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: No subject
109.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
          Re: No subject
111.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
           Re: No subject
115.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
            Re: No subject
116.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
             Re: No subject
120.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
              Re: No subject
137.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
              Re: No subject
138.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
               Re: No subject
140.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
                Re: No subject
141.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
                 Re: No subject
142.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
                  Re: No subject
143.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
                   Re: No subject
144.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
                    Re: No subject
145.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
                   Re: No subject
117.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
            Re: No subject
124.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
            Re: No subject
125.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
             Re: No subject
112.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
           Re: No subject
113.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
            Re: No subject
114.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
             Re: No subject
118.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
              Re: No subject
119.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
               Re: No subject
121.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
                Re: No subject
122.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
                Re: No subject
123.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
                 Re: No subject
126.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
                 Re: No subject
127.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
                  Re: No subject
128.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
                   Re: No subject
129.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
                    Re: No subject
106.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: No subject
107.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
          Re: No subject
108.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
           Re: No subject
110.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
           Re: No subject
53.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
97.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
103.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
44.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
54.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
56.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
60.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
63.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
61.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
65.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
94.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
99.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
51.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
67.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
69.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
72.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
78.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
     Re: No subject
81.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
      Re: No subject
82.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: No subject
83.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: No subject
92.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
       Re: No subject
93.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: No subject
95.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
        Re: No subject
102.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
         Re: No subject
40.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
41.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
45.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
52.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
59.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
74.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
75.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
91.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
101.
Aug 22, 2007Aug 22 2007
130.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
139.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
148.
Aug 27, 2007Aug 27 2007
149.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
150.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
151.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
   Re: ...
152.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
155.
Sep 3, 2007Sep 3 2007
156.
Sep 5, 2007Sep 5 2007
   Re: ...