Stardock Copy Protection Follow-up

The Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords Website has a follow-up on the recent dust-up about the non-inclusion of any copy protection in Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords (story). The blurb points the way to a story on GameSpot where Stardock's Brad Wardell answers questions about all this, and here's a bit from the statement:
We received email from StarForce today apologizing for the incident. We appreciated them taking down the link. It also gave us the opportunity to request the various meta-torrent sites to remove links to illegal torrents.

In every case, the torrent list site in question responded quickly to our request. One might make the argument that a simple polite email to a meta-torrent search site is as effective as copy protection.

There is probably some irony that this whole thing occurred just before last week's EBGames.com top selling games list got posted on their site. They list Galactic Civilizations II as the top telling PC title and the #2 overall (all platforms). And that was before this incident.

I don't want us to come out like we're on some sort of anti-copy protection crusade. We just don't think CD copy protection is an effective means to increase sales.
View : : :
4.
 
Re: Copy Protection
Mar 14, 2006, 10:31
4.
Re: Copy Protection Mar 14, 2006, 10:31
Mar 14, 2006, 10:31
 
Stardock actually has done a few pretty ingenious things with the release of the game. They've also made it possible to purchase the game online and download and play it while you wait for your boxed copy to arrive. That's such a relief because none of my nearby retailers had any copies in stock. I hope that more companies follow suit with this!

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
2.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
23.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
24.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
3.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
 4.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
 Re: Copy Protection
6.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
7.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
8.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
9.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
14.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
5.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
10.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
11.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
12.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
15.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
16.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
13.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
17.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
27.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
29.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
32.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
33.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
      BO vs VG
34.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
       Re: BO vs VG
35.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
       Re: BO vs VG
36.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
        Re: BO vs VG
37.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
         Re: BO vs VG
38.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
       Re: BO vs VG
50.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
51.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
52.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
53.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
54.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
55.
Mar 15, 2006Mar 15 2006
           Re: An apology is not sufficient.
56.
Mar 16, 2006Mar 16 2006
57.
Mar 16, 2006Mar 16 2006
           Re: An apology is not sufficient.
25.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
28.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
30.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
31.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
26.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
18.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
19.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
20.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
21.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
22.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
42.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
44.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
47.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
39.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
40.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
41.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
45.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
46.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
43.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
48.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006
49.
Mar 14, 2006Mar 14 2006