View Full Version : Grumble..HalfLife2 and Steam DRM
Kayaker
December 28th, 2005, 18:40
This is totally OT, just a grumble from the sidelines. I might as well go spit in the ocean for all the significance my complaint would have.
I'm not a really big gamer but every so often I'll succumb, wanting to be transported into a fantasy world with the latest greatest 3D engine, either for the beauty of Myst or the mindless fragging of some hapless alien in a first person shooter. Give me a Railgun and wet sloppy giblets splattering all over the screen and I'm a happy camper..
So I've been getting that urge again and was eyeing HalfLife2, good reviews, decent first-person play,.. Anticipation building over the past several weeks until I decided, Yes, this is the one I'll spend my hard earned 60 bucks on, I'll go buy it today as a Christmas present to myself..
One last check of reviews to see which of the multiple versions I should buy and, what's this..? I have to install some Steam DRM crapola? I have to go online to authenticate as well as install updates? I have to install the multiplayer CounterStrike as well or else the setup aborts?
Sheeit! Maybe I'm on dialup or want to install on a machine with no 'net connection. Maybe I don't want to open up my system to external probing or want any extra demo/adware/spamware garbage. All I want to do is blast away a few ugly critters for an hour or two.
Grumble, bitch, out of principle I will NOT buy this title and be held hostage to this particular DRM enforcement!
There, I feel better now. Let's see, I had a pretty cool solitaire game somewhere...
Admiral
December 28th, 2005, 20:29
Join the club. I've lost count of the number of anti-Steam petitions I've 'signed'. The sad news is that the Steam platform gets updated more or less weekly, so any attempts to 'crack' it (perhaps that's the wrong word) will be in vain.
The whole situation is an unfortunate consequence of game piracy, and in many senses I can't help feeling that the RCE community I know and love holds much of the blame.
Well if it makes you feel any better, I was quite disappointed by HL2. CS:S, however, is a different story
Admiral
CluelessNoob
December 28th, 2005, 21:00
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Admiral]The whole situation is an unfortunate consequence of game piracy, and in many senses I can't help feeling that the RCE community I know and love holds much of the blame.
|
I dunno, I'd see it more as an off-shoot of corporate greed.
If the decent games of yore had been priced reasonably chances are piracy would have been lower. Prices weren't, so piracy was rampant. They continue to have no intention of offering the product at a decent price so they have to go to insane measures to prevent piracy.
I gave up on the gaming scene when Doom went out of fashion. It was a truly ground breaking piece of work that captivated me for more hours than I care to admit. And because they had the good sense to "give away" an entire level of play I'm sure they reaped large rewards.
Woodmann
December 29th, 2005, 00:30
Howdy,
This is just another example of a company that is willing to slit it's own throat in the name of "anti-piracy".
If I purchase the game/app/whatever, I should be able to use it without having 18 f'ing verification routines.
They will not learn untill they are out of business. They will cry "why oh why".
I have more than a few softwares that I have paid for that require multiple "checks" to make it work correctly.
I paid for it, why the fuck should I have to open my hard drive to these bastards and allow them to search my registry ???
Yes, I know how to get around it but that is not the concern.
For all the millions of "regular people" who have no idea they are getting raped, someone has to say "STOP".
STOP SOFTWARE RAPE NOW !!!!!
I PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, GET OFF MY DICK !!!
OBC

CluelessNoob
December 29th, 2005, 01:00
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]I PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, GET OFF MY DICK !!! |
Probably not gonna happen. It seems to be a trend where history will be repeating itself.
Back in the day, (mainframe) software was not purchased - it was leased.
How long before one of these companies decides that in order to keep using the product you'll need to fork over more cash? I see it happening in the engineering software market with so-called "support" contracts that bleed anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of the actual cost annually for the priviledge of "support" (if you can call the guy in India who has no clue support) and "free" updates to their bug ridden trash.
What really blows my mind though is the FPGA/CPLD companies (Lattice, Altera, Xilinx, etc) who have the nerve to sell you software that has
no purpose beyond selling their chips! Hey guys, are you in business to sell chips or software?
disavowed
December 29th, 2005, 03:21
Quote:
[Originally Posted by CluelessNoob]If the decent games of yore had been priced reasonably chances are piracy would have been lower. |
I totally disagree. Piracy has NOTHING to do with cost. People crack software because they can, not because it costs a lot.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]I paid for it, why the fuck should I have to open my hard drive to these bastards and allow them to search my registry ??? |
What are they taking from your registry? Your name? Your credit card info? Your web browsing history? No, none of that (at least I would hope none of that). I don't see it as an invasion of privacy if they're not stealing any Personally Identifiable Information.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]They will not learn untill they are out of business. |
But they're not going to go out of business. At least not for the "18 f'ing verification routines" reason that you mentioned.
SiGiNT
December 29th, 2005, 05:03
Quote:
[Originally Posted by CluelessNoob]
Back in the day, (mainframe) software was not purchased - it was leased.
|
I've got news for you - read a EULA carefully and you'll find you are only granted a license for use. You do not "own" the software - this license can be revoked if it is deemed that you are not in line with the EULA - same for movies and CD's - I can be sued for copying something I own. The most successful EDA softare companies keep their software relatively easy to crack - this widens their potential available trained employee pool for the companies that are willing to shell out the $50,000- $250,000 per seat for this stuff, some of which is the worst conglomeration of badly ported Unix stuff I've ever encountered.
SiGiNT
LLXX
December 29th, 2005, 05:11
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]I have more than a few softwares that I have paid for that require multiple "checks" to make it work correctly.
I paid for it, why the fuck should I have to open my hard drive to these bastards and allow them to search my registry ??? |
It seems that the software companies are trying to gain more and more control over your machine, especially with all this "Trusted Computing" (I wouldn't trust
them...) research that's been happening lately. More than a few softwares I've acquired legally (even
freeware!) have debugger-checks in them, and one particular freeware even refused to run just because I had RegMon and FileMon running!
What has been the fundamental cause of this "movement" towards the "protection of intellectual property and intellectual property rights"? Greed. The greed for money, more and more of it. Software companies are concerned about "piracy" and the loss of their profit resulting from it. I personally find this quite rediculous, being from an essentially communistic background. I couldn't care less about "intellectual property" because to me,
it doesn't exist. Software is
copied, not
stolen. I predict that in the future, DRM technology will become more prevalent and restrictive, and Reverse-Engineering may eventually be considered illegal. A phrase I remember from a cracking group once said...
Quote:
If you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom. |
I could go on and on about DRM, "intellectual property" and "digital rights"... but I think I'll stop now

dELTA
December 29th, 2005, 05:27
Quote:
Quote: I PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, GET OFF MY DICK !!! |
Probably not gonna happen. It seems to be a trend where history will be repeating itself. |
Well, when someone's gotten themselves on your dick, it can actually be kinda nice if they let the last few seconds of history repeat themselves for a few minutes or so.

(sorry, couldn't help myself)
PS.
There are cracked versions of HL2 that work without Steam (and hence, Steam will not update itself to disable the crack either).
Silver
December 29th, 2005, 08:45
Quote:
How long before one of these companies decides that in order to keep using the product you'll need to fork over more cash? |
How long? You mean like all these online RPG's such as Everquest and City of Heroes? It's already here.
Quote:
Piracy has NOTHING to do with cost. People crack software because they can, not because it costs a lot. |
Piracy has everything to do with cost. If you could buy a legal copy of XP for $1, *everyone* would buy it. I think you're confusing the challenge of reversing with the use of warez. Reversers crack because they can(/want to/need to learn), joe public pirates software because they can't afford it. One copy of XP + one copy of Office 2k3 is already $200+.
Quote:
I can be sued for copying something I own |
This one is interesting. Many countries have the legal principle of fair use. If I legally buy a CD of music, I have the legal right to rip it to MP3 and listen to it on my MP3 player.
CluelessNoob
December 29th, 2005, 12:03
Quote:
[Originally Posted by sigint33]I've got news for you - read a EULA carefully and you'll find you are only granted a license for use. You do not "own" the software - this license can be revoked if it is deemed that you are not in line with the EULA |
True, but actually revoking the license is another matter. Besides, EULAs are about as legal as marriage in the movies.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by sigint33]The most successful EDA softare companies keep their software relatively easy to crack - this widens their potential available trained employee pool for the companies that are willing to shell out the $50,000- $250,000 per seat for this stuff, some of which is the worst conglomeration of badly ported Unix stuff I've ever encountered. |
Don't even get me started.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Silver]How long? You mean like all these online RPG's such as Everquest and City of Heroes? It's already here. |
Sad.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Silver]Piracy has everything to do with cost. If you could buy a legal copy of XP for $1, *everyone* would buy it. I think you're confusing the challenge of reversing with the use of warez. Reversers crack because they can(/want to/need to learn), joe public pirates software because they can't afford it. One copy of XP + one copy of Office 2k3 is already $200+. |
Exactly my point.
BTW - Where can you get XP + O2k3 for $200?

dELTA
December 29th, 2005, 17:33
Here's an article published a couple of days ago about this very subject:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69917-0.html
Really not too deep, but still a funny coincidence with this thread...
nikolatesla20
December 29th, 2005, 20:47
Referencing the article in the link (good article by the way) the image of the "analog hole" makes one think of another "a" hole. Anyway, one could still use a very sensitve microphone to pick up the signal.
Also, most hardware hackers keep older equipment around just for these reasons. Maybe in 30 years every piece of hardware will be locked down, but certainly not for a while!
Now if they could just lock my ears and eyes....oh, and those movie spoiler sites that give out the story - you guys are next! Summarization is illegal plagarism! DANG YOU ALL TO HECK!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
-nt20
Woodmann
December 29th, 2005, 21:40
Let me rephrase a few things.
I paid for whatever rights they wish to grant me to use the software.
I can not find the part of the agreement that says I must allow "their software" to access the internet and transmit whatever it wants.
I think we are getting close to critical mass with all this hidden crap. It makes all software nothing more than malware because they are not disclosing what they are doing.
What is going to happen when they start using ring -1 ?
"You have not paid for the latest upgrade. Pay now and we will return control of your computer back to you".
I recall a post I had on an older forum many years ago. I dont recall the question/statement I had made but I do recall the reply which was, "You are to paranoid". It came from more then one person.
I suppose the computer I paid for is not really mine either. The whole intent of the internet is to hold you hostage for money, effective, yet absurd.
Woodmann
Kayaker
December 29th, 2005, 23:40
Quote:
I can not find the part of the agreement that says I must allow "their software" to access the internet and transmit whatever it wants. |
That's the part I found particularly annoying, once finding out that an online registration and extra software was required. I'm fairly certain that nowhere on the package I was going to purchase in the store, did it say anything about this. (I'd have to take another look at the box to be 100% sure).
I have no problem with the mode of registration per se, the company can do as it sees fit
as long as it informs the consumer. But I do think they should be up front about it and any hidden costs or requirements should be clearly stated on the package. This should also be clearly specified on any official home page as well, which it may or may not be.
I finally found out about Steam from the friggen 'Wikipedia' of all things. As a consumer I feel lied to that I didn't know I would incur dialup costs on top of my purchase price. ..Shades of used-car buying.. If I had of bought it unknowingly as a gift and someone else would have had to online register I would have felt doubly bad.
It should be Consumer Informed, not Consumer Beware. This is where the real deceit lays. This is MY computer, I want to know everything YOU are going to do on it. If you tell me honestly and up front, then I trust your software, your programmers, your company, your integrity, and I will purchase your product. You pull a coy marketing trick, then you're on the bottom of my list and will simply not get my dollars.
Kayaker
CluelessNoob
December 30th, 2005, 01:04
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]The whole intent of the internet is to hold you hostage for money, effective, yet absurd. |
I thought the whole intent of the internet was porn distribution.

disavowed
December 30th, 2005, 05:36
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Silver]Piracy has everything to do with cost. If you could buy a legal copy of XP for $1, *everyone* would buy it. |
Hmm... perhaps I spoke too generally. I think a lot of it depends on location. In developing ("third-world"

countries, I think more people would certainly buy XP if it only cost $1, since piracy is very high in these countries because incomes are so low. However, there are plenty of people in wealthy countries who do have the money who I don't think would pay $1 for XP instead of pirating it.
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Woodmann]I paid for whatever rights they wish to grant me to use the software.
I can not find the part of the agreement that says I must allow "their software" to access the internet and transmit whatever it wants.
I think we are getting close to critical mass with all this hidden crap. It makes all software nothing more than malware because they are not disclosing what they are doing. |
Then get a lawyer and sue.
Peres
December 30th, 2005, 06:09
When you don't have the money to buy an expensive car, you can't help but buy the cheap one.
As software is not considered critical for life the existence of a software market is pretty natural. Corporates can't be blamed for raising prices, protecting their products or proposing byzantine licensing schemes. They are free to do so, and this can't be considered either a limitation on our liberty or an attack to our privacy. I feel copying software is actually stealing.
The real problem with software is what the TCPA consortium is trying to impose. We don't need no certified computing at home. We need to be able to access services on the Internet even if we enjoy playing a stolen copy of HalfLife 2 or we are free software developers. That is the true limitation on freedom we are to get if things keep going.
Peres
p.s. I hate Fritz
Silver
December 30th, 2005, 08:55
Interesting article dELTA posted. Quote:
Quote:
"We have never seen a PVR that has offered the same features, like the ability to send shows from one machine to another, automatically delete commercials and a very large hard drive capacity." |
I disagree with this. Search eBay and you'll find thousands of Tivo and Tivo mods. I worked with a guy who had a modded 160gig Tivo with a network card in it. Tivo simply runs some cut down version of linux, it's simple to access it over the network.
Later in that same article it says Tivo have signed up for the trusted content, which is interesting.
I believe at some point "soon" (less than 5 years maybe) there will be a huge split in the computer-world, caused by this whole DRM thing. Microsoft will maintain overall dominance on corporate and joe public desktops, but alternative operating systems such as Linux will finally become the major alternative for people-with-a-clue. Developers will put the effort into maturing the products (OpenOffice for example) so that they do match their Microsoft counterparts, and they'll be helped by ex-Windows developers who moved platforms because of the DRM issues. Far east hardware manufacturers will continue to provide non-DRM compatible hardware for the alternative o/s to run on.
There's another interesting question. The whole principle behind trusted systems is that you don't allow anyone to just make their own software/device and run it, because this will circumvent the chain of trust. So what does that mean? An absolute Wintel monopoly on desktop computing, because they won't release the specs to third parties? At least in Europe there would be a serious monopoly issue, Microsoft just got fined some stupid amount of money for the same thing...
nikolatesla20
December 30th, 2005, 10:28
Well, on one hand, trusted computing will supposedly create an air of "trust" - as long as they build it on correctly opened encryption technologies which have been proven.
On the other hand, it could cause a more closed model, in requiring developers to possibly have a type of license to build software for a system.
On the third hand, I think that may be a good thing because to enforce a developer to register with a platform will lead to better code and less crap. I still support the novice's ability to create programs, but in a future which leads to almost our entire identity being digital, someone has to make some strict guidelines - it has to start somewhere. (What I mean to say actually is someone has to enforce the guidelines - the guidelines themselves should be open and public for peer review).
It's just like system drivers today. For windows, in order to get a windows compatiblity rating, you have to meet their tests and standards and not just throw together a driver overnight. It actually has to pass fuzz tests and garbage data and not blue screen the machine. In the past MS got blamed for a lot of blue screens which could be pointed to more the develper's fault for bad practices and non-thorough testing. If software is ever to be considered professional and robust, their has to be standards that develpers are forced to follow. It's just the way it is. Safety of software in the future will have to be enforced the same way safety of cars or trains or anything physical is. That's what the trusted computing is helping to achieve. (although deep down it still seems to smack of 1984). But logically it really is needed. How many of you bank on the internet or buy something without actually reading their ssl client certificate at least once? I always check them out.
-nt20
Peres
December 30th, 2005, 17:25
Quote:
[Originally Posted by nikolatesla20]
... On the other hand, it could cause a more closed model, in requiring developers to possibly have a type of license to build software for a system.
... -nt20 |
Developers will have to pay for software to be certificated by the authorities' licensees. Who sets the price for certification will decide between 'good' and 'evil' software developers. A good day for freedom.
Peres
Woodmann
December 31st, 2005, 00:54
Hey disa,
That sounds like sour grapes

.
You gotta throw me a bone on this one. "They" do not reveal everything.
Some old school props to you, you tell it like it is

.
Woodmann
CluelessNoob
December 31st, 2005, 16:50
Quote:
[Originally Posted by disavowed]However, there are plenty of people in wealthy countries who do have the money who I don't think would pay $1 for XP instead of pirating it. |
I think that really goes without saying, but the average joe would pay for it and be alot less disgusted with the bugs and lousy support.
Heck, I might even buy a copy at that price - just for giggles.
In all seriousness, the best way to keep the M$ profit machine at bay (besides linux) is to use fleabay. I picked up a copy of NT4 shortly after 2000 was released for $20, still sealed with the COA.
dELTA
January 2nd, 2006, 14:26
A not-completely-new, but still very thoughtful and insightful speech against DRM (by EFF employee Cory Doctorow):
http://www.dashes.com/anil/stuff/doctorow-drm-ms.html
disavowed
January 8th, 2006, 03:31
Quote:
[Originally Posted by CluelessNoob]I picked up a copy of NT4 shortly after 2000 was released for $20, still sealed with the COA. |
Err... I wouldn't recommend connecting an NT4 box to any networks... Microsoft hasn't released any security patches for NT4 in the past year since it was retired (http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Availability/Retiring.asp ("http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Availability/Retiring.asp"))
Silver
January 8th, 2006, 08:12
Ah, you're approaching that the wrong way. I prefer the "Swiss Cheese" security model. Use so many unpatched, insecure systems that an attacker has potentially hundreds, if not thousands of possible avenues of exploitation. Then, because of the excessive choice, the attacker can't believe what he's seeing, suffers a panic of indecision and promptly fails to choose any hole to exploit. Instead he gives up and goes to watch another episode of Lost. Hey presto, no hack and your systems are still secure...
It's what I do, and I've never been hac+++ATH NO CARRIER

CluelessNoob
January 8th, 2006, 16:19
Quote:
[Originally Posted by disavowed]Err... I wouldn't recommend connecting an NT4 box to any networks... Microsoft hasn't released any security patches for NT4 in the past year since it was retired (http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Availability/Retiring.asp ("http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Availability/Retiring.asp")) |
I don't anymore, but even when I did it was tighter than anything MS could dream of on a good day.
It was running proxy server software on a free e-machine to isolate my internal network from the outside (this was before hardware firewalls were cheap and easy to find, I had my first broadband connection in 98 or 99).
The software was not stable on Win98 (or more accurately Win98 was not stable), but would run for months without intervention on NT4.
If the Gibson port scanner is any indication my proxy PC did not exist.
The whole setup was retired about three years ago in favor of a hardware router/firewall, mainly because I needed new VPN protocol support and the software upgrades were killing me. The e-machine was on its last legs as well, so the timing was near perfect.
disavowed
May 9th, 2006, 01:00
Quote:
[Originally Posted by disavowed]What are they taking from your registry? Your name? Your credit card info? Your web browsing history? No, none of that (at least I would hope none of that). I don't see it as an invasion of privacy if they're not stealing any Personally Identifiable Information. |
Back when I made this post in December, I was looking for a good online definition of PII. I
finally found one - http://www.windowsonecare.com/secinfo/glossary.aspx#personally_identifiable_information ("http://www.windowsonecare.com/secinfo/glossary.aspx#personally_identifiable_information")
Silver
May 9th, 2006, 07:09
Here's a great example of PII. Ever booked a flight online and given your frequent flier number, then checked that box in your webbrowser that stores it for the next time? After all, it's only a frequent flyer number, right - it's not like it's a security risk...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/story/0,,1766266,00.html
Sure, it's a flaw in the airline's process rather than customer laxity, but just think how many innocuous pieces of info you keep that could be exploited in this way.
"I'll take Amazon.com remembering your credit card number for $100, Alex."
Kayaker
May 11th, 2006, 11:03
Quote:
[Originally Posted by LLXX]It seems that the software companies are trying to gain more and more control over your machine, especially with all this "Trusted Computing" (I wouldn't trust them...) |
A sentiment shared by many of course, as much out of principle as of logic/reason. Either way here's an entertaining restatement of the same issues surrounding TC: (posted on rootkit.com)
http://www.lafkon.net/tc/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.