Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The primary disadvantages of Starforce are:
>
> -it uses a kernel-level driver which is usually installed without
> adequately notifying the user.
This is actually a MONSTER problem. Windows XP, unlike Windows 2000 and
Linux, runs drivers at ring zero. That means that a buggy driver will
destabilize the entire system, causing system-wide crashes. Just to
highlight what this means, a user application CAN NOT crash the windows
xp system, it can only crash itself. By installing Starforce you're
taking it on trust that their filth is bug free and wont crash your
system.
This, alone, puts it in a much lower circle of hell than steam can ever
aspire to.
> -Most games don't uninstall it automatically when they uninstall
> themselves (this is more the fault of the publisher, as they are the
> ones who install it in the first place and are responsible for
> removing it).
AFAIK the problem is/was that Starforce handed out allegedly buggy
uninstall routines. I say allegedly because I'm convinced it was really
a conscious design decision to leave the "protection" running; it
wasn't until third parties released starforce removal tools that
starforce themselves released a removal tool.
> - most egregiously, it conflicts with numerous CD/DVD burning
> programs, often requiring people to disable or uninstall useful
> applications just to get a game to run
Worse, it may simply crash programs it doesn't like. I had people tell
me that Nero was useless for backing up digital photos, because Nero
was so buggy and "crashed all the time". Again I think starforce claims
this is a bug, not a feature, of starforce - but again, that's no
better.
Imagine the outcry if it'd been Microsoft who'd - without informing the
user - installed a DMCA-enforcing driver which consistently caused
Firefox to crash!
Nero AG should do everyone, including legit gamers and game publishers,
a huge favor and sue Starforce into bankruptcy.
> I think Starforce (and other similar over-the-top copy-protection
> systems, such as the newest Securom) are the wrong direction for
> software publishers, but I much prefer it to the direction Steam (and
> other in-development over-the-web-authorization programs) is taking
> us.
I don't. I hate disk-based protection. It does nothing at all to stop
piracy, it *only* penalizes legitimate users. For disk based copy
protection in general it is time to realize that repeated failure (for
over 20 years now) does not guarantee eventual success, and in the
particular case of starforce disk based copy protection has progressed
well over the line to being malicious software.
Online account based protection on the other hand DOES work, as far as
online play is concerned anyway, with the downsides are that 1) you
need an internet connection, and 2) it may be difficult or even
impossible to sell the game once you tire of it. Compared to starforce
that seems like pretty tame downsides to me.
Fundamentally, I think disk based copy protection is flawed because it
protects the wrong thing. We're not interested in restricting access or
copying of the physical medium, we're interested in avoiding having
multiple copies of the content played simultaneously - and the logical
solution to that is accounts.
1%Be.84645$Tt.11832@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram