I couldn't agree more. I recently had my laptop's hard drive go out on me and therefore it had to be replaced, though thankfully it was still well within the warranty I purchased along with the machine a year ago. It also helped that my dad had created system restore CD's the instant the laptop was configured properly after taking it out of the box. But anyway, at the time of the crash I had copies of SOD, GTC, LW and even Sarah on the machine. But even though I've managed to reinstall and reregister most games i haven't written to request new keys for the GMA titles precisely because of this situation. The sad part is that SOD used to be a name and key-based system, at least back when I purchased it back in '04. It's fortunate because at the time I was using a dinosaur of a computer running WIndows 98 Second Edition with only 64 MB of ram. Then the machine had a stroke or something and died on me, and then I moved out here to Idaho and, since I was living with my folks I was using my mom's computer which was even older. But fortunately the unlock code I had for SOD was valid, so I was able to install it on the new machine. This was still V1.0 as I recall. THen 1.2 came out and switched to hardware-based registration and every time i've had to get a new computer or the computer has crashed I've had to write David. I'm just glad he's thus far been willing to replace keys, but it just proves the point that if people would stick to name-based keys this probably wouldn't happen so much and the developer could focus on the really important stuff.
We are the Knights who say...Ni!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Ward" <thomasward1...@gmail.com>
To: "Gamers Discussion list" <gamers@audyssey.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Audyssey] Registration methods


Hi Dark,
Interesting that you braught this topic up. I've been working on a
white paper on this issue, and was planning on publishing it it after
I am done upgrading the USA Games website. However, the conclusions in
my white paper are pretty much the same as yours below. Hardware based
product registration doesn't work.
For one thing in my white paper I site a number of products such as
Windows Vista, Windows 7, Jaws, etc that use some kind of hardware
based licensing such as tying the product key to the computer hardware
or in Jaws's case a dongle. In each and every case I was  able to
locate cracks for each of those software products one could download
and install that would disable or remove the licensing system in the
software.  That, of course, proves that no matter how good you think
your security system is there is someone out there who can break it
and then redistribute the crack to others over the internet.
In fact, my research seams to show the more difficult you make it to
crack the registration system the more crackers will try and break it
until they eventually find away to do so. It is like a big challenge
to them. However, the bottom line is that given enough motivation any
security system can be cracked by someone with enough skill to do so.
I then go on in the white paper to discuss the many ways that hardware
based license keys have harmed both the developer and the legal
customer alike. For one thing developers have to constantly deal with
key replacements, because computers and hardware often does change
invalidating the license key. Usually, companies like Microsoft charge
lots of money for a hardware key replacement which is totally unfair
to the customer as he or she has likely purchased a legal copy of the
software, and shouldn't have to pay extra for a new key. At least not
a large sum of money. Bottom line hardware based keys are a major
inconvenience  for everyone involved, and don't even stop piracy from
taking place.

The final section of the white paper goes into the problem that
hardware licensing, current marketing, etc hasnt' addressed the
underlying issues involved in software piracy. Instead of addressing
those issues as best as we can the software industry has decided to
forge ahead with more and more restrictive licensing  systems, and as
a result the legal customers suffer more than the pirates it was
suppose to protect the software from.
One of the big issues, of course,is money.  The number one group of
people most likely to pirate software are those who are finantially
unable to purchase the software legally. Jaws, for example, is a very
expensive piece of software for most people, and the problem is made
worse when you take in account the majority of Freedom Scientific's
customers are unenployed and living on some sort of disability income.
They don't offer any kind of payment plan, nor do they lower their
prices for foreign markets where   the income is considerably less
than in the united States. Do to the current price of the software and
the way it is marketed it is not surprising that someone somewhere
would crack it and make it available to those low income markets that
simply can't afford it.
The second group of people likely to use a crack are those who
purchased the software legally, but want to disable the hardware
licensing for perfectly reasonable reasons. Usually,it comes down to
the fact the end user frequently updates his/her hardware and
constantly needs to request new keys for all of his/her software. A
quick fix for that problem is to grab a patch that simply turns the
hardware licensing off, and gives them more freedom to use their
software in the way that they choose without restrictive licensing
systems.
That's a situation I can fully identify with personally. As I have
mentioned many times back in February 2007 I purchased a legal
licensed version of Windows Vista for my desktop. However, when my
wife and I moved in July the desktop didn't survive the move. I
purchased a new processor, motherboard, updated the ram and got it
running like a top again. However, the nice new copy of Vista I
purchased only six months earlier came up asking me for a new product
key and locked me completely out of the operating system. I called
Microsoft, explained to them what happened, and if I could have a new
key. They told me because I had replaced the motherboard, processor,
etc that that constituted a new computer license and wanted to charge
me full price for a new key.  Now, that was hardly fair considering I
had purchased a legal copy in good faith, and the computer dying
wasn't my fault.  I told them to cram it up their butts, got online
using my laptop, and downloaded a little crack that disabled the
license key and my desktop ran perfectly fine with that crack until I
updated to a legal copy of Windows 7.
Given the facts of the matter one might be hard pressed to call this
piracy. After all I had purchased a copy of Vista legally, and events
out of my control caused my desktop computer's hardware to fail. I
replaced it and Microsoft expected me to replace Vista as well for
full price. According to them what I did was software piracy, but in
my own personal opinion I had already purchased the software, my copy
was a legal copy, and if a little patch would unlock Vista and restore
it to working order what's the big deal?
However, this case is exactly why hardware licensing doesn't work.
Instead of harming the real pirates Microsoft's restrictive licensing
was harming a customer who legally purchased the software and wasn't
intending on pirating it. That customer, me, felt there was no
alternative then to grab a crack to resolve a problem Microsoft caused
by wanting to over charge me for a key replacement, and by using a
rediculously restrictive licensing system in the first place.
In the end my white paper closes on some advice for software
developers. That is if you want to use a license key to protect your
software use a method that will keep the legal users honest, but that
will not greatly effect their operation of the software. Don't worry
about dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into a high tech
hardware key system that is little more secure than simpler security
systems. Chances are good pirates are not going to buy your software
legally regardless how tough the security system is to break. If you
really want to prevent software piracy address some of the issues that
cause piracy such as the cost of the software, use regional pricing
that is appropriate for the income of your potential customer base,
and use a minimum security system designed to keep honest users
honest.  I feel if a developer does that he or she will make plenty of
money off their software, and the so-called loss to piracy isn't going
to be as bad as they believe.
So as to your question what willI be doing with Mysteries of the
Ancients. Well, the answer is I plan to follow my own advice. I am
likely going to use a simple licensing system like the one I used in
Montezuma's Revenge that takes a name and product key and unlocks the
software.  It isn't very secure, some might say, but it is the kind of
system that keeps honest customers honest, and doesn't cause honest
customers any grief for registering my software legally.


On 6/17/10, dark <d...@xgam.org> wrote:
Hi.

With all the talk of shades recently I fancied going back and replaying it. However, I noticed to my horror, ---- probably due to my user accounts crash
last december all my gma engine games have got deregistered sinse my
computers' user code has changed.

I now have to unfortunately go and pester david and phil to send me new
keys. While I'm sure both of them will, this does bring up a point.

while I certainly see the point of having game registration, it does strike me that the method employed can have a lot of knock on effect not just for
the end user, but for the developers, ---- sinse I'm sure both phil and
david have far better things to do than generate new keys for me just
because my computer went temporarily screwey.

While I'm fully aware there are scumbags who will trade reg keys and pirate
software, or trade downloadable program install files for those who use a
secure download method like 7-128, I do have to wonder if ultimately having
the registration so tied to such a changeable value as the users' own
hardware is any the better, and if the effort is worth the cost.

the online registration method that people like Jason are using, or the
incripted name method used by Philip bennifall, do strike me as a reasonable
compromise, ---- sinse they are easy for the user to recover themselves
without having to bug the developer.

I'd be interested to know what method tom is planning with mota.

Beware the Grue!

Dark.
---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gam...@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.


---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gam...@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.


---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gam...@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.

Reply via email to