Posted Apr 25, 2007 2:47 am PT

I'm with you RetoDon8, It makes sense bringing out a copy protection on launch, but as the time moves on, and the sales diminish, and the crackers know what to do... then it makes sense to me to remove the protection... even if it is just for us that actually did buy the game and don't want to put the cd in the drive the whole time. Good for them!

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 8, 2007 5:18 pm PT

Securom checking was removed IN the 3220 patch.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 5, 2007 6:12 pm PT

My understanding of patches removing copy protection is: Developers know how useless it is. Publishers insist it helps. So by the contract between developer and publisher, they are required to use copy protection. However often the contract doesn't say it has to stay in, so it gets removed. Not least because it simplifies trouble shooting, as almost all forms of copy protection have had systems they just won't work in.
And there does seem to be a growing realisation that copy protection only slows down burn-a-copy-for-a-friend piracy, not sell-at-market piracy. Which means publishers will come up with new ways of protecting their content, such as needing a valid serial to get updates and extra content.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 5, 2007 11:31 am PT

At first copy protection protects games against getting copied.
After a while crackers figure out how to work around the protection, and games get copied anyway.
Also the largest amount of games is sold at the start, after a while there won't be as much sales anymore.
Add to this the fact that the copy protection, though mostly useless, can still annoy people that did pay money for the game, and you'll see how some developers realise it's a good idea to just get rid of it.

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 5, 2007 10:27 am PT

Yeah that's a good point. LOL. I never thought about that. I dunno. Maybe that's how they can charge "superbly cheap" prices for their games. =)

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 5, 2007 8:51 am PT

good point

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment