Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
On 17 Jul 2005 05:58:37 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>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.
True, it really isn't a good idea to have drivers run at ring zero;
really the only reason it is done (should be done) is for performance
reasons. A bad driver can screw up your system. Starforce puts it
there to insure that nothing else can "slip under" its so-called
protection (I believe some CD-copying programs also use ring-zero
drivers to get direct access to the optical drive hardware, hence many
of the conflicts). I don't think it's a smart move on their part,
especially since it -like all copy-protection methods- does not work.
Having said that, I have a good number of Starforce "protected" games
and not once has one caused Windows to hose itself because of a bad
Starforce driver.
>> -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.
I agree; there probably was a decision somewhere that it really wasn't
worth the bother of removing the software since it was initially
considered pretty harmless; there wasn't such widespread usage of
programs like Nero et al. Sure it might have taken up a few more
resources (CPU/RAM) but these were minimal and -as a bonus- the user
wouldn't have to reboot after uninstall to remove the damn things (or
reboot after re-installing the game). In other words -as far as they
considered- didn't hurt to keep it in, and it would be slightly more
annoying to the user to remove.
Again, it's not something I think was that smart a decision, but I
like a lean, clean and mean machine and work to keep it that way.
Unused software -be they ring-zero drivers or otherwise- get kicked
off the drive. But I don't think there was any evil conspiracy on the
part of Starforce or the game publishers, just sloppiness.
>> - 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.
>Nero AG should do everyone, including legit gamers and game publishers,
>a huge favor and sue Starforce into bankruptcy.
Certainly a terrible flaw in the program, be it purposeful or
otherwise. And I certainly have no intent on defending their software;
I think it's poorly thought out system that was bound to lead to
problems sooner or later.
But on the other hand, Starforce is merely the latest iteration of
copy-protection methods that run back ten or fifteen years. It doesn't
work, but on the other hand it isn't (really) worse than any of the
previous iterations of the technology. Steam, however, is a new
paradigm that is far worse in its scope than the older technologies.
Steam has all the problems of disk-based copy-protection systems and
throws in a few new ones, without adding any significant benefits for
the user. This, ultimately, was the thrust of my argument; not that
Starforce is *good* (it isn't), just that Steam (and its
in-development kin) are far worse.
>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.
For most people, Starforce DOES work too. I'd wager Starforce has at
least as equal a "success rate" as Steam does (e.g., about the same
percentage of users have issues with Steam as they do with Starforce:
not very much). But then Steam adds various penalties on top of that:
it requires internet access (preferably broadband with straight port
80 access); it makes re-selling the game difficult (unless you jump
through hoops), it requires online-authorization to play, it forces
its version-control on the users, etc. And for all that, it STILL
ultimately doesn't work as "copy protection", since -surprise
surprise- pirated versions of Half Life 2 and Counterstrike Zero are
apparently available on the net.
h
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram