<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_163226</id>
	<title>The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267291200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>spidweb writes <i>"Much virtual ink has been spilled over Ubisoft's new, <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/02/18/0719256/Ubisofts-Constant-Net-Connection-DRM-Confirmed">harsh DRM system</a> for <em>Assassin's Creed 2</em>. You must have a constant internet connection, and, if your connection breaks, the game exits. While this has angered many (and justifiably so), most writers on the topic have made an error. They think that this system, like all DRM systems in the past, will be easily broken. This article explains why, as dreadful as the system is, it does have a chance of <a href="http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/02/awful-anti-pirate-system-that-will.html">holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money</a>. As such it is, if nothing else, a fascinating experiment. From the article: '<em>Assassin's Creed 2</em> is different in a key way. Remember, all of its code for saving and loading games (a significant feature, I'm sure you would agree) is tied into logging into a distant server and sending data back and forth. This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away, with said machine being programmed to accept, save, and return the game data. This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>spidweb writes " Much virtual ink has been spilled over Ubisoft 's new , harsh DRM system for Assassin 's Creed 2 .
You must have a constant internet connection , and , if your connection breaks , the game exits .
While this has angered many ( and justifiably so ) , most writers on the topic have made an error .
They think that this system , like all DRM systems in the past , will be easily broken .
This article explains why , as dreadful as the system is , it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money .
As such it is , if nothing else , a fascinating experiment .
From the article : 'Assassin 's Creed 2 is different in a key way .
Remember , all of its code for saving and loading games ( a significant feature , I 'm sure you would agree ) is tied into logging into a distant server and sending data back and forth .
This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away , with said machine being programmed to accept , save , and return the game data .
This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spidweb writes "Much virtual ink has been spilled over Ubisoft's new, harsh DRM system for Assassin's Creed 2.
You must have a constant internet connection, and, if your connection breaks, the game exits.
While this has angered many (and justifiably so), most writers on the topic have made an error.
They think that this system, like all DRM systems in the past, will be easily broken.
This article explains why, as dreadful as the system is, it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money.
As such it is, if nothing else, a fascinating experiment.
From the article: 'Assassin's Creed 2 is different in a key way.
Remember, all of its code for saving and loading games (a significant feature, I'm sure you would agree) is tied into logging into a distant server and sending data back and forth.
This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away, with said machine being programmed to accept, save, and return the game data.
This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31325454</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you could redirect the requests to their server to localhost and set up a false server locally</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you could redirect the requests to their server to localhost and set up a false server locally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could redirect the requests to their server to localhost and set up a false server locally</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297940</id>
	<title>Perfection is Not the Aim</title>
	<author>LionKimbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267297080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.</i></p><p>But that's exactly the aim.  This is about making money.</p><p>Game publishers buy protection <i>by the week.</i></p><p>Here's how it works:</p><p>Game development houses, generally, <i>do not</i> write their own copyright protection systems -- that's not their expertise!  They just work on making a good game.</p><p>As the game nears release, they shop around for companies that write protection systems.  How are they priced?</p><p>The protection companies say, "Well, for $N,000, we can implement protection scheme X1, which should keep you protected from crackers for about 2 weeks.  But for $N0,000, we can implement protection scheme X2, which should keep you protected from crackers for about 6 weeks."  They know roughly how much time it takes, because they have prior experience.</p><p>The publisher asks itself, "How many copies are we selling between week 2 and week 6?"  The bulk of a games' profit is made in the first 1-4 months, so however much time they can buy, that's money in the pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in effect instead of having a copy that does n't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.But that 's exactly the aim .
This is about making money.Game publishers buy protection by the week.Here 's how it works : Game development houses , generally , do not write their own copyright protection systems -- that 's not their expertise !
They just work on making a good game.As the game nears release , they shop around for companies that write protection systems .
How are they priced ? The protection companies say , " Well , for $ N,000 , we can implement protection scheme X1 , which should keep you protected from crackers for about 2 weeks .
But for $ N0,000 , we can implement protection scheme X2 , which should keep you protected from crackers for about 6 weeks .
" They know roughly how much time it takes , because they have prior experience.The publisher asks itself , " How many copies are we selling between week 2 and week 6 ?
" The bulk of a games ' profit is made in the first 1-4 months , so however much time they can buy , that 's money in the pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.But that's exactly the aim.
This is about making money.Game publishers buy protection by the week.Here's how it works:Game development houses, generally, do not write their own copyright protection systems -- that's not their expertise!
They just work on making a good game.As the game nears release, they shop around for companies that write protection systems.
How are they priced?The protection companies say, "Well, for $N,000, we can implement protection scheme X1, which should keep you protected from crackers for about 2 weeks.
But for $N0,000, we can implement protection scheme X2, which should keep you protected from crackers for about 6 weeks.
"  They know roughly how much time it takes, because they have prior experience.The publisher asks itself, "How many copies are we selling between week 2 and week 6?
"  The bulk of a games' profit is made in the first 1-4 months, so however much time they can buy, that's money in the pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298236</id>
	<title>Re:Sooooo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave it to Anonymous Coward to give Anonymous ideas...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to Anonymous Coward to give Anonymous ideas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to Anonymous Coward to give Anonymous ideas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299244</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1267262040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.</p></div><p>Really?  What do you think the person selling their game used is going to go spend that money on?  More video games, would be my guess.</p><p>I'm certain you're correct, but it's rather remarkably short-sighted on the part of publishers to think every used sale represents a potential new game sale lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For every used game sold , the game editor gets ZERO.Really ?
What do you think the person selling their game used is going to go spend that money on ?
More video games , would be my guess.I 'm certain you 're correct , but it 's rather remarkably short-sighted on the part of publishers to think every used sale represents a potential new game sale lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.Really?
What do you think the person selling their game used is going to go spend that money on?
More video games, would be my guess.I'm certain you're correct, but it's rather remarkably short-sighted on the part of publishers to think every used sale represents a potential new game sale lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298760</id>
	<title>Loopback?</title>
	<author>HunterA3</author>
	<datestamp>1267301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder if there will be a hack that tricks the game into looking at the loopback and an external program for ping responses to allow offline game play</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder if there will be a hack that tricks the game into looking at the loopback and an external program for ping responses to allow offline game play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder if there will be a hack that tricks the game into looking at the loopback and an external program for ping responses to allow offline game play</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298486</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I've solved the problem quite easily.</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1267300080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon, because of the overly invasive DRM?</p></div><p>Spore probably got horrible ratings because it's crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon , because of the overly invasive DRM ? Spore probably got horrible ratings because it 's crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon, because of the overly invasive DRM?Spore probably got horrible ratings because it's crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</id>
	<title>It's stupid.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1267295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And heres why: the checks for Internet are already broken just substitute them as checks for the disc and you can see this.  What does this leave?  The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud.  So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.  And who suffers?  Not the pirates, the people who <i>bought</i> the game.  Luckily for me there is nothing in Ubisoft's upcoming lineup that I'm interested in anyway but if other publishers decide to follow this stupid anti-customer lead then I'm just going to go outside and take up baseball.  You know, real baseball, in real life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And heres why : the checks for Internet are already broken just substitute them as checks for the disc and you can see this .
What does this leave ?
The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud .
So , in effect instead of having a copy that does n't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released .
And who suffers ?
Not the pirates , the people who bought the game .
Luckily for me there is nothing in Ubisoft 's upcoming lineup that I 'm interested in anyway but if other publishers decide to follow this stupid anti-customer lead then I 'm just going to go outside and take up baseball .
You know , real baseball , in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And heres why: the checks for Internet are already broken just substitute them as checks for the disc and you can see this.
What does this leave?
The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud.
So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.
And who suffers?
Not the pirates, the people who bought the game.
Luckily for me there is nothing in Ubisoft's upcoming lineup that I'm interested in anyway but if other publishers decide to follow this stupid anti-customer lead then I'm just going to go outside and take up baseball.
You know, real baseball, in real life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297782</id>
	<title>Misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claim that the save and load code is intimately tied to a server is misleading. From what I've read about the game, all save games are stored locally and uploaded some time afterward (This is also how Steam Cloud is usually implemented.) All a hacker needs to do is rip out this second part. It's not actually part of the save/load mechanism - it's an after-effect.</p><p>From an edit made to TFA: "As for the game making local copies of the saved games. IF this turns out to be the case, and IF the game also has easily accessible features in place for loading those saves (as opposed to only caching them there and only being able to load from the distant server), then yes, it's a dumb and easily crackable system." Well, yes, that's exactly what the system is. So...yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claim that the save and load code is intimately tied to a server is misleading .
From what I 've read about the game , all save games are stored locally and uploaded some time afterward ( This is also how Steam Cloud is usually implemented .
) All a hacker needs to do is rip out this second part .
It 's not actually part of the save/load mechanism - it 's an after-effect.From an edit made to TFA : " As for the game making local copies of the saved games .
IF this turns out to be the case , and IF the game also has easily accessible features in place for loading those saves ( as opposed to only caching them there and only being able to load from the distant server ) , then yes , it 's a dumb and easily crackable system .
" Well , yes , that 's exactly what the system is .
So...yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claim that the save and load code is intimately tied to a server is misleading.
From what I've read about the game, all save games are stored locally and uploaded some time afterward (This is also how Steam Cloud is usually implemented.
) All a hacker needs to do is rip out this second part.
It's not actually part of the save/load mechanism - it's an after-effect.From an edit made to TFA: "As for the game making local copies of the saved games.
IF this turns out to be the case, and IF the game also has easily accessible features in place for loading those saves (as opposed to only caching them there and only being able to load from the distant server), then yes, it's a dumb and easily crackable system.
" Well, yes, that's exactly what the system is.
So...yeah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298168</id>
	<title>Don't worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not for piracy, nor am I anti DRM, but I am anti-DRM when it impacts users. The article is written by someone who is not an expert at the relevant fields: programming and hacking. As such, the article draws erroneous conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not for piracy , nor am I anti DRM , but I am anti-DRM when it impacts users .
The article is written by someone who is not an expert at the relevant fields : programming and hacking .
As such , the article draws erroneous conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not for piracy, nor am I anti DRM, but I am anti-DRM when it impacts users.
The article is written by someone who is not an expert at the relevant fields: programming and hacking.
As such, the article draws erroneous conclusions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302562</id>
	<title>My bet on how it will be hacked</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267291500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember StarForce? The awfully obfuscated, almost unhackable protection? Its developers were so proud of their product, they said it was impossible to hack into it. And pirates believed them. They simply copied the whole drive image along with its smart protection, bit-by-bit.</p><p>Same thing will happen here. Pirates won't try to figure out how the online stuff really works, they will simply capture all the trafic during the test run and replay it locally in the pirated version. Never underestimate the human lazyness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember StarForce ?
The awfully obfuscated , almost unhackable protection ?
Its developers were so proud of their product , they said it was impossible to hack into it .
And pirates believed them .
They simply copied the whole drive image along with its smart protection , bit-by-bit.Same thing will happen here .
Pirates wo n't try to figure out how the online stuff really works , they will simply capture all the trafic during the test run and replay it locally in the pirated version .
Never underestimate the human lazyness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember StarForce?
The awfully obfuscated, almost unhackable protection?
Its developers were so proud of their product, they said it was impossible to hack into it.
And pirates believed them.
They simply copied the whole drive image along with its smart protection, bit-by-bit.Same thing will happen here.
Pirates won't try to figure out how the online stuff really works, they will simply capture all the trafic during the test run and replay it locally in the pirated version.
Never underestimate the human lazyness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31323050</id>
	<title>To hell with all the pirates</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1267441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Okay, I think most of us agree pirates not paying customers and most probably never would shell out a dime. This fact alone is why I want their sorry asses burned on free content; I'm tired of all these people who think that they are exempt from ethical behavior so long as they feel sufficiently anrgy about a publisher's efforts at protecting their work from theft. I do not want these people getting free content just because they feel justified on some idiotic level that its okay. Whether a piece of software has DRM or not, they will pirate it. It's the Ring of Gyges applied to digital media, apparently. For my vote, I'll get behind the companies trying to prevent the piracy, because giving up on this means that those same fucks who rip off software might (read: absolutely will) graduate to my car, bank account, credit cards or other personal possessions one day, if it turns out they can do so without consequence and even a modicum of justification (like being angry that I dare suggest they're all a bunch of thieves).

Once there is no more piracy (and that will never happen) then I will get irritated at companies that attach DRM to their software. In the meantime, the only companies which look foolish right now for these actions are those which install DRM on their games that punish legitimate users more than the pirates. And even then my anger level is going to be more along the lines of , "better fix this," rather than "I will boycott." I'll reserve my genuine loathing and contempt for the pirates, who absolutely should find that they suffer a severe electric shock with every illegal piece of software they download in the name of their right to exploit others creative content without any recognition of worth or effort. Fuck them all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I think most of us agree pirates not paying customers and most probably never would shell out a dime .
This fact alone is why I want their sorry asses burned on free content ; I 'm tired of all these people who think that they are exempt from ethical behavior so long as they feel sufficiently anrgy about a publisher 's efforts at protecting their work from theft .
I do not want these people getting free content just because they feel justified on some idiotic level that its okay .
Whether a piece of software has DRM or not , they will pirate it .
It 's the Ring of Gyges applied to digital media , apparently .
For my vote , I 'll get behind the companies trying to prevent the piracy , because giving up on this means that those same fucks who rip off software might ( read : absolutely will ) graduate to my car , bank account , credit cards or other personal possessions one day , if it turns out they can do so without consequence and even a modicum of justification ( like being angry that I dare suggest they 're all a bunch of thieves ) .
Once there is no more piracy ( and that will never happen ) then I will get irritated at companies that attach DRM to their software .
In the meantime , the only companies which look foolish right now for these actions are those which install DRM on their games that punish legitimate users more than the pirates .
And even then my anger level is going to be more along the lines of , " better fix this , " rather than " I will boycott .
" I 'll reserve my genuine loathing and contempt for the pirates , who absolutely should find that they suffer a severe electric shock with every illegal piece of software they download in the name of their right to exploit others creative content without any recognition of worth or effort .
Fuck them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Okay, I think most of us agree pirates not paying customers and most probably never would shell out a dime.
This fact alone is why I want their sorry asses burned on free content; I'm tired of all these people who think that they are exempt from ethical behavior so long as they feel sufficiently anrgy about a publisher's efforts at protecting their work from theft.
I do not want these people getting free content just because they feel justified on some idiotic level that its okay.
Whether a piece of software has DRM or not, they will pirate it.
It's the Ring of Gyges applied to digital media, apparently.
For my vote, I'll get behind the companies trying to prevent the piracy, because giving up on this means that those same fucks who rip off software might (read: absolutely will) graduate to my car, bank account, credit cards or other personal possessions one day, if it turns out they can do so without consequence and even a modicum of justification (like being angry that I dare suggest they're all a bunch of thieves).
Once there is no more piracy (and that will never happen) then I will get irritated at companies that attach DRM to their software.
In the meantime, the only companies which look foolish right now for these actions are those which install DRM on their games that punish legitimate users more than the pirates.
And even then my anger level is going to be more along the lines of , "better fix this," rather than "I will boycott.
" I'll reserve my genuine loathing and contempt for the pirates, who absolutely should find that they suffer a severe electric shock with every illegal piece of software they download in the name of their right to exploit others creative content without any recognition of worth or effort.
Fuck them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297726</id>
	<title>Few vs world</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First problem is that this is a few paid programmers vs the world. Good luck with that.
Secondly good luck keeping those servers running 24/7 for the next decade. Right now as I write this my daughter is playing Dead or Alive on my original XBOX. She would be pretty ticked if they were to have turned off the servers. Thus they have left code where they can plug in an update that will eliminate their server requirements some time in the future and allow local saving. Saving a game state is really easy. For the most part it is a big serialization. Thus hackers might just intercept the activation of the game state and just dump the data with the load function reversing the same procedure.
Lastly they are going to find that running all these DRM servers is eating into their bottom line big time as these servers are going to receive some wicked hack attempts. Then lastly they are going to really tick off their customers when they lose game data to the hackers(or HD failure) or the hackers put everyone back to square one and rename their characters to Gay McGayster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First problem is that this is a few paid programmers vs the world .
Good luck with that .
Secondly good luck keeping those servers running 24/7 for the next decade .
Right now as I write this my daughter is playing Dead or Alive on my original XBOX .
She would be pretty ticked if they were to have turned off the servers .
Thus they have left code where they can plug in an update that will eliminate their server requirements some time in the future and allow local saving .
Saving a game state is really easy .
For the most part it is a big serialization .
Thus hackers might just intercept the activation of the game state and just dump the data with the load function reversing the same procedure .
Lastly they are going to find that running all these DRM servers is eating into their bottom line big time as these servers are going to receive some wicked hack attempts .
Then lastly they are going to really tick off their customers when they lose game data to the hackers ( or HD failure ) or the hackers put everyone back to square one and rename their characters to Gay McGayster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First problem is that this is a few paid programmers vs the world.
Good luck with that.
Secondly good luck keeping those servers running 24/7 for the next decade.
Right now as I write this my daughter is playing Dead or Alive on my original XBOX.
She would be pretty ticked if they were to have turned off the servers.
Thus they have left code where they can plug in an update that will eliminate their server requirements some time in the future and allow local saving.
Saving a game state is really easy.
For the most part it is a big serialization.
Thus hackers might just intercept the activation of the game state and just dump the data with the load function reversing the same procedure.
Lastly they are going to find that running all these DRM servers is eating into their bottom line big time as these servers are going to receive some wicked hack attempts.
Then lastly they are going to really tick off their customers when they lose game data to the hackers(or HD failure) or the hackers put everyone back to square one and rename their characters to Gay McGayster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303302</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it will be cracked...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267298700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be cracked as quickly as possible.  Why?  IF its hard, its a target and the crackers will want to be the first to break it, <strong>that IS the game for many crackers.</strong></p><p>If it is weak, it'll be cracked by someone else, but cracked all the same.</p><p>Its all just a matter of time, crackers are basically sitting there, daring you to throw something at them and tell them it can't be broken.  History has shown that there is no such thing as an unbreakable system, the questions are simply how and how long it takes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be cracked as quickly as possible .
Why ? IF its hard , its a target and the crackers will want to be the first to break it , that IS the game for many crackers.If it is weak , it 'll be cracked by someone else , but cracked all the same.Its all just a matter of time , crackers are basically sitting there , daring you to throw something at them and tell them it ca n't be broken .
History has shown that there is no such thing as an unbreakable system , the questions are simply how and how long it takes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be cracked as quickly as possible.
Why?  IF its hard, its a target and the crackers will want to be the first to break it, that IS the game for many crackers.If it is weak, it'll be cracked by someone else, but cracked all the same.Its all just a matter of time, crackers are basically sitting there, daring you to throw something at them and tell them it can't be broken.
History has shown that there is no such thing as an unbreakable system, the questions are simply how and how long it takes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298694</id>
	<title>That will probably work...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267301340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah - right - you might not be able to <b>fool</b> this DRM system, but you might be able to kick it out completely, using a disassembler and assembler skill...</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah - right - you might not be able to fool this DRM system , but you might be able to kick it out completely , using a disassembler and assembler skill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah - right - you might not be able to fool this DRM system, but you might be able to kick it out completely, using a disassembler and assembler skill...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31321262</id>
	<title>Re:Yep</title>
	<author>Parts09</author>
	<datestamp>1267435320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is the legality of buying the regular version of the game, but installing a cracked version? I know the EULA says stuff about not reverse engineering, but you aren't doing that. What would a court say if a company tried to call you on that?

Maybe we could start calling the crackers a "Game Optimization Service". hehehehe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the legality of buying the regular version of the game , but installing a cracked version ?
I know the EULA says stuff about not reverse engineering , but you are n't doing that .
What would a court say if a company tried to call you on that ?
Maybe we could start calling the crackers a " Game Optimization Service " .
hehehehe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the legality of buying the regular version of the game, but installing a cracked version?
I know the EULA says stuff about not reverse engineering, but you aren't doing that.
What would a court say if a company tried to call you on that?
Maybe we could start calling the crackers a "Game Optimization Service".
hehehehe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298556</id>
	<title>Long-term sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wondering. Has anyone considered that, for so long as anyone wants to play the game, there will have to be a server maintained with the appropriate code?</p><p>Even though most "gamers" tend toward newer, shinier programs, I still think there is a large enough demographic of people like myself (older computers, less time) who may not buy a game the first year it comes out, and I would be rather displeased to purchase something only to find that  the DRM prevents me from playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering .
Has anyone considered that , for so long as anyone wants to play the game , there will have to be a server maintained with the appropriate code ? Even though most " gamers " tend toward newer , shinier programs , I still think there is a large enough demographic of people like myself ( older computers , less time ) who may not buy a game the first year it comes out , and I would be rather displeased to purchase something only to find that the DRM prevents me from playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering.
Has anyone considered that, for so long as anyone wants to play the game, there will have to be a server maintained with the appropriate code?Even though most "gamers" tend toward newer, shinier programs, I still think there is a large enough demographic of people like myself (older computers, less time) who may not buy a game the first year it comes out, and I would be rather displeased to purchase something only to find that  the DRM prevents me from playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298794</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This. The other comments in this thread are from kiddies who obviously haven't the slightest clue about game programming (or information theory, lol).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
The other comments in this thread are from kiddies who obviously have n't the slightest clue about game programming ( or information theory , lol ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
The other comments in this thread are from kiddies who obviously haven't the slightest clue about game programming (or information theory, lol).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303650</id>
	<title>some of the few copies of this they sell....</title>
	<author>oloron</author>
	<datestamp>1267389000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>will be to the enterprising young hacker(s) who sandbox the whole thing and reverse the streams involved with the loading and saving of game data, set up some quick and dirty webserver  to respond to the proper requests and then thinstall/virtualize the whole damn thing, unless ubisoft is going to withhold a lot of their content on the central servers , i dont see how this screws over anyone BUT the paying people

but sometimes...i am way way off</htmltext>
<tokenext>will be to the enterprising young hacker ( s ) who sandbox the whole thing and reverse the streams involved with the loading and saving of game data , set up some quick and dirty webserver to respond to the proper requests and then thinstall/virtualize the whole damn thing , unless ubisoft is going to withhold a lot of their content on the central servers , i dont see how this screws over anyone BUT the paying people but sometimes...i am way way off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will be to the enterprising young hacker(s) who sandbox the whole thing and reverse the streams involved with the loading and saving of game data, set up some quick and dirty webserver  to respond to the proper requests and then thinstall/virtualize the whole damn thing, unless ubisoft is going to withhold a lot of their content on the central servers , i dont see how this screws over anyone BUT the paying people

but sometimes...i am way way off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299962</id>
	<title>Losing real or imaginary money?</title>
	<author>Osmosis\_Garett</author>
	<datestamp>1267268400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to hear an example of a game that actually <i>LOST</i> money because of piracy. I don't think such a thing has ever happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to hear an example of a game that actually LOST money because of piracy .
I do n't think such a thing has ever happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to hear an example of a game that actually LOST money because of piracy.
I don't think such a thing has ever happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298082</id>
	<title>Legal Implications</title>
	<author>h6x6n</author>
	<datestamp>1267297740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure at all about this, because I'm not terribly sure of how this would work in the legal system, but..

couldn't they be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit?  I frequently do not have internet access, or if I do it pops in and out.  If I buy an application, and because of the developer's intentional ham-stringing, the application shuts itself down, would I have legal recourse?

This isn't an issue like a developer being held accountable for buggy code, because this is clearly an intended part of the program

just a thought, don't know if it has much merit</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure at all about this , because I 'm not terribly sure of how this would work in the legal system , but. . could n't they be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit ?
I frequently do not have internet access , or if I do it pops in and out .
If I buy an application , and because of the developer 's intentional ham-stringing , the application shuts itself down , would I have legal recourse ?
This is n't an issue like a developer being held accountable for buggy code , because this is clearly an intended part of the program just a thought , do n't know if it has much merit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure at all about this, because I'm not terribly sure of how this would work in the legal system, but..

couldn't they be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit?
I frequently do not have internet access, or if I do it pops in and out.
If I buy an application, and because of the developer's intentional ham-stringing, the application shuts itself down, would I have legal recourse?
This isn't an issue like a developer being held accountable for buggy code, because this is clearly an intended part of the program

just a thought, don't know if it has much merit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299354</id>
	<title>How is this different than StarCraft 2?</title>
	<author>ChrisKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1267262820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds a lot like what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2.  Don't like it?  Don't buy it.  That is the route I am taking.  It's a game, not a necessity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds a lot like what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 .
Do n't like it ?
Do n't buy it .
That is the route I am taking .
It 's a game , not a necessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds a lot like what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2.
Don't like it?
Don't buy it.
That is the route I am taking.
It's a game, not a necessity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298710</id>
	<title>Can?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267301400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They WILL, they got no choice, no more choice then my cat has of pouncing when I dangle a string in front of its nose, or I have of rubbing her belly when she goes all cuddly on my lap. We are simple creatures, and hackers are no different. Give them a challenge and they WILL pounce.
</p><p>Has ANY of these DRM architects ever wondered HOW the DRM hackers get the game to hack? Oh, some get it from friends who work at game shops and such, but plenty BUY it. Do you REALLY think the people that crack Windows DRM don't have a legit version themselves? They do. They don't hack for profit or even to save money but because it gives them a thrill.
</p><p>Frankly, I think this game can be broken in a very simple way on release, just create a fake server that says "OK" and simply do without in game saves but use machine states to do it. Sooner or later someone WILL sort this out, after all, the save code is in the game, it must be at one point or another to send the save file over to the server.
</p><p>And there are dozens if not thousands of hackers who smell a challenge.
</p><p>We have seen restrictive DRM before and the more the game company announced how unbreakable their DRM is, the more quickly it has been broken.
</p><p>This bit of DRM will fail because unlike say the PS3, it has to run on a open platform where the user is ultimately in control of the entire system. Every bit that goes in and out can be analyzed and altered at the will of the user. And at the same time all three parts of the encryption puzzle must be available for the game to work.
</p><p>I would be suprised if a working hack isn't out at launch and a complete hack within a month.
</p><p>Meanwhile, everyone who buys the game has to endure this DRM.
</p><p>People of the game industry, "cutting of your nose to spite your face" is NOT a motto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They WILL , they got no choice , no more choice then my cat has of pouncing when I dangle a string in front of its nose , or I have of rubbing her belly when she goes all cuddly on my lap .
We are simple creatures , and hackers are no different .
Give them a challenge and they WILL pounce .
Has ANY of these DRM architects ever wondered HOW the DRM hackers get the game to hack ?
Oh , some get it from friends who work at game shops and such , but plenty BUY it .
Do you REALLY think the people that crack Windows DRM do n't have a legit version themselves ?
They do .
They do n't hack for profit or even to save money but because it gives them a thrill .
Frankly , I think this game can be broken in a very simple way on release , just create a fake server that says " OK " and simply do without in game saves but use machine states to do it .
Sooner or later someone WILL sort this out , after all , the save code is in the game , it must be at one point or another to send the save file over to the server .
And there are dozens if not thousands of hackers who smell a challenge .
We have seen restrictive DRM before and the more the game company announced how unbreakable their DRM is , the more quickly it has been broken .
This bit of DRM will fail because unlike say the PS3 , it has to run on a open platform where the user is ultimately in control of the entire system .
Every bit that goes in and out can be analyzed and altered at the will of the user .
And at the same time all three parts of the encryption puzzle must be available for the game to work .
I would be suprised if a working hack is n't out at launch and a complete hack within a month .
Meanwhile , everyone who buys the game has to endure this DRM .
People of the game industry , " cutting of your nose to spite your face " is NOT a motto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They WILL, they got no choice, no more choice then my cat has of pouncing when I dangle a string in front of its nose, or I have of rubbing her belly when she goes all cuddly on my lap.
We are simple creatures, and hackers are no different.
Give them a challenge and they WILL pounce.
Has ANY of these DRM architects ever wondered HOW the DRM hackers get the game to hack?
Oh, some get it from friends who work at game shops and such, but plenty BUY it.
Do you REALLY think the people that crack Windows DRM don't have a legit version themselves?
They do.
They don't hack for profit or even to save money but because it gives them a thrill.
Frankly, I think this game can be broken in a very simple way on release, just create a fake server that says "OK" and simply do without in game saves but use machine states to do it.
Sooner or later someone WILL sort this out, after all, the save code is in the game, it must be at one point or another to send the save file over to the server.
And there are dozens if not thousands of hackers who smell a challenge.
We have seen restrictive DRM before and the more the game company announced how unbreakable their DRM is, the more quickly it has been broken.
This bit of DRM will fail because unlike say the PS3, it has to run on a open platform where the user is ultimately in control of the entire system.
Every bit that goes in and out can be analyzed and altered at the will of the user.
And at the same time all three parts of the encryption puzzle must be available for the game to work.
I would be suprised if a working hack isn't out at launch and a complete hack within a month.
Meanwhile, everyone who buys the game has to endure this DRM.
People of the game industry, "cutting of your nose to spite your face" is NOT a motto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299788</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1267266780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's certainly an interesting comparison.  World of Warcraft is an online game; the game in question is an offline game.</p><p>It's equally ridiculous to claim that because offline games work so well, it's proof that MMORP game customers would be fine with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's certainly an interesting comparison .
World of Warcraft is an online game ; the game in question is an offline game.It 's equally ridiculous to claim that because offline games work so well , it 's proof that MMORP game customers would be fine with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's certainly an interesting comparison.
World of Warcraft is an online game; the game in question is an offline game.It's equally ridiculous to claim that because offline games work so well, it's proof that MMORP game customers would be fine with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298342</id>
	<title>Stop Holding My Games Hostage!</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1267299120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I hear news like this, it just makes me want to pirate a game more. Why should I, as a paying customer, have to deal with bullshit when pirates don't? Shouldn't paying money for the game give me less hassle than people who don't?
Game companies that dont hold their games hostage get my business- because I'm not going to deal with the DRM bullshit. I'd rather wait till the game is cracked and play it then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I hear news like this , it just makes me want to pirate a game more .
Why should I , as a paying customer , have to deal with bullshit when pirates do n't ?
Should n't paying money for the game give me less hassle than people who do n't ?
Game companies that dont hold their games hostage get my business- because I 'm not going to deal with the DRM bullshit .
I 'd rather wait till the game is cracked and play it then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I hear news like this, it just makes me want to pirate a game more.
Why should I, as a paying customer, have to deal with bullshit when pirates don't?
Shouldn't paying money for the game give me less hassle than people who don't?
Game companies that dont hold their games hostage get my business- because I'm not going to deal with the DRM bullshit.
I'd rather wait till the game is cracked and play it then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306722</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1267379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But do WOW, Hulu or Netflix shut down instantly and remove your progress even for a small blip in service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But do WOW , Hulu or Netflix shut down instantly and remove your progress even for a small blip in service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But do WOW, Hulu or Netflix shut down instantly and remove your progress even for a small blip in service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301064</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1267279140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how do we get it to play it if we can't get it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do we get it to play it if we ca n't get it ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do we get it to play it if we can't get it?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299282</id>
	<title>blackmail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats to stop someone from deploying a ddos against the content/authentication servers? seems that this streaming server(s) would be a lucrative target. Even a partial blackout could ruin the game's reputation and sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats to stop someone from deploying a ddos against the content/authentication servers ?
seems that this streaming server ( s ) would be a lucrative target .
Even a partial blackout could ruin the game 's reputation and sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats to stop someone from deploying a ddos against the content/authentication servers?
seems that this streaming server(s) would be a lucrative target.
Even a partial blackout could ruin the game's reputation and sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297926</id>
	<title>Seems to already be cracked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you search for 1991Razor you'll find what looks like a crack, I've not tested it myself but i wouldn't be surprised if it was legit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you search for 1991Razor you 'll find what looks like a crack , I 've not tested it myself but i would n't be surprised if it was legit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you search for 1991Razor you'll find what looks like a crack, I've not tested it myself but i wouldn't be surprised if it was legit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301338</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>woopate</author>
	<datestamp>1267281120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree with you, were it not for the fact that the game company attributes all lost sales to piracy. All those people who don't buy a game on the grounds of avoiding these absolutely terrible control schemes simply get lumped in with the pirates, for the most part. There's no real way to separate the numbers of people who don't buy, and people who pirate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with you , were it not for the fact that the game company attributes all lost sales to piracy .
All those people who do n't buy a game on the grounds of avoiding these absolutely terrible control schemes simply get lumped in with the pirates , for the most part .
There 's no real way to separate the numbers of people who do n't buy , and people who pirate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with you, were it not for the fact that the game company attributes all lost sales to piracy.
All those people who don't buy a game on the grounds of avoiding these absolutely terrible control schemes simply get lumped in with the pirates, for the most part.
There's no real way to separate the numbers of people who don't buy, and people who pirate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299056</id>
	<title>It's only a challenge...</title>
	<author>Kensai7</author>
	<datestamp>1267303740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent...</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and hackers LOVE challenges!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent... ...and hackers LOVE challenges !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent... ...and hackers LOVE challenges!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298666</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every used game sold, the game editor gets the price that they sold the game for originally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every used game sold , the game editor gets the price that they sold the game for originally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every used game sold, the game editor gets the price that they sold the game for originally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301088</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that we have fully functional RO and WoW servers. These are WAY WAYYYY more complex. This looks easy in comparison. If it doesn't get done it will be purely lack of interest. The only way to ensure it getting hacked is boasting that people can't do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that we have fully functional RO and WoW servers .
These are WAY WAYYYY more complex .
This looks easy in comparison .
If it does n't get done it will be purely lack of interest .
The only way to ensure it getting hacked is boasting that people ca n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that we have fully functional RO and WoW servers.
These are WAY WAYYYY more complex.
This looks easy in comparison.
If it doesn't get done it will be purely lack of interest.
The only way to ensure it getting hacked is boasting that people can't do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298040</id>
	<title>People won't put up with it</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1267297500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fundamental problem with DRM has always been that if it works then it will inevitably cause a lot of hassle for legitimate customers, thus driving consumers to buy different games.</p><p>To take a particular example for this scheme, imagine the following: Your net connection is down, so you can't play WoW with your mates. Good thing you have those single players games that don't need a connection... OH CRAP! Requiring an Internet connection for a single player game is about as sensible as trying to convince people they should use condoms while masturbating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with DRM has always been that if it works then it will inevitably cause a lot of hassle for legitimate customers , thus driving consumers to buy different games.To take a particular example for this scheme , imagine the following : Your net connection is down , so you ca n't play WoW with your mates .
Good thing you have those single players games that do n't need a connection... OH CRAP !
Requiring an Internet connection for a single player game is about as sensible as trying to convince people they should use condoms while masturbating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with DRM has always been that if it works then it will inevitably cause a lot of hassle for legitimate customers, thus driving consumers to buy different games.To take a particular example for this scheme, imagine the following: Your net connection is down, so you can't play WoW with your mates.
Good thing you have those single players games that don't need a connection... OH CRAP!
Requiring an Internet connection for a single player game is about as sensible as trying to convince people they should use condoms while masturbating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298570</id>
	<title>2 words</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267300680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 words:  WoW Emulator.</p><p>If people can make an emulator for an entire game, they can surely make an emulator for just saving the data online.</p><p>Even if the game requires online saves (and there's some doubt) it'll only be a few months before pirate servers exist that you can run on your own machine to store the saves.  You don't even need to be a pirate to want that server emulator, either!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 words : WoW Emulator.If people can make an emulator for an entire game , they can surely make an emulator for just saving the data online.Even if the game requires online saves ( and there 's some doubt ) it 'll only be a few months before pirate servers exist that you can run on your own machine to store the saves .
You do n't even need to be a pirate to want that server emulator , either !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 words:  WoW Emulator.If people can make an emulator for an entire game, they can surely make an emulator for just saving the data online.Even if the game requires online saves (and there's some doubt) it'll only be a few months before pirate servers exist that you can run on your own machine to store the saves.
You don't even need to be a pirate to want that server emulator, either!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303180</id>
	<title>You're mostly all bullsh*ting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267297200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop whining.</p><p>I've got broadband.  Probably something like 3 9's uptime.  I used to play Diablo 2 only by myself, with three PCs (two characters/PCs would just be idling/characters staying in town, so that drops are better/game more difficult for my main hardcore character).</p><p>Never playing with anyone.</p><p>Yet I was *always* playing online. No Internet connection, no Diablo 2 for me.  Guess what ?  With a 3 9's broadband uptime it's not an issue.  Sometimes the connection is lost, deal with it.  It is *very* uncommon.</p><p>Do you hear all the WOW or Counter-Strike players bitch about "not being able to play because Internet is down" ? WTF is wrong with you dude: most people have an Internet connection that is always on.</p><p>It is a non-issue: all those bitchin' that they'll be pissed off when Internet shall be down (wtf? how often do you need to check your mail and find that your connection is down?) are intellectually dishonnest.</p><p>I gave up Diablo2 and now the only game I play is online poker.  Guess what?  I hardly ever have a disconnect and the server is conceived to allow you up to 4 minutes to reconnect.</p><p>Stop being dishonnest.  It's a foolproof anti-piracy scheme that works.  Most people won't bitch.  To the ones who do a) you're intellectually dishonnest  b) don't buy the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop whining.I 've got broadband .
Probably something like 3 9 's uptime .
I used to play Diablo 2 only by myself , with three PCs ( two characters/PCs would just be idling/characters staying in town , so that drops are better/game more difficult for my main hardcore character ) .Never playing with anyone.Yet I was * always * playing online .
No Internet connection , no Diablo 2 for me .
Guess what ?
With a 3 9 's broadband uptime it 's not an issue .
Sometimes the connection is lost , deal with it .
It is * very * uncommon.Do you hear all the WOW or Counter-Strike players bitch about " not being able to play because Internet is down " ?
WTF is wrong with you dude : most people have an Internet connection that is always on.It is a non-issue : all those bitchin ' that they 'll be pissed off when Internet shall be down ( wtf ?
how often do you need to check your mail and find that your connection is down ?
) are intellectually dishonnest.I gave up Diablo2 and now the only game I play is online poker .
Guess what ?
I hardly ever have a disconnect and the server is conceived to allow you up to 4 minutes to reconnect.Stop being dishonnest .
It 's a foolproof anti-piracy scheme that works .
Most people wo n't bitch .
To the ones who do a ) you 're intellectually dishonnest b ) do n't buy the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop whining.I've got broadband.
Probably something like 3 9's uptime.
I used to play Diablo 2 only by myself, with three PCs (two characters/PCs would just be idling/characters staying in town, so that drops are better/game more difficult for my main hardcore character).Never playing with anyone.Yet I was *always* playing online.
No Internet connection, no Diablo 2 for me.
Guess what ?
With a 3 9's broadband uptime it's not an issue.
Sometimes the connection is lost, deal with it.
It is *very* uncommon.Do you hear all the WOW or Counter-Strike players bitch about "not being able to play because Internet is down" ?
WTF is wrong with you dude: most people have an Internet connection that is always on.It is a non-issue: all those bitchin' that they'll be pissed off when Internet shall be down (wtf?
how often do you need to check your mail and find that your connection is down?
) are intellectually dishonnest.I gave up Diablo2 and now the only game I play is online poker.
Guess what?
I hardly ever have a disconnect and the server is conceived to allow you up to 4 minutes to reconnect.Stop being dishonnest.
It's a foolproof anti-piracy scheme that works.
Most people won't bitch.
To the ones who do a) you're intellectually dishonnest  b) don't buy the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298868</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>vitaflo</author>
	<datestamp>1267302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO."</i></p><p>They already got their money, on the original sale.  They have no right to any other money because they no longer own the item in question.  Don't like that?  Then don't deal in tangible/tradable goods.  This of course is why game companies love downloadable sales.  They can cut out used games when everything is virtualized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For every used game sold , the game editor gets ZERO .
" They already got their money , on the original sale .
They have no right to any other money because they no longer own the item in question .
Do n't like that ?
Then do n't deal in tangible/tradable goods .
This of course is why game companies love downloadable sales .
They can cut out used games when everything is virtualized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.
"They already got their money, on the original sale.
They have no right to any other money because they no longer own the item in question.
Don't like that?
Then don't deal in tangible/tradable goods.
This of course is why game companies love downloadable sales.
They can cut out used games when everything is virtualized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298224</id>
	<title>Kinda like BD+?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when Bluray was thought to "have a chance" of stopping piracy......   Seems that it was a paper tiger as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when Bluray was thought to " have a chance " of stopping piracy...... Seems that it was a paper tiger as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when Bluray was thought to "have a chance" of stopping piracy......   Seems that it was a paper tiger as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305926</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. I've been reading some old Apple magazines from 1983 and many advertisements list a particular feature of their product: normal, copyable disks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
I 've been reading some old Apple magazines from 1983 and many advertisements list a particular feature of their product : normal , copyable disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
I've been reading some old Apple magazines from 1983 and many advertisements list a particular feature of their product: normal, copyable disks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298594</id>
	<title>Fuck Ubisoft</title>
	<author>fragMasterFlash</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubisoft has never understood how to do online multiplayer gaming correctly. It has been all downhill since the original Far Cry game and they will never see another penny of my gaming cash. Steam on the other hand is almost perfect. Almost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubisoft has never understood how to do online multiplayer gaming correctly .
It has been all downhill since the original Far Cry game and they will never see another penny of my gaming cash .
Steam on the other hand is almost perfect .
Almost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubisoft has never understood how to do online multiplayer gaming correctly.
It has been all downhill since the original Far Cry game and they will never see another penny of my gaming cash.
Steam on the other hand is almost perfect.
Almost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297876</id>
	<title>Already failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any anti-piracy system that the user has to be aware of and take extra steps to ensure normal use of their game has already failed.</p><p>A good anti-piracy system would prevent piracy AND be transparent to the end-user.</p><p>I've abandoned Windows as a gaming platform due to several of these recent 'advances' in DRM to the point where I don't care much about upgrading my hardware.  I'll play the odd indie game with low requirements and no DRM, but that's about it.</p><p>Schemes like this are only going to kill the PC market (no reason to upgrade specialist GFX hardware if every game that needs good hardware has crazy protection schemes which are just annoying) and I can also see it taking a bite into Windows too (I'm seriously considering installing Ubuntu as my primary OS, my only reason for having Windows was new games, and schemes like this have made that a non-reason)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any anti-piracy system that the user has to be aware of and take extra steps to ensure normal use of their game has already failed.A good anti-piracy system would prevent piracy AND be transparent to the end-user.I 've abandoned Windows as a gaming platform due to several of these recent 'advances ' in DRM to the point where I do n't care much about upgrading my hardware .
I 'll play the odd indie game with low requirements and no DRM , but that 's about it.Schemes like this are only going to kill the PC market ( no reason to upgrade specialist GFX hardware if every game that needs good hardware has crazy protection schemes which are just annoying ) and I can also see it taking a bite into Windows too ( I 'm seriously considering installing Ubuntu as my primary OS , my only reason for having Windows was new games , and schemes like this have made that a non-reason )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any anti-piracy system that the user has to be aware of and take extra steps to ensure normal use of their game has already failed.A good anti-piracy system would prevent piracy AND be transparent to the end-user.I've abandoned Windows as a gaming platform due to several of these recent 'advances' in DRM to the point where I don't care much about upgrading my hardware.
I'll play the odd indie game with low requirements and no DRM, but that's about it.Schemes like this are only going to kill the PC market (no reason to upgrade specialist GFX hardware if every game that needs good hardware has crazy protection schemes which are just annoying) and I can also see it taking a bite into Windows too (I'm seriously considering installing Ubuntu as my primary OS, my only reason for having Windows was new games, and schemes like this have made that a non-reason)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682</id>
	<title>Maybe it will be cracked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM.  I expect this system will delay a crack.  I hope this system will also delay and limit sales resulting in the game not making money after all.  I think Vogel has overestimated the difficulty of hacking the game; it uses the Internet, and thus there's no major difference between talking to a far-away host and talking to good old 127.0.0.1.  So there's no need to set up and maintain servers; a crack could contain a local server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and maybe it wo n't , because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM .
I expect this system will delay a crack .
I hope this system will also delay and limit sales resulting in the game not making money after all .
I think Vogel has overestimated the difficulty of hacking the game ; it uses the Internet , and thus there 's no major difference between talking to a far-away host and talking to good old 127.0.0.1 .
So there 's no need to set up and maintain servers ; a crack could contain a local server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM.
I expect this system will delay a crack.
I hope this system will also delay and limit sales resulting in the game not making money after all.
I think Vogel has overestimated the difficulty of hacking the game; it uses the Internet, and thus there's no major difference between talking to a far-away host and talking to good old 127.0.0.1.
So there's no need to set up and maintain servers; a crack could contain a local server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297930</id>
	<title>Pirate Server</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1267296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pirates need to set up their own DRM/Save/Restore server and hack the game to use it instead.<br> <br>
Problem solved.  Now how badly do you want to do it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pirates need to set up their own DRM/Save/Restore server and hack the game to use it instead .
Problem solved .
Now how badly do you want to do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pirates need to set up their own DRM/Save/Restore server and hack the game to use it instead.
Problem solved.
Now how badly do you want to do it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298936</id>
	<title>Is the focus on games or DRM.</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1267303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a company spends more press time hyping their DRM system, than the actual games, they have a major problem, and it isn't piracy.
<br>
<br>
I see DRM as a way to shut down the 2nd hand games market, more than piracy.  That's been the trend lately.  Activation limits, bonus items etc, are all there to reduce the value of a resold game.   Game publishers seem to think that their products have no right to be resold.
<br>
<br>
I hope someone cracks this shit fast.   Not because I want to pirate these games, but because they've bragged about how hard it will be to crack.  I hope someone shoves a cracked version in their face on 0-day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a company spends more press time hyping their DRM system , than the actual games , they have a major problem , and it is n't piracy .
I see DRM as a way to shut down the 2nd hand games market , more than piracy .
That 's been the trend lately .
Activation limits , bonus items etc , are all there to reduce the value of a resold game .
Game publishers seem to think that their products have no right to be resold .
I hope someone cracks this shit fast .
Not because I want to pirate these games , but because they 've bragged about how hard it will be to crack .
I hope someone shoves a cracked version in their face on 0-day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a company spends more press time hyping their DRM system, than the actual games, they have a major problem, and it isn't piracy.
I see DRM as a way to shut down the 2nd hand games market, more than piracy.
That's been the trend lately.
Activation limits, bonus items etc, are all there to reduce the value of a resold game.
Game publishers seem to think that their products have no right to be resold.
I hope someone cracks this shit fast.
Not because I want to pirate these games, but because they've bragged about how hard it will be to crack.
I hope someone shoves a cracked version in their face on 0-day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31308062</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, instead of going through the trouble of emulating an entire save/load server, I just rip out the function that checks for the server and force the entire game to run in a VM-like environment. When I want to save, I snapshot the whole damn thing to disk (memory state, CPU regs etc etc) and loading goes the opposite way. Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , instead of going through the trouble of emulating an entire save/load server , I just rip out the function that checks for the server and force the entire game to run in a VM-like environment .
When I want to save , I snapshot the whole damn thing to disk ( memory state , CPU regs etc etc ) and loading goes the opposite way .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, instead of going through the trouble of emulating an entire save/load server, I just rip out the function that checks for the server and force the entire game to run in a VM-like environment.
When I want to save, I snapshot the whole damn thing to disk (memory state, CPU regs etc etc) and loading goes the opposite way.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</id>
	<title>Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1267295160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even thought it's hard to crack, it's not uncrackable. A set of talented hackers/programmers can try and reverse engineer the system and build their own server (or a server might leak out). Then, changing the binaries or using some other technique, they can replace the server address with the address for their server. Given enough time, they might do it -- but the game will probably have become deprecated when they do it.<br> <br>With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming. I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even thought it 's hard to crack , it 's not uncrackable .
A set of talented hackers/programmers can try and reverse engineer the system and build their own server ( or a server might leak out ) .
Then , changing the binaries or using some other technique , they can replace the server address with the address for their server .
Given enough time , they might do it -- but the game will probably have become deprecated when they do it .
With that said , this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming .
I 'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even thought it's hard to crack, it's not uncrackable.
A set of talented hackers/programmers can try and reverse engineer the system and build their own server (or a server might leak out).
Then, changing the binaries or using some other technique, they can replace the server address with the address for their server.
Given enough time, they might do it -- but the game will probably have become deprecated when they do it.
With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming.
I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298932</id>
	<title>Tougher than NOPing</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267303140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is tougher than just patching with a few NOPs, but it's hardly insurmountable. At some point, the entire game state is serialized and sent to the server. Later it is retrieved and de-serialized back into the game state. The key is to control where it sends that serialized data stream. Either to a file or to a local server.</p><p>TFA nearly gets the last part, but for some reason assumes that someone would have to set up the one true pirate server somewhere. I don't see why, they would just have to freely distribute the pirate server software so individuals or small groups of friends can set up a server for their use.</p><p>Certainly, it's a lot harder than just patching a few bytes to skip an authentication check, but it's not impossible. Some people consider stuff like this more fun than actually playing the game. Raise the level of challenge and increase the determination of people like that to crack it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is tougher than just patching with a few NOPs , but it 's hardly insurmountable .
At some point , the entire game state is serialized and sent to the server .
Later it is retrieved and de-serialized back into the game state .
The key is to control where it sends that serialized data stream .
Either to a file or to a local server.TFA nearly gets the last part , but for some reason assumes that someone would have to set up the one true pirate server somewhere .
I do n't see why , they would just have to freely distribute the pirate server software so individuals or small groups of friends can set up a server for their use.Certainly , it 's a lot harder than just patching a few bytes to skip an authentication check , but it 's not impossible .
Some people consider stuff like this more fun than actually playing the game .
Raise the level of challenge and increase the determination of people like that to crack it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is tougher than just patching with a few NOPs, but it's hardly insurmountable.
At some point, the entire game state is serialized and sent to the server.
Later it is retrieved and de-serialized back into the game state.
The key is to control where it sends that serialized data stream.
Either to a file or to a local server.TFA nearly gets the last part, but for some reason assumes that someone would have to set up the one true pirate server somewhere.
I don't see why, they would just have to freely distribute the pirate server software so individuals or small groups of friends can set up a server for their use.Certainly, it's a lot harder than just patching a few bytes to skip an authentication check, but it's not impossible.
Some people consider stuff like this more fun than actually playing the game.
Raise the level of challenge and increase the determination of people like that to crack it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300332</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1267272240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering how much all of this verification adds to your data transferred - would it be a problem if you have metered internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering how much all of this verification adds to your data transferred - would it be a problem if you have metered internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering how much all of this verification adds to your data transferred - would it be a problem if you have metered internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304760</id>
	<title>Was going to get this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I was going to buy this game.</p><p>Last night I was sitting trying to decide whether to get Assassins Creed 2, Supreme Commander 2 or the new AvP game.</p><p>I will not be buying this game at all now. There is no way in hell I will ever buy a game which requires constant internet connection or stores my content remotely. I don't mind connection to activate or something like Steam. But I will not buy something like this.</p><p>If they want to stop piracy they should release it on Steam or as a GFWL title. Both of which would make most people stump up the cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I was going to buy this game.Last night I was sitting trying to decide whether to get Assassins Creed 2 , Supreme Commander 2 or the new AvP game.I will not be buying this game at all now .
There is no way in hell I will ever buy a game which requires constant internet connection or stores my content remotely .
I do n't mind connection to activate or something like Steam .
But I will not buy something like this.If they want to stop piracy they should release it on Steam or as a GFWL title .
Both of which would make most people stump up the cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I was going to buy this game.Last night I was sitting trying to decide whether to get Assassins Creed 2, Supreme Commander 2 or the new AvP game.I will not be buying this game at all now.
There is no way in hell I will ever buy a game which requires constant internet connection or stores my content remotely.
I don't mind connection to activate or something like Steam.
But I will not buy something like this.If they want to stop piracy they should release it on Steam or as a GFWL title.
Both of which would make most people stump up the cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298416</id>
	<title>It's economics, stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the marginal gain in revenue from adding DRM to the game is greater the marginal lost in revenue from pirating, then Ubisoft is not going to care about those people who'll have problems with their business model. If DRM is necessary to make a decent buck from the work you've invested several million dollars in, then <em>something</em> (or <em>someone</em>) is definitely broken. And those support calls? They're handled by some low-wager in Ireland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the marginal gain in revenue from adding DRM to the game is greater the marginal lost in revenue from pirating , then Ubisoft is not going to care about those people who 'll have problems with their business model .
If DRM is necessary to make a decent buck from the work you 've invested several million dollars in , then something ( or someone ) is definitely broken .
And those support calls ?
They 're handled by some low-wager in Ireland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the marginal gain in revenue from adding DRM to the game is greater the marginal lost in revenue from pirating, then Ubisoft is not going to care about those people who'll have problems with their business model.
If DRM is necessary to make a decent buck from the work you've invested several million dollars in, then something (or someone) is definitely broken.
And those support calls?
They're handled by some low-wager in Ireland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298472</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a neat trick: All of the code that communicate with the server is in the binary itself. Even better, you can NOP it and it will simply spit out raw data. Voila, crack is born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a neat trick : All of the code that communicate with the server is in the binary itself .
Even better , you can NOP it and it will simply spit out raw data .
Voila , crack is born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a neat trick: All of the code that communicate with the server is in the binary itself.
Even better, you can NOP it and it will simply spit out raw data.
Voila, crack is born.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297622</id>
	<title>local server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>127.0.0.1?<br>redirect server to localhost,<br>emulate server on local machine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>PROFIT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>127.0.0.1 ? redirect server to localhost,emulate server on local machine ....PROFIT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>127.0.0.1?redirect server to localhost,emulate server on local machine ....PROFIT!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300432</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1267273140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, Bioware pissed me off an awful lot.  Not only is there "first time buyer" bonus gear in Mass Effect 2 (not that it's any good stat- or appearance-wise), but there's actually a game dealer on the Citadel.  They make sure to make him a giant douchebag, talking about how he prefers realistic games where it takes weeks of real time to fly between planets, not the bullshit where you just click on the map.  He also sells used games, and makes comments about how that way the guys who actually made it get nothing, and he gets all their hard earned money.  He goes on to offer you an member card, and says you'll get a free digital copy of a game if you buy now.  Way to encourage me to ever buy a Bioware game again, assholes.  Can't you guys even try to contain your pathetic crying?  I'm surprised they didn't just out and say this guy works for EB Games.  Bioware is talking about how from now on, they'll take it even farther than ME2.  Next game the game will be missing most of its content if you don't unlock it with their "loyalty code" or whatever they call it.  Of course, GameStop/EB opens all of the boxes for 360 and PS3 and PC games so they can keep the disks behind the counter, to prevent theft.  They couldn't POSSIBLY be corrupt and steal "Real Game" unlock codes, so that their used customers will have a nice working code, and you find that your code is already in use.  Then you have to spend an extra $20+ just to play the game you already bought.  (Remember, EB games offers a no refund no matter what policy).  Bioware was also going to use DRM in Mass Effect that would connect every few days, and if there was no net at the time, your games goes bye-bye.  They backed down, but now that Ubisoft is doing it, I'm sure their knew Star Wars game will use Ubisoft's new system, too.  Bioware and Ubisoft are leading a huge push to get all games as Online Only, the CD just contains the engine, all content streams from their servers, so even single player games will have lag now, awesome!  And of course, they'll then have an excuse to charge $20/month to play their games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Bioware pissed me off an awful lot .
Not only is there " first time buyer " bonus gear in Mass Effect 2 ( not that it 's any good stat- or appearance-wise ) , but there 's actually a game dealer on the Citadel .
They make sure to make him a giant douchebag , talking about how he prefers realistic games where it takes weeks of real time to fly between planets , not the bullshit where you just click on the map .
He also sells used games , and makes comments about how that way the guys who actually made it get nothing , and he gets all their hard earned money .
He goes on to offer you an member card , and says you 'll get a free digital copy of a game if you buy now .
Way to encourage me to ever buy a Bioware game again , assholes .
Ca n't you guys even try to contain your pathetic crying ?
I 'm surprised they did n't just out and say this guy works for EB Games .
Bioware is talking about how from now on , they 'll take it even farther than ME2 .
Next game the game will be missing most of its content if you do n't unlock it with their " loyalty code " or whatever they call it .
Of course , GameStop/EB opens all of the boxes for 360 and PS3 and PC games so they can keep the disks behind the counter , to prevent theft .
They could n't POSSIBLY be corrupt and steal " Real Game " unlock codes , so that their used customers will have a nice working code , and you find that your code is already in use .
Then you have to spend an extra $ 20 + just to play the game you already bought .
( Remember , EB games offers a no refund no matter what policy ) .
Bioware was also going to use DRM in Mass Effect that would connect every few days , and if there was no net at the time , your games goes bye-bye .
They backed down , but now that Ubisoft is doing it , I 'm sure their knew Star Wars game will use Ubisoft 's new system , too .
Bioware and Ubisoft are leading a huge push to get all games as Online Only , the CD just contains the engine , all content streams from their servers , so even single player games will have lag now , awesome !
And of course , they 'll then have an excuse to charge $ 20/month to play their games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Bioware pissed me off an awful lot.
Not only is there "first time buyer" bonus gear in Mass Effect 2 (not that it's any good stat- or appearance-wise), but there's actually a game dealer on the Citadel.
They make sure to make him a giant douchebag, talking about how he prefers realistic games where it takes weeks of real time to fly between planets, not the bullshit where you just click on the map.
He also sells used games, and makes comments about how that way the guys who actually made it get nothing, and he gets all their hard earned money.
He goes on to offer you an member card, and says you'll get a free digital copy of a game if you buy now.
Way to encourage me to ever buy a Bioware game again, assholes.
Can't you guys even try to contain your pathetic crying?
I'm surprised they didn't just out and say this guy works for EB Games.
Bioware is talking about how from now on, they'll take it even farther than ME2.
Next game the game will be missing most of its content if you don't unlock it with their "loyalty code" or whatever they call it.
Of course, GameStop/EB opens all of the boxes for 360 and PS3 and PC games so they can keep the disks behind the counter, to prevent theft.
They couldn't POSSIBLY be corrupt and steal "Real Game" unlock codes, so that their used customers will have a nice working code, and you find that your code is already in use.
Then you have to spend an extra $20+ just to play the game you already bought.
(Remember, EB games offers a no refund no matter what policy).
Bioware was also going to use DRM in Mass Effect that would connect every few days, and if there was no net at the time, your games goes bye-bye.
They backed down, but now that Ubisoft is doing it, I'm sure their knew Star Wars game will use Ubisoft's new system, too.
Bioware and Ubisoft are leading a huge push to get all games as Online Only, the CD just contains the engine, all content streams from their servers, so even single player games will have lag now, awesome!
And of course, they'll then have an excuse to charge $20/month to play their games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305140</id>
	<title>Well, well, well. Seems it's already cracked:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This version seems to run fine: <a href="http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Assassins-Creed-2-PAL-XBOX360-MegaWare-ShareReactor/458805dd93c156bd0968b199a1fcc7c54b86527a3f33" title="btjunkie.org">http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Assassins-Creed-2-PAL-XBOX360-MegaWare-ShareReactor/458805dd93c156bd0968b199a1fcc7c54b86527a3f33</a> [btjunkie.org]<br>(Ignore that spammer comment in there.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This version seems to run fine : http : //btjunkie.org/torrent/Assassins-Creed-2-PAL-XBOX360-MegaWare-ShareReactor/458805dd93c156bd0968b199a1fcc7c54b86527a3f33 [ btjunkie.org ] ( Ignore that spammer comment in there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This version seems to run fine: http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Assassins-Creed-2-PAL-XBOX360-MegaWare-ShareReactor/458805dd93c156bd0968b199a1fcc7c54b86527a3f33 [btjunkie.org](Ignore that spammer comment in there.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31307776</id>
	<title>lul</title>
	<author>sintax0r</author>
	<datestamp>1267386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome, so i'm going to have to get the network admin at my university to open ports on the firewalls just so I can play single player games! I also love spending $50+ per system per game! I think all these developers can go to hell with their overpriced shitty games that are nothing new.. How many games these days have Co-Op ? Oh wait.. Co Op isn't fun, i'd rather own over 50 games that ALL have online death match! Let's run around and shit eachother mindlessly in different games with different weapons. Sounds like some fun there. They develop these ridiculous DRM schemes to try to drive pirates away, but in reality, they're just using it as an excuse saying that they lost even more money to implement the crap in the first place and it took some skilled cracker a day or two to crack it. Nice work. I buy very few select PC games, mainly because most suck. I did find the FBI scare tactic amusing though. Blah Blah Blah. Stir up some more shit. If you want more people to buy games, try implementing some more Co-Op features, so two people can buy the game to have fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome , so i 'm going to have to get the network admin at my university to open ports on the firewalls just so I can play single player games !
I also love spending $ 50 + per system per game !
I think all these developers can go to hell with their overpriced shitty games that are nothing new.. How many games these days have Co-Op ?
Oh wait.. Co Op is n't fun , i 'd rather own over 50 games that ALL have online death match !
Let 's run around and shit eachother mindlessly in different games with different weapons .
Sounds like some fun there .
They develop these ridiculous DRM schemes to try to drive pirates away , but in reality , they 're just using it as an excuse saying that they lost even more money to implement the crap in the first place and it took some skilled cracker a day or two to crack it .
Nice work .
I buy very few select PC games , mainly because most suck .
I did find the FBI scare tactic amusing though .
Blah Blah Blah .
Stir up some more shit .
If you want more people to buy games , try implementing some more Co-Op features , so two people can buy the game to have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome, so i'm going to have to get the network admin at my university to open ports on the firewalls just so I can play single player games!
I also love spending $50+ per system per game!
I think all these developers can go to hell with their overpriced shitty games that are nothing new.. How many games these days have Co-Op ?
Oh wait.. Co Op isn't fun, i'd rather own over 50 games that ALL have online death match!
Let's run around and shit eachother mindlessly in different games with different weapons.
Sounds like some fun there.
They develop these ridiculous DRM schemes to try to drive pirates away, but in reality, they're just using it as an excuse saying that they lost even more money to implement the crap in the first place and it took some skilled cracker a day or two to crack it.
Nice work.
I buy very few select PC games, mainly because most suck.
I did find the FBI scare tactic amusing though.
Blah Blah Blah.
Stir up some more shit.
If you want more people to buy games, try implementing some more Co-Op features, so two people can buy the game to have fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31316310</id>
	<title>this will encourage piracy actually ...</title>
	<author>valduboisvert</author>
	<datestamp>1267459620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> This is not the first time I've heard a new protection technique bragging about being harder and more difficult to hack. It will be hacked, you will see. The problem is it has a very idiotic design. Probably UBI hired a janitor for the software project management position or somebody with similar IT knowledge.
 By generating so much frustration for the gamers, even the people who bought the game will look for a way to hack this stupid protection. This will end by far the most popular gaming crack from all the times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not the first time I 've heard a new protection technique bragging about being harder and more difficult to hack .
It will be hacked , you will see .
The problem is it has a very idiotic design .
Probably UBI hired a janitor for the software project management position or somebody with similar IT knowledge .
By generating so much frustration for the gamers , even the people who bought the game will look for a way to hack this stupid protection .
This will end by far the most popular gaming crack from all the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is not the first time I've heard a new protection technique bragging about being harder and more difficult to hack.
It will be hacked, you will see.
The problem is it has a very idiotic design.
Probably UBI hired a janitor for the software project management position or somebody with similar IT knowledge.
By generating so much frustration for the gamers, even the people who bought the game will look for a way to hack this stupid protection.
This will end by far the most popular gaming crack from all the times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298532</id>
	<title>Diminish Piracy via Online Content</title>
	<author>MiceHead</author>
	<datestamp>1267300500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an <a href="http://www.dejobaan.com/" title="dejobaan.com">indie developer</a> [dejobaan.com], and I see our games <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa+torrent&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=42f169bf8c7d0e94" title="google.com">pirated all over the place</a> [google.com] despite their being available for roughly the price of a fast food value meal. It feels sorta sucky to be pirated, and while I can't prove it, I suspect that my studio would gain at least little more money if people didn't pirate it.<br>
<br>
That said, I don't forsee us ever taking draconian DRM measures to prevent people from playing our games. Piracy will change the way we design them, but I think what will end up happening is that we start creating games that make use of online content. Some examples:<br>
<br>
* <b>Level of the Day</b> -- Log in and download your free level right here.<br>
* <b>Matchmaking/Leaderboards</b> -- Pick up the game, and you'll have an account to taunt other people with your mad skills.<br>
* <b>Server-Side Content/Collaboration</b> -- Co-build a level with a friend, online, and make that available to everyone else.<br>
<br>
My thought is to offer additional, online-only content that gameplay into having an account. Sure, you can probably still pirate the game, but by picking up a legitimate copy, you have access to all this other neat stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an indie developer [ dejobaan.com ] , and I see our games pirated all over the place [ google.com ] despite their being available for roughly the price of a fast food value meal .
It feels sorta sucky to be pirated , and while I ca n't prove it , I suspect that my studio would gain at least little more money if people did n't pirate it .
That said , I do n't forsee us ever taking draconian DRM measures to prevent people from playing our games .
Piracy will change the way we design them , but I think what will end up happening is that we start creating games that make use of online content .
Some examples : * Level of the Day -- Log in and download your free level right here .
* Matchmaking/Leaderboards -- Pick up the game , and you 'll have an account to taunt other people with your mad skills .
* Server-Side Content/Collaboration -- Co-build a level with a friend , online , and make that available to everyone else .
My thought is to offer additional , online-only content that gameplay into having an account .
Sure , you can probably still pirate the game , but by picking up a legitimate copy , you have access to all this other neat stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an indie developer [dejobaan.com], and I see our games pirated all over the place [google.com] despite their being available for roughly the price of a fast food value meal.
It feels sorta sucky to be pirated, and while I can't prove it, I suspect that my studio would gain at least little more money if people didn't pirate it.
That said, I don't forsee us ever taking draconian DRM measures to prevent people from playing our games.
Piracy will change the way we design them, but I think what will end up happening is that we start creating games that make use of online content.
Some examples:

* Level of the Day -- Log in and download your free level right here.
* Matchmaking/Leaderboards -- Pick up the game, and you'll have an account to taunt other people with your mad skills.
* Server-Side Content/Collaboration -- Co-build a level with a friend, online, and make that available to everyone else.
My thought is to offer additional, online-only content that gameplay into having an account.
Sure, you can probably still pirate the game, but by picking up a legitimate copy, you have access to all this other neat stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334</id>
	<title>Re:Yep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another perfect example of how DRM *only* hurts legal, paying customers.</p><p>Want to be legal and play it on a laptop away from home? You're out of luck if you have a legal copy of the game.</p><p>Mr. Pirate...? He won't be affected at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another perfect example of how DRM * only * hurts legal , paying customers.Want to be legal and play it on a laptop away from home ?
You 're out of luck if you have a legal copy of the game.Mr .
Pirate... ? He wo n't be affected at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another perfect example of how DRM *only* hurts legal, paying customers.Want to be legal and play it on a laptop away from home?
You're out of luck if you have a legal copy of the game.Mr.
Pirate...? He won't be affected at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302586</id>
	<title>Re:PC gamers think they should get games for free</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267291800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>and if you find a girfriend without DRM on her sweet spot, she will likely have a virus problem</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>and if you find a girfriend without DRM on her sweet spot , she will likely have a virus problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if you find a girfriend without DRM on her sweet spot, she will likely have a virus problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299846</id>
	<title>ILLEGAL?</title>
	<author>Zaphod The 42nd</author>
	<datestamp>1267267320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard about this awhile ago, and it drove me to a rage. I'm never buying another Ubisoft game ever again, period.
<br> <br>
In case you haven't realized, lemme spell it out for you: You can never play the games offline (never on a plane, never on a laptop, never at grandma's house....). But even more ridiculous, <br> <br>
ON THE OFFICIAL UBISOFT FAQ:<br>
Q: Can I sell my game?<br>
A: No.<br>
I am not a lawyer, but shouldn't that be illegal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard about this awhile ago , and it drove me to a rage .
I 'm never buying another Ubisoft game ever again , period .
In case you have n't realized , lem me spell it out for you : You can never play the games offline ( never on a plane , never on a laptop , never at grandma 's house.... ) .
But even more ridiculous , ON THE OFFICIAL UBISOFT FAQ : Q : Can I sell my game ?
A : No .
I am not a lawyer , but should n't that be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard about this awhile ago, and it drove me to a rage.
I'm never buying another Ubisoft game ever again, period.
In case you haven't realized, lemme spell it out for you: You can never play the games offline (never on a plane, never on a laptop, never at grandma's house....).
But even more ridiculous,  
ON THE OFFICIAL UBISOFT FAQ:
Q: Can I sell my game?
A: No.
I am not a lawyer, but shouldn't that be illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300174</id>
	<title>Sometimes the "hardest" are the easiest.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267270380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually particularly <i>easy</i> to crack, because it's on such a hair-trigger it's easy to trip, and <i>everything</i> that deals with the network is either part of the copy-protection, or part of the online savegame functionality that you want to remove as part of a 100\% crack anyway. That's a pretty obvious red flag, and techniques are good enough now thanks to malware analysis that none of the anti-debugging techniques work well anymore.</p><p>The irony is that the deeper and more obvious you put the hooks in, the easier it is to trace them out automatically. One good run-log - easy to do in this day and age now that we have hard drives with thousands of gigabytes of space each - and this system is completely <i>screwed</i> even if it uses online watchdog sentinels (which it doesn't). It doesn't matter if it takes an extra few hours to get it just right, because now that millions of people have heard how awful this protection is, those millions will be not buying the game and will be prepared to wait for a fixed (read: cracked) version.</p><p>It's not impregnable. Not even close. Just obnoxious. And that makes it all the more satisfying to remove, but means there really is no excuse for this kind of crap.</p><p>The cynic in me believes that they <i>want</i> this system to fail, they <i>want</i> this game to fail, they <i>want</i> this to be massively pirated, so that Ubisoft have an excuse for leaving the PC platform behind altogether. Maybe that is what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually particularly easy to crack , because it 's on such a hair-trigger it 's easy to trip , and everything that deals with the network is either part of the copy-protection , or part of the online savegame functionality that you want to remove as part of a 100 \ % crack anyway .
That 's a pretty obvious red flag , and techniques are good enough now thanks to malware analysis that none of the anti-debugging techniques work well anymore.The irony is that the deeper and more obvious you put the hooks in , the easier it is to trace them out automatically .
One good run-log - easy to do in this day and age now that we have hard drives with thousands of gigabytes of space each - and this system is completely screwed even if it uses online watchdog sentinels ( which it does n't ) .
It does n't matter if it takes an extra few hours to get it just right , because now that millions of people have heard how awful this protection is , those millions will be not buying the game and will be prepared to wait for a fixed ( read : cracked ) version.It 's not impregnable .
Not even close .
Just obnoxious .
And that makes it all the more satisfying to remove , but means there really is no excuse for this kind of crap.The cynic in me believes that they want this system to fail , they want this game to fail , they want this to be massively pirated , so that Ubisoft have an excuse for leaving the PC platform behind altogether .
Maybe that is what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually particularly easy to crack, because it's on such a hair-trigger it's easy to trip, and everything that deals with the network is either part of the copy-protection, or part of the online savegame functionality that you want to remove as part of a 100\% crack anyway.
That's a pretty obvious red flag, and techniques are good enough now thanks to malware analysis that none of the anti-debugging techniques work well anymore.The irony is that the deeper and more obvious you put the hooks in, the easier it is to trace them out automatically.
One good run-log - easy to do in this day and age now that we have hard drives with thousands of gigabytes of space each - and this system is completely screwed even if it uses online watchdog sentinels (which it doesn't).
It doesn't matter if it takes an extra few hours to get it just right, because now that millions of people have heard how awful this protection is, those millions will be not buying the game and will be prepared to wait for a fixed (read: cracked) version.It's not impregnable.
Not even close.
Just obnoxious.
And that makes it all the more satisfying to remove, but means there really is no excuse for this kind of crap.The cynic in me believes that they want this system to fail, they want this game to fail, they want this to be massively pirated, so that Ubisoft have an excuse for leaving the PC platform behind altogether.
Maybe that is what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298108</id>
	<title>Thank you ubisoft</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1267297920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just saved me 50 euros on Assassins Creed. And will probably save me more for future ubisoft games. And no, I'm not going to buy the PS3 counterparts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just saved me 50 euros on Assassins Creed .
And will probably save me more for future ubisoft games .
And no , I 'm not going to buy the PS3 counterparts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just saved me 50 euros on Assassins Creed.
And will probably save me more for future ubisoft games.
And no, I'm not going to buy the PS3 counterparts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297792</id>
	<title>more like</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1267296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more like The Awful Anti-Player System That Will Probably Work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more like The Awful Anti-Player System That Will Probably Work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more like The Awful Anti-Player System That Will Probably Work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299266</id>
	<title>Building a house without windows or doors...</title>
	<author>Iryan</author>
	<datestamp>1267262160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...will probably keep intruders away, but it won't be a good place to live in. Same here: Perhaps this thing has a chance to work technically, but that doesn't mean that it will increase the company's profit gained from this game. I pre-ordered the black edition of AC2 (and some other coming Ubisoft titles, too), but now I canceled it. I know myself pretty well and I know, how much it would annoy me when the game pauses again and again (because of my lousy internet connection), always forcing me to start from the last save point. I don't want that. So I will not buy Ubisoft games any more. Ok, honestly, I wouldn't buy it, even if I had a great internet connection, because of the DRM-thingy.

Honestly, I simply don't think that "one person who downloads the game illegally less" equals to "one more person who buys the game". In my (not very) humble opinion, the main priority of people who want me to buy something should be to please me and not to annoy the people who will not buy the game. By annoying all of us, they perhaps decrease the number of people who will download the game illegally, ok, but probably, they will also decrease the number of people who will buy the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...will probably keep intruders away , but it wo n't be a good place to live in .
Same here : Perhaps this thing has a chance to work technically , but that does n't mean that it will increase the company 's profit gained from this game .
I pre-ordered the black edition of AC2 ( and some other coming Ubisoft titles , too ) , but now I canceled it .
I know myself pretty well and I know , how much it would annoy me when the game pauses again and again ( because of my lousy internet connection ) , always forcing me to start from the last save point .
I do n't want that .
So I will not buy Ubisoft games any more .
Ok , honestly , I would n't buy it , even if I had a great internet connection , because of the DRM-thingy .
Honestly , I simply do n't think that " one person who downloads the game illegally less " equals to " one more person who buys the game " .
In my ( not very ) humble opinion , the main priority of people who want me to buy something should be to please me and not to annoy the people who will not buy the game .
By annoying all of us , they perhaps decrease the number of people who will download the game illegally , ok , but probably , they will also decrease the number of people who will buy the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...will probably keep intruders away, but it won't be a good place to live in.
Same here: Perhaps this thing has a chance to work technically, but that doesn't mean that it will increase the company's profit gained from this game.
I pre-ordered the black edition of AC2 (and some other coming Ubisoft titles, too), but now I canceled it.
I know myself pretty well and I know, how much it would annoy me when the game pauses again and again (because of my lousy internet connection), always forcing me to start from the last save point.
I don't want that.
So I will not buy Ubisoft games any more.
Ok, honestly, I wouldn't buy it, even if I had a great internet connection, because of the DRM-thingy.
Honestly, I simply don't think that "one person who downloads the game illegally less" equals to "one more person who buys the game".
In my (not very) humble opinion, the main priority of people who want me to buy something should be to please me and not to annoy the people who will not buy the game.
By annoying all of us, they perhaps decrease the number of people who will download the game illegally, ok, but probably, they will also decrease the number of people who will buy the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299664</id>
	<title>Re:This doesn't sound like DRM</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1267265400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're completely missing the point.  It is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME that forces you to have an internet connection.  That is completely different from a MULTIPLAYER GAME (which would require a network connection no matter what) requiring an internet connection to play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're completely missing the point .
It is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME that forces you to have an internet connection .
That is completely different from a MULTIPLAYER GAME ( which would require a network connection no matter what ) requiring an internet connection to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're completely missing the point.
It is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME that forces you to have an internet connection.
That is completely different from a MULTIPLAYER GAME (which would require a network connection no matter what) requiring an internet connection to play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298648</id>
	<title>I'll buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's step back and have a look at the decline in quality PC games vs the uptake of P2P, I think we'll find some correlation.</p><p>I bought an Xbox 360 so I could play Assasins Creed, it was cheaper than upgrading to a new PC.</p><p>I'll buy Assasins Creed 2, for the Xbox, where it makes sense, the unfortunate situation is that on the PC it doesn't.</p><p>If Microsoft would support the mouse on the Xbox I'd throw my video card in the bin.  Consoles are here to stay and DRM is the only way PC game developers will make money in the long term.</p><p>Sad as it is, this is the world we live in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's step back and have a look at the decline in quality PC games vs the uptake of P2P , I think we 'll find some correlation.I bought an Xbox 360 so I could play Assasins Creed , it was cheaper than upgrading to a new PC.I 'll buy Assasins Creed 2 , for the Xbox , where it makes sense , the unfortunate situation is that on the PC it does n't.If Microsoft would support the mouse on the Xbox I 'd throw my video card in the bin .
Consoles are here to stay and DRM is the only way PC game developers will make money in the long term.Sad as it is , this is the world we live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's step back and have a look at the decline in quality PC games vs the uptake of P2P, I think we'll find some correlation.I bought an Xbox 360 so I could play Assasins Creed, it was cheaper than upgrading to a new PC.I'll buy Assasins Creed 2, for the Xbox, where it makes sense, the unfortunate situation is that on the PC it doesn't.If Microsoft would support the mouse on the Xbox I'd throw my video card in the bin.
Consoles are here to stay and DRM is the only way PC game developers will make money in the long term.Sad as it is, this is the world we live in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299240</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the code for both the "send save to server" and "load save from server" routines are... in the game client files.</p><p>In practice, someone who's reverse engineering the whole thing is probably just going to look at the "load" code and completely rewrite the "save" code to save stuff to disc in the expected load format.</p><p>And, in practice, the real game server probably isn't going to be doing much transformation with the save data. It might collect some stats on the side, and the remote call to load might return the fields of the game state in a different order than they were sent. It may be wrapped in encryption, just to slow down the reverse engineering. Anything more than that would require the company to maintain beefier servers, which they're not going to want to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the code for both the " send save to server " and " load save from server " routines are... in the game client files.In practice , someone who 's reverse engineering the whole thing is probably just going to look at the " load " code and completely rewrite the " save " code to save stuff to disc in the expected load format.And , in practice , the real game server probably is n't going to be doing much transformation with the save data .
It might collect some stats on the side , and the remote call to load might return the fields of the game state in a different order than they were sent .
It may be wrapped in encryption , just to slow down the reverse engineering .
Anything more than that would require the company to maintain beefier servers , which they 're not going to want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the code for both the "send save to server" and "load save from server" routines are... in the game client files.In practice, someone who's reverse engineering the whole thing is probably just going to look at the "load" code and completely rewrite the "save" code to save stuff to disc in the expected load format.And, in practice, the real game server probably isn't going to be doing much transformation with the save data.
It might collect some stats on the side, and the remote call to load might return the fields of the game state in a different order than they were sent.
It may be wrapped in encryption, just to slow down the reverse engineering.
Anything more than that would require the company to maintain beefier servers, which they're not going to want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299856</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>KiloByte</author>
	<datestamp>1267267440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saving is not an issue, just dump the whole of the game's memory to the disk.</p><p>However, if a part of the game is stored on the server and executed there, we're pretty screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saving is not an issue , just dump the whole of the game 's memory to the disk.However , if a part of the game is stored on the server and executed there , we 're pretty screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saving is not an issue, just dump the whole of the game's memory to the disk.However, if a part of the game is stored on the server and executed there, we're pretty screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305086</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why that complicated. Just crack it like this:</p><p>Log the protocol (which will be decrypted, because any key to encrypt it would have to be stored on your system), and then make a loopback to a small program that runs in the background and stores and returns the incoming BLOBs. No need for a central server.</p><p>And this wouldn&rsquo;t be the first time. Windows (since XP) has something that checks the server. Well, some weeks later, you could find screenshots on the net, showing MS&rsquo;s own tool saying that Ubuntu is &ldquo;Genuine Microsoft Windows XP(tm)&rdquo;. ^^</p><p>Also, the logic that it would make sense to hold off the crackers long enough to make sales, does not make any sense at all.<br>Because the reason people don&rsquo;t buy it, is NOT that they do not want to buy it. It&rsquo;s that they do not want to buy it AT THAT PRICE. Period.<br>Holding it off, is not going to change anything. People will just wait.<br>Just like we did with DVDs, before people started to film them off of cinemas, or just like we still do, when we prefer high-quality rips.</p><p>What a bunch or real retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why that complicated .
Just crack it like this : Log the protocol ( which will be decrypted , because any key to encrypt it would have to be stored on your system ) , and then make a loopback to a small program that runs in the background and stores and returns the incoming BLOBs .
No need for a central server.And this wouldn    t be the first time .
Windows ( since XP ) has something that checks the server .
Well , some weeks later , you could find screenshots on the net , showing MS    s own tool saying that Ubuntu is    Genuine Microsoft Windows XP ( tm )    .
^ ^ Also , the logic that it would make sense to hold off the crackers long enough to make sales , does not make any sense at all.Because the reason people don    t buy it , is NOT that they do not want to buy it .
It    s that they do not want to buy it AT THAT PRICE .
Period.Holding it off , is not going to change anything .
People will just wait.Just like we did with DVDs , before people started to film them off of cinemas , or just like we still do , when we prefer high-quality rips.What a bunch or real retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why that complicated.
Just crack it like this:Log the protocol (which will be decrypted, because any key to encrypt it would have to be stored on your system), and then make a loopback to a small program that runs in the background and stores and returns the incoming BLOBs.
No need for a central server.And this wouldn’t be the first time.
Windows (since XP) has something that checks the server.
Well, some weeks later, you could find screenshots on the net, showing MS’s own tool saying that Ubuntu is “Genuine Microsoft Windows XP(tm)”.
^^Also, the logic that it would make sense to hold off the crackers long enough to make sales, does not make any sense at all.Because the reason people don’t buy it, is NOT that they do not want to buy it.
It’s that they do not want to buy it AT THAT PRICE.
Period.Holding it off, is not going to change anything.
People will just wait.Just like we did with DVDs, before people started to film them off of cinemas, or just like we still do, when we prefer high-quality rips.What a bunch or real retards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299276</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>MaJeStu</author>
	<datestamp>1267262280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game, it's the occasion to sell him goodies, accessories and useless insurances.</p></div><p>
Or other, sometimes even new, games...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game , it 's the occasion to sell him goodies , accessories and useless insurances .
Or other , sometimes even new , games.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game, it's the occasion to sell him goodies, accessories and useless insurances.
Or other, sometimes even new, games...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298266</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a few years it will be 100\% cracked...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a few years it will be 100 \ % cracked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a few years it will be 100\% cracked...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298196</id>
	<title>no hack neddded</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1267298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>this will piss off pretty much every pc user who is stupid enough to even buy it. my pcs wifi isn't constant it likes to randomly disconnect this game would be unplayable. or those in dailup or just not online like on a laptop away from its wifi spot. the backlash from this will be worse then ea and spore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this will piss off pretty much every pc user who is stupid enough to even buy it .
my pcs wifi is n't constant it likes to randomly disconnect this game would be unplayable .
or those in dailup or just not online like on a laptop away from its wifi spot .
the backlash from this will be worse then ea and spore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this will piss off pretty much every pc user who is stupid enough to even buy it.
my pcs wifi isn't constant it likes to randomly disconnect this game would be unplayable.
or those in dailup or just not online like on a laptop away from its wifi spot.
the backlash from this will be worse then ea and spore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297812</id>
	<title>No it won't</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267296300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, awful big assumption that the crackers won't be able to break it. Thus far, all the complex DRM schemes that have come their way have fallen in short order. This one I imagine will face particularly intense attack just because of the "Oh it can't be cracked," idea. Tell someone they can't do something and that is just a challenge to see who can be the first to do it. I'd say there's a real good chance the crackers break it, and probably in not all that much time.</p><p>Second, there's the incorrect assumption that it will do nothing but increase sales. No, wrong. That is based off the extremely faulty assumption that everyone who pirates a game would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it. That is not at all the case. You have a very non-trivial number of people who will pirate it if they can, and do without if not. After all, there are plenty of people who will try something if it is free that won't if it costs anything at all. So even supposing it succeeds, there isn't this vast reserve of people out there who would pay but aren't.</p><p>To offset any gains there, you have people that won't pay, because of the DRM. I am one of those people. I enjoyed AC1 and was looking in to getting AC2. I was told that it was more of the same, but with some of the annoyances cleared up. Great, sounds worth it. I buy a lot of games, they are my primary form of entertainment, and I don't lack for money. However, I won't be buying this one. This DRM is unacceptable to me. I'm not going to pirate it either, I'll simply play other games, there are plenty of good ones out there. So they are directly losing a sale, because of the DRM.</p><p>That's the problem with invasive DRM. Even if it can stop pirates, which is real doubtful, it pisses off legit customers. As such you may well lose money using it. Remember that the total number of sales you gain due to preventing piracy has to be enough to offset the total number you lose AND the amount the DRM costs you, including development, implementation, and support. If not, you've lost money and it was a stupid business decision.</p><p>Ubisoft seems to have the idea that the goal should be to punish pirates. No, it shouldn't. The goal should be to maximize profits. You do that by getting the most sales and you do that by getting people to buy your title.</p><p>So they can have a lot of fun with this, but not on my dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , awful big assumption that the crackers wo n't be able to break it .
Thus far , all the complex DRM schemes that have come their way have fallen in short order .
This one I imagine will face particularly intense attack just because of the " Oh it ca n't be cracked , " idea .
Tell someone they ca n't do something and that is just a challenge to see who can be the first to do it .
I 'd say there 's a real good chance the crackers break it , and probably in not all that much time.Second , there 's the incorrect assumption that it will do nothing but increase sales .
No , wrong .
That is based off the extremely faulty assumption that everyone who pirates a game would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it .
That is not at all the case .
You have a very non-trivial number of people who will pirate it if they can , and do without if not .
After all , there are plenty of people who will try something if it is free that wo n't if it costs anything at all .
So even supposing it succeeds , there is n't this vast reserve of people out there who would pay but are n't.To offset any gains there , you have people that wo n't pay , because of the DRM .
I am one of those people .
I enjoyed AC1 and was looking in to getting AC2 .
I was told that it was more of the same , but with some of the annoyances cleared up .
Great , sounds worth it .
I buy a lot of games , they are my primary form of entertainment , and I do n't lack for money .
However , I wo n't be buying this one .
This DRM is unacceptable to me .
I 'm not going to pirate it either , I 'll simply play other games , there are plenty of good ones out there .
So they are directly losing a sale , because of the DRM.That 's the problem with invasive DRM .
Even if it can stop pirates , which is real doubtful , it pisses off legit customers .
As such you may well lose money using it .
Remember that the total number of sales you gain due to preventing piracy has to be enough to offset the total number you lose AND the amount the DRM costs you , including development , implementation , and support .
If not , you 've lost money and it was a stupid business decision.Ubisoft seems to have the idea that the goal should be to punish pirates .
No , it should n't .
The goal should be to maximize profits .
You do that by getting the most sales and you do that by getting people to buy your title.So they can have a lot of fun with this , but not on my dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, awful big assumption that the crackers won't be able to break it.
Thus far, all the complex DRM schemes that have come their way have fallen in short order.
This one I imagine will face particularly intense attack just because of the "Oh it can't be cracked," idea.
Tell someone they can't do something and that is just a challenge to see who can be the first to do it.
I'd say there's a real good chance the crackers break it, and probably in not all that much time.Second, there's the incorrect assumption that it will do nothing but increase sales.
No, wrong.
That is based off the extremely faulty assumption that everyone who pirates a game would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it.
That is not at all the case.
You have a very non-trivial number of people who will pirate it if they can, and do without if not.
After all, there are plenty of people who will try something if it is free that won't if it costs anything at all.
So even supposing it succeeds, there isn't this vast reserve of people out there who would pay but aren't.To offset any gains there, you have people that won't pay, because of the DRM.
I am one of those people.
I enjoyed AC1 and was looking in to getting AC2.
I was told that it was more of the same, but with some of the annoyances cleared up.
Great, sounds worth it.
I buy a lot of games, they are my primary form of entertainment, and I don't lack for money.
However, I won't be buying this one.
This DRM is unacceptable to me.
I'm not going to pirate it either, I'll simply play other games, there are plenty of good ones out there.
So they are directly losing a sale, because of the DRM.That's the problem with invasive DRM.
Even if it can stop pirates, which is real doubtful, it pisses off legit customers.
As such you may well lose money using it.
Remember that the total number of sales you gain due to preventing piracy has to be enough to offset the total number you lose AND the amount the DRM costs you, including development, implementation, and support.
If not, you've lost money and it was a stupid business decision.Ubisoft seems to have the idea that the goal should be to punish pirates.
No, it shouldn't.
The goal should be to maximize profits.
You do that by getting the most sales and you do that by getting people to buy your title.So they can have a lot of fun with this, but not on my dollar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299602</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Athanasius</author>
	<datestamp>1267264800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the hack doesn't even have to rely on the bad guys running a server.  Just include it with the 'local' hack and run it on localhost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the hack does n't even have to rely on the bad guys running a server .
Just include it with the 'local ' hack and run it on localhost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the hack doesn't even have to rely on the bad guys running a server.
Just include it with the 'local' hack and run it on localhost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298092</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1267297800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Polly wanna cracker'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Polly wan na cracker'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Polly wanna cracker'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298758</id>
	<title>Two big problems</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1267301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are two pretty big assumptions that are being made.  First, one has to have a constant and reliable internet connection, so what of those who use <a href="http://xkcd.com/654/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">wireless access points</a> [xkcd.com], or who play games on airplanes or in vehicles?  Second, the crux of this scheme is assuming that online servers can't be emulated, which I think the prevalence of MMORPG private servers has disproven.<br> <br>

Of course, being the cynical optimist that I am, I hope that they go ahead with this plan, fail miserably, and create enough backlash to deal a heavy blow to DRM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two pretty big assumptions that are being made .
First , one has to have a constant and reliable internet connection , so what of those who use wireless access points [ xkcd.com ] , or who play games on airplanes or in vehicles ?
Second , the crux of this scheme is assuming that online servers ca n't be emulated , which I think the prevalence of MMORPG private servers has disproven .
Of course , being the cynical optimist that I am , I hope that they go ahead with this plan , fail miserably , and create enough backlash to deal a heavy blow to DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two pretty big assumptions that are being made.
First, one has to have a constant and reliable internet connection, so what of those who use wireless access points [xkcd.com], or who play games on airplanes or in vehicles?
Second, the crux of this scheme is assuming that online servers can't be emulated, which I think the prevalence of MMORPG private servers has disproven.
Of course, being the cynical optimist that I am, I hope that they go ahead with this plan, fail miserably, and create enough backlash to deal a heavy blow to DRM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299318</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267262640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game developers don't generally try to stop crackers entirely, that would be futile; their main goal is to <i>delay</i> the crackers for long enough that the developer makes back most of its money early enough after the game's release (e.g. a few months). Cf. an old 'classic' Gamasutra article: <a href="http://gamecareerguide.com/features/20011017/dodd\_01.htm" title="gamecareerguide.com">Keeping the Pirates at Bay</a> [gamecareerguide.com]. The crackers may always eventually "win" in your terms but I'm not sure what they've "won" exactly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game developers do n't generally try to stop crackers entirely , that would be futile ; their main goal is to delay the crackers for long enough that the developer makes back most of its money early enough after the game 's release ( e.g .
a few months ) .
Cf. an old 'classic ' Gamasutra article : Keeping the Pirates at Bay [ gamecareerguide.com ] .
The crackers may always eventually " win " in your terms but I 'm not sure what they 've " won " exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game developers don't generally try to stop crackers entirely, that would be futile; their main goal is to delay the crackers for long enough that the developer makes back most of its money early enough after the game's release (e.g.
a few months).
Cf. an old 'classic' Gamasutra article: Keeping the Pirates at Bay [gamecareerguide.com].
The crackers may always eventually "win" in your terms but I'm not sure what they've "won" exactly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297650</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards."</p><p>Please do! Fucking parasite!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards .
" Please do !
Fucking parasite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.
"Please do!
Fucking parasite!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297596</id>
	<title>the hard truth</title>
	<author>WillyWanker</author>
	<datestamp>1267295400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The system will only work if people actually go and buy the game instead of waiting for a crack. Even if I were interested in buying it (which I'm not) I would wait for a crack just so I wouldn't be hogtied in trying to play it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system will only work if people actually go and buy the game instead of waiting for a crack .
Even if I were interested in buying it ( which I 'm not ) I would wait for a crack just so I would n't be hogtied in trying to play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system will only work if people actually go and buy the game instead of waiting for a crack.
Even if I were interested in buying it (which I'm not) I would wait for a crack just so I wouldn't be hogtied in trying to play it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298376</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Ubisoft is making a large mistake in terms of liability for this. If my internet is fine, and Ubisoft's internet connection is the failing point, I've paid for their product and THEY are the ones not providing me with what I paid them for. This is not some service like WoW where if they botch up they can make amends with the ongoing payment scheme. The consumer, should be notified clearly that the PC game version, unlike the console game, will experience unplanned down time. I really don't see why anyone would purchase for PC, when a perfectly good console version exists. I suppose there are some suckers out there, and those suckers can probably hold Ubisoft liable for shitty service. My bet is distributors will get hammered with returns, a lawsuit will happen, and a patch will be out in short order. I didn't really care for the original Assassin's Creed, but as a potential investor <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=EPA\%3AUBI" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/finance?q=EPA\%3AUBI</a> [google.com] I don't think this will help make them profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Ubisoft is making a large mistake in terms of liability for this .
If my internet is fine , and Ubisoft 's internet connection is the failing point , I 've paid for their product and THEY are the ones not providing me with what I paid them for .
This is not some service like WoW where if they botch up they can make amends with the ongoing payment scheme .
The consumer , should be notified clearly that the PC game version , unlike the console game , will experience unplanned down time .
I really do n't see why anyone would purchase for PC , when a perfectly good console version exists .
I suppose there are some suckers out there , and those suckers can probably hold Ubisoft liable for shitty service .
My bet is distributors will get hammered with returns , a lawsuit will happen , and a patch will be out in short order .
I did n't really care for the original Assassin 's Creed , but as a potential investor http : //www.google.com/finance ? q = EPA \ % 3AUBI [ google.com ] I do n't think this will help make them profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Ubisoft is making a large mistake in terms of liability for this.
If my internet is fine, and Ubisoft's internet connection is the failing point, I've paid for their product and THEY are the ones not providing me with what I paid them for.
This is not some service like WoW where if they botch up they can make amends with the ongoing payment scheme.
The consumer, should be notified clearly that the PC game version, unlike the console game, will experience unplanned down time.
I really don't see why anyone would purchase for PC, when a perfectly good console version exists.
I suppose there are some suckers out there, and those suckers can probably hold Ubisoft liable for shitty service.
My bet is distributors will get hammered with returns, a lawsuit will happen, and a patch will be out in short order.
I didn't really care for the original Assassin's Creed, but as a potential investor http://www.google.com/finance?q=EPA\%3AUBI [google.com] I don't think this will help make them profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297922</id>
	<title>Already been tried, already failed</title>
	<author>Andy Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several high-end design and visualisation packages that need to call home to authentication servers before they will work. And there are pirate versions of all of them, which include authentication servers that you run locally and the software talks to them instead.</p><p>It sounds like Ubisoft's plan is more obfuscated, with save/load data being mangled in some way, and they are relying on crackers not knowing how to mangle/un-mangle it.</p><p>Maybe it will take a day or a week for a pirate version to come out, with a local save/load server. But, for sure, people will still pirate the game, and potential customers will still move away from buying it due to the aggressive DRM.</p><p>I just don't buy PC games anymore, due to these anti-customer technologies. I don't pirate them either. And because PS3 games are so expensive at release time, I wait to buy them a few months after release, or if one of the larger retailers has them on special offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several high-end design and visualisation packages that need to call home to authentication servers before they will work .
And there are pirate versions of all of them , which include authentication servers that you run locally and the software talks to them instead.It sounds like Ubisoft 's plan is more obfuscated , with save/load data being mangled in some way , and they are relying on crackers not knowing how to mangle/un-mangle it.Maybe it will take a day or a week for a pirate version to come out , with a local save/load server .
But , for sure , people will still pirate the game , and potential customers will still move away from buying it due to the aggressive DRM.I just do n't buy PC games anymore , due to these anti-customer technologies .
I do n't pirate them either .
And because PS3 games are so expensive at release time , I wait to buy them a few months after release , or if one of the larger retailers has them on special offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several high-end design and visualisation packages that need to call home to authentication servers before they will work.
And there are pirate versions of all of them, which include authentication servers that you run locally and the software talks to them instead.It sounds like Ubisoft's plan is more obfuscated, with save/load data being mangled in some way, and they are relying on crackers not knowing how to mangle/un-mangle it.Maybe it will take a day or a week for a pirate version to come out, with a local save/load server.
But, for sure, people will still pirate the game, and potential customers will still move away from buying it due to the aggressive DRM.I just don't buy PC games anymore, due to these anti-customer technologies.
I don't pirate them either.
And because PS3 games are so expensive at release time, I wait to buy them a few months after release, or if one of the larger retailers has them on special offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298306</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oooooooh!!! That's step two!!!</p><p>1. Buy assassin's creed 2. Leave in original wrapping forever.<br>2. When servers go down: sue Ubisoft for damages.<br>3. Rich!!!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>(would be awesome if many people did that and there was a class-action suit against Ubi in a few years)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooooooh ! ! !
That 's step two ! ! ! 1 .
Buy assassin 's creed 2 .
Leave in original wrapping forever.2 .
When servers go down : sue Ubisoft for damages.3 .
Rich ! ! ! ! ! ; - ) ( would be awesome if many people did that and there was a class-action suit against Ubi in a few years )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooooooh!!!
That's step two!!!1.
Buy assassin's creed 2.
Leave in original wrapping forever.2.
When servers go down: sue Ubisoft for damages.3.
Rich!!!!! ;-)(would be awesome if many people did that and there was a class-action suit against Ubi in a few years)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304096</id>
	<title>Really..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder how long till someone sniffs the protocol, substitutes entry in hosts file and runs a local service that will satisfy the 'protection'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder how long till someone sniffs the protocol , substitutes entry in hosts file and runs a local service that will satisfy the 'protection'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder how long till someone sniffs the protocol, substitutes entry in hosts file and runs a local service that will satisfy the 'protection'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</id>
	<title>And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>you'll have a non working game because Ubisoft will bother to have that old crap running longer or even Ubisoft could not exists anymore. No thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll have a non working game because Ubisoft will bother to have that old crap running longer or even Ubisoft could not exists anymore .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll have a non working game because Ubisoft will bother to have that old crap running longer or even Ubisoft could not exists anymore.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298652</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "stay alive" signal can be one of two things:</p><p>simple<br>complicated</p><p>If it's simple, then it can be emulated by a sufficiently determined attacker.</p><p>If it's complicated, then there is a meaningful resource expense at the other end. In the extreme, you have an MMO, where the "stay alive" signal is the state of the virtual world. I'm betting that they didn't invest quite that much in their DRM servers, for the simple reason that it would cost them far more than they could potentially make up through theoretical extra sales due to stronger protection.</p><p>And this is aside from the argument that escalation of DRM in response to piracy is likely to affect the pirates *not at all* while being increasingly likely to annoy legitimate users away from your product and your future products. In recent years, we have seen some really genius cases of companies shipping games with DRM that is flat insulting to their customers e.g. limited installs. Worse, are the cases where the DRM keeps a significant percentage of legitimate copies from working *at all* until a hypothetical future patch months down the road (more likely, never) while the pirates were playing the game weeks before release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " stay alive " signal can be one of two things : simplecomplicatedIf it 's simple , then it can be emulated by a sufficiently determined attacker.If it 's complicated , then there is a meaningful resource expense at the other end .
In the extreme , you have an MMO , where the " stay alive " signal is the state of the virtual world .
I 'm betting that they did n't invest quite that much in their DRM servers , for the simple reason that it would cost them far more than they could potentially make up through theoretical extra sales due to stronger protection.And this is aside from the argument that escalation of DRM in response to piracy is likely to affect the pirates * not at all * while being increasingly likely to annoy legitimate users away from your product and your future products .
In recent years , we have seen some really genius cases of companies shipping games with DRM that is flat insulting to their customers e.g .
limited installs .
Worse , are the cases where the DRM keeps a significant percentage of legitimate copies from working * at all * until a hypothetical future patch months down the road ( more likely , never ) while the pirates were playing the game weeks before release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "stay alive" signal can be one of two things:simplecomplicatedIf it's simple, then it can be emulated by a sufficiently determined attacker.If it's complicated, then there is a meaningful resource expense at the other end.
In the extreme, you have an MMO, where the "stay alive" signal is the state of the virtual world.
I'm betting that they didn't invest quite that much in their DRM servers, for the simple reason that it would cost them far more than they could potentially make up through theoretical extra sales due to stronger protection.And this is aside from the argument that escalation of DRM in response to piracy is likely to affect the pirates *not at all* while being increasingly likely to annoy legitimate users away from your product and your future products.
In recent years, we have seen some really genius cases of companies shipping games with DRM that is flat insulting to their customers e.g.
limited installs.
Worse, are the cases where the DRM keeps a significant percentage of legitimate copies from working *at all* until a hypothetical future patch months down the road (more likely, never) while the pirates were playing the game weeks before release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300558</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you ubisoft</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1267274280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha, I'd never buy an Ubisoft game again after AC1, it had most of the same issues.  Non-pirated versions were hella unstable if your net wasn't working properly, or if their servers were lagging, because it also confirmed DRM status every 3 seconds, it just complain if the connection failed or  you didn't have a connection at all.  Anyways, not playing Ubisoft games is
<a href="http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=7f9bdefac815c5cdc91d3feb734aef57&amp;topic=30478.0" title="nintendoworldreport.com">no loss, at all.</a> [nintendoworldreport.com]  It says wall of shame, but I think it's really just a wall of all third party games on the Wii...I mean, Tenchu and No More Heros were great, and Crystal Bearers is fairly decent.  All of that Ubisoft crap is on PC, too.  So no wonder Ubisoft thinks PC and Wii gaming is dying.  Nobody buys their shit, so they blame the hardware, not their criminally awful shovel-ware.  Ubisoft has said for years now that they want out of the PC game market, since it's impossible to sell games anymore.  And they always slam Nintendo, saying nobody buys third party Wii games, only Nintendo, and it's because Nintendo fans are mindless zombies who hate freedom.  Looks like they might get their wish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha , I 'd never buy an Ubisoft game again after AC1 , it had most of the same issues .
Non-pirated versions were hella unstable if your net was n't working properly , or if their servers were lagging , because it also confirmed DRM status every 3 seconds , it just complain if the connection failed or you did n't have a connection at all .
Anyways , not playing Ubisoft games is no loss , at all .
[ nintendoworldreport.com ] It says wall of shame , but I think it 's really just a wall of all third party games on the Wii...I mean , Tenchu and No More Heros were great , and Crystal Bearers is fairly decent .
All of that Ubisoft crap is on PC , too .
So no wonder Ubisoft thinks PC and Wii gaming is dying .
Nobody buys their shit , so they blame the hardware , not their criminally awful shovel-ware .
Ubisoft has said for years now that they want out of the PC game market , since it 's impossible to sell games anymore .
And they always slam Nintendo , saying nobody buys third party Wii games , only Nintendo , and it 's because Nintendo fans are mindless zombies who hate freedom .
Looks like they might get their wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha, I'd never buy an Ubisoft game again after AC1, it had most of the same issues.
Non-pirated versions were hella unstable if your net wasn't working properly, or if their servers were lagging, because it also confirmed DRM status every 3 seconds, it just complain if the connection failed or  you didn't have a connection at all.
Anyways, not playing Ubisoft games is
no loss, at all.
[nintendoworldreport.com]  It says wall of shame, but I think it's really just a wall of all third party games on the Wii...I mean, Tenchu and No More Heros were great, and Crystal Bearers is fairly decent.
All of that Ubisoft crap is on PC, too.
So no wonder Ubisoft thinks PC and Wii gaming is dying.
Nobody buys their shit, so they blame the hardware, not their criminally awful shovel-ware.
Ubisoft has said for years now that they want out of the PC game market, since it's impossible to sell games anymore.
And they always slam Nintendo, saying nobody buys third party Wii games, only Nintendo, and it's because Nintendo fans are mindless zombies who hate freedom.
Looks like they might get their wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300132</id>
	<title>Atleast</title>
	<author>natehimmel</author>
	<datestamp>1267270020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know who isn't getting my next $50.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know who is n't getting my next $ 50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know who isn't getting my next $50.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297674</id>
	<title>Who the piracy cold war hurts the most</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As some one that buys games and never pirates I'm one of the innocent victims of both sides. Back in the day there was no security so games were easy to install on new machines and required no additional set up. Now I'm facing if I buy Creed II the eventual death of the game. One day those servers will be turned off and the game will be rendered worthless. Blame the company? It's hard to since they did this in self defense. I blame both sides. The side that wants something for nothing and the side that worries only about the pirates and not the paying customers. The paying customers are always going to be the true victims in this war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As some one that buys games and never pirates I 'm one of the innocent victims of both sides .
Back in the day there was no security so games were easy to install on new machines and required no additional set up .
Now I 'm facing if I buy Creed II the eventual death of the game .
One day those servers will be turned off and the game will be rendered worthless .
Blame the company ?
It 's hard to since they did this in self defense .
I blame both sides .
The side that wants something for nothing and the side that worries only about the pirates and not the paying customers .
The paying customers are always going to be the true victims in this war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As some one that buys games and never pirates I'm one of the innocent victims of both sides.
Back in the day there was no security so games were easy to install on new machines and required no additional set up.
Now I'm facing if I buy Creed II the eventual death of the game.
One day those servers will be turned off and the game will be rendered worthless.
Blame the company?
It's hard to since they did this in self defense.
I blame both sides.
The side that wants something for nothing and the side that worries only about the pirates and not the paying customers.
The paying customers are always going to be the true victims in this war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303000</id>
	<title>The only way to win is not to play</title>
	<author>Craig Maloney</author>
	<datestamp>1267295280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one assuredly effective way to ensure this DRM scheme doesn't work, and that is to not buy the game. Period. It happened with Spore (although it unfortunately was pirated more than anything), but essentially if enough folks vote with their wallet, companies will stop doing this sort of crap - pure and simple.</p><p>Unless you LIKE that sort of thing, in which case, please make sure to pre-order it and buy as many copies as you need for you and your friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one assuredly effective way to ensure this DRM scheme does n't work , and that is to not buy the game .
Period. It happened with Spore ( although it unfortunately was pirated more than anything ) , but essentially if enough folks vote with their wallet , companies will stop doing this sort of crap - pure and simple.Unless you LIKE that sort of thing , in which case , please make sure to pre-order it and buy as many copies as you need for you and your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one assuredly effective way to ensure this DRM scheme doesn't work, and that is to not buy the game.
Period. It happened with Spore (although it unfortunately was pirated more than anything), but essentially if enough folks vote with their wallet, companies will stop doing this sort of crap - pure and simple.Unless you LIKE that sort of thing, in which case, please make sure to pre-order it and buy as many copies as you need for you and your friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299530</id>
	<title>Re:If the data can be read it can be exploited</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1267264200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The protocol isn't the only problem. After all, the protocol is interpreted by your machine running code you have access to. The thing is, you don't know what the server is doing with the data it receives. If it just sends a carbon-copy of the bitstream it receives, it would be a stupid system. If it processes the data extensively and has other kinds of obfuscated checks scattered around the game, it becomes a different matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The protocol is n't the only problem .
After all , the protocol is interpreted by your machine running code you have access to .
The thing is , you do n't know what the server is doing with the data it receives .
If it just sends a carbon-copy of the bitstream it receives , it would be a stupid system .
If it processes the data extensively and has other kinds of obfuscated checks scattered around the game , it becomes a different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The protocol isn't the only problem.
After all, the protocol is interpreted by your machine running code you have access to.
The thing is, you don't know what the server is doing with the data it receives.
If it just sends a carbon-copy of the bitstream it receives, it would be a stupid system.
If it processes the data extensively and has other kinds of obfuscated checks scattered around the game, it becomes a different matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298514</id>
	<title>This doesn't sound like DRM</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1267300320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't sound like DRM, and I don't understand what's so horrible about it. Basically, it sounds like some critical game functionality is offloaded to a server. In a way, this is simply a half-way point between an entirely client-based game and a network-based game. A game which is purely network-based also stops functioning if your network connection goes away -- would that be equally upsetting?</p><p>If you object to this sort of model, then wouldn't you object to a purely network-based pay-to-play game? Say, for instance, a pay-to-play MUD? Or any sort of for-pay web activity? I guess I don't understand what is so upsetting about this. If the dependency on the net is a showstopper for you, this game is obviously not a good purchase. Beyond that, the complaining going on here just looks like whining because they've made it more difficult to use the game without paying for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like DRM , and I do n't understand what 's so horrible about it .
Basically , it sounds like some critical game functionality is offloaded to a server .
In a way , this is simply a half-way point between an entirely client-based game and a network-based game .
A game which is purely network-based also stops functioning if your network connection goes away -- would that be equally upsetting ? If you object to this sort of model , then would n't you object to a purely network-based pay-to-play game ?
Say , for instance , a pay-to-play MUD ?
Or any sort of for-pay web activity ?
I guess I do n't understand what is so upsetting about this .
If the dependency on the net is a showstopper for you , this game is obviously not a good purchase .
Beyond that , the complaining going on here just looks like whining because they 've made it more difficult to use the game without paying for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like DRM, and I don't understand what's so horrible about it.
Basically, it sounds like some critical game functionality is offloaded to a server.
In a way, this is simply a half-way point between an entirely client-based game and a network-based game.
A game which is purely network-based also stops functioning if your network connection goes away -- would that be equally upsetting?If you object to this sort of model, then wouldn't you object to a purely network-based pay-to-play game?
Say, for instance, a pay-to-play MUD?
Or any sort of for-pay web activity?
I guess I don't understand what is so upsetting about this.
If the dependency on the net is a showstopper for you, this game is obviously not a good purchase.
Beyond that, the complaining going on here just looks like whining because they've made it more difficult to use the game without paying for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304674</id>
	<title>Self fulfilling prophecy, Ubisoft?</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1267363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see Ubisoft prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that the game won't do well, there will be a class action lawsuits, and more people will be driven to piracy than they could ever imagine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see Ubisoft prove me wrong , but I have a feeling that the game wo n't do well , there will be a class action lawsuits , and more people will be driven to piracy than they could ever imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see Ubisoft prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that the game won't do well, there will be a class action lawsuits, and more people will be driven to piracy than they could ever imagine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297618</id>
	<title>Rogue Server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see a patch quite simply where someone creates a rogue server, then modifies the game to point there... or perhaps as simple as installing a loopback and turn the host computer into a server, and point the game to localhost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see a patch quite simply where someone creates a rogue server , then modifies the game to point there... or perhaps as simple as installing a loopback and turn the host computer into a server , and point the game to localhost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see a patch quite simply where someone creates a rogue server, then modifies the game to point there... or perhaps as simple as installing a loopback and turn the host computer into a server, and point the game to localhost?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298316</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it will be cracked...</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1267298940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM.</p></div><p>Or more likely the hackers will be encouraged by the horrid DRM...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and maybe it wo n't , because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM.Or more likely the hackers will be encouraged by the horrid DRM.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM.Or more likely the hackers will be encouraged by the horrid DRM...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297946</id>
	<title>Server Side Processing could make DRM effective</title>
	<author>psperl</author>
	<datestamp>1267297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no doubt in my mind that competent hackers will be able to bypass the internet checks and redirect the DRM save/load requests to a local server.  This is routine stuff.
<br> <br>
The thing that could make this difficult is if Ubisoft transforms or processes the data on their servers before returning it to the client.  In this situation, if Ubisoft was sufficiently devious, a real crack might never appear (without a leak from Ubisoft), as the hackers would need to reverse engineer this processing, which might be unfeasible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no doubt in my mind that competent hackers will be able to bypass the internet checks and redirect the DRM save/load requests to a local server .
This is routine stuff .
The thing that could make this difficult is if Ubisoft transforms or processes the data on their servers before returning it to the client .
In this situation , if Ubisoft was sufficiently devious , a real crack might never appear ( without a leak from Ubisoft ) , as the hackers would need to reverse engineer this processing , which might be unfeasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no doubt in my mind that competent hackers will be able to bypass the internet checks and redirect the DRM save/load requests to a local server.
This is routine stuff.
The thing that could make this difficult is if Ubisoft transforms or processes the data on their servers before returning it to the client.
In this situation, if Ubisoft was sufficiently devious, a real crack might never appear (without a leak from Ubisoft), as the hackers would need to reverse engineer this processing, which might be unfeasible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298464</id>
	<title>If it ever gets hit by a DoS attack</title>
	<author>MSRedfox</author>
	<datestamp>1267299960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All it would take is for their server to get hit by a DoS attack on an opening weekend for a major release.  Every customer would suffer from being kicked out of their legally obtained game over and over.  The complaints would flood their offices and sales would drop.  I don't think I'd want a game where a group of bored kiddies could kick me out of my single player video game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All it would take is for their server to get hit by a DoS attack on an opening weekend for a major release .
Every customer would suffer from being kicked out of their legally obtained game over and over .
The complaints would flood their offices and sales would drop .
I do n't think I 'd want a game where a group of bored kiddies could kick me out of my single player video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it would take is for their server to get hit by a DoS attack on an opening weekend for a major release.
Every customer would suffer from being kicked out of their legally obtained game over and over.
The complaints would flood their offices and sales would drop.
I don't think I'd want a game where a group of bored kiddies could kick me out of my single player video game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301162</id>
	<title>I have a simple yet brilliant solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't play Assassin's Creed 2: Don't give them your money, Don't pirate the game, giving them a flimsy excuse for their failure... just play something else.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and don't blink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't play Assassin 's Creed 2 : Do n't give them your money , Do n't pirate the game , giving them a flimsy excuse for their failure... just play something else .
... and do n't blink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't play Assassin's Creed 2: Don't give them your money, Don't pirate the game, giving them a flimsy excuse for their failure... just play something else.
... and don't blink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297718</id>
	<title>Uncrackable DRM is easy</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can make a clone of Assassin's Creed with unbreakable DRM in 5 minutes. The catch? Legitimate users can't play it at all either. Just like spam filtering, the more DRM stops pirates the more it will stop legitimate users, and 100\% anti-piracy stops 100\% of non-pirates too. Anything less than 100\% has holes in it which can be exploited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can make a clone of Assassin 's Creed with unbreakable DRM in 5 minutes .
The catch ?
Legitimate users ca n't play it at all either .
Just like spam filtering , the more DRM stops pirates the more it will stop legitimate users , and 100 \ % anti-piracy stops 100 \ % of non-pirates too .
Anything less than 100 \ % has holes in it which can be exploited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can make a clone of Assassin's Creed with unbreakable DRM in 5 minutes.
The catch?
Legitimate users can't play it at all either.
Just like spam filtering, the more DRM stops pirates the more it will stop legitimate users, and 100\% anti-piracy stops 100\% of non-pirates too.
Anything less than 100\% has holes in it which can be exploited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299258</id>
	<title>bollocks it'll work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to play on a ferry for the 3 hours it takes me for the trip - no internet there - That's a loss of a sale of every decent product they make with that DRM right there.</p><p>The again - i could pay them nothing and pirate it (they are really naive enough to think any copy protection can't be cracked??) and still use the product on my 3 hour commutes.</p><p>Alternatively I can purchase products that don't have this sort of DRM and give those publishers and developers my money.</p><p>Either way - they've lost any sale I might have considered and I've paid for every good piece of software I've ever used. Sucks to be honest yet treated like a pirate.</p><p>Dumb story title by the way 'will probably work..' hah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to play on a ferry for the 3 hours it takes me for the trip - no internet there - That 's a loss of a sale of every decent product they make with that DRM right there.The again - i could pay them nothing and pirate it ( they are really naive enough to think any copy protection ca n't be cracked ? ?
) and still use the product on my 3 hour commutes.Alternatively I can purchase products that do n't have this sort of DRM and give those publishers and developers my money.Either way - they 've lost any sale I might have considered and I 've paid for every good piece of software I 've ever used .
Sucks to be honest yet treated like a pirate.Dumb story title by the way 'will probably work.. ' hah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to play on a ferry for the 3 hours it takes me for the trip - no internet there - That's a loss of a sale of every decent product they make with that DRM right there.The again - i could pay them nothing and pirate it (they are really naive enough to think any copy protection can't be cracked??
) and still use the product on my 3 hour commutes.Alternatively I can purchase products that don't have this sort of DRM and give those publishers and developers my money.Either way - they've lost any sale I might have considered and I've paid for every good piece of software I've ever used.
Sucks to be honest yet treated like a pirate.Dumb story title by the way 'will probably work..' hah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303110</id>
	<title>If enough computation is done on the server-side..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If enough computation is done on the server-side it's good game pirates.</p><p>I've been arguing about that ten years ago with a someone very smart who refused to believe it. Yet it has *already* happened: nobody is playing WOW in the real-world economies (ie one of the real Blizzard servers, with all the legit players) with a generated serial key of WOW.</p><p>Done correctly a client/server scheme is impossible to defeat.</p><p>The author of TFA is of course completely pointless when it comes to cryptography, from TFA (yup I read it, I'm new here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) :</p><p>"  2. Trick the Ubisoft servers into believing you have a legit copy,<br>"  so that they will let you save your game.<br>"<br>" OK, the hackers will probably eventually come up with a keygen program.<br>" This is tricky, because the software that generates the keys will be in Ubisoft's<br>" hands, far from prying eyes. But they could possible do it, given a bit of time.</p><p>Oh really? The NSA may want to hire such crackers and possibly try to create clones<br>of such pirates: random Joe cracker, no matter if he's from Razor 1911 or any lesser<br>group is *not* going to crack public/private key crypto.</p><p>A private key has been used to generate all these serials and unless you get hold<br>of that private key there's no way you're generating a valid serial.</p><p>Unless of course the Assassin's Creed 2 coders are total moron that overlooked<br>something trivial, but cryptography is here and well known, and, no, "given enough<br>time", you aren't going to crack it in your lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If enough computation is done on the server-side it 's good game pirates.I 've been arguing about that ten years ago with a someone very smart who refused to believe it .
Yet it has * already * happened : nobody is playing WOW in the real-world economies ( ie one of the real Blizzard servers , with all the legit players ) with a generated serial key of WOW.Done correctly a client/server scheme is impossible to defeat.The author of TFA is of course completely pointless when it comes to cryptography , from TFA ( yup I read it , I 'm new here ; ) : " 2 .
Trick the Ubisoft servers into believing you have a legit copy , " so that they will let you save your game .
" " OK , the hackers will probably eventually come up with a keygen program .
" This is tricky , because the software that generates the keys will be in Ubisoft 's " hands , far from prying eyes .
But they could possible do it , given a bit of time.Oh really ?
The NSA may want to hire such crackers and possibly try to create clonesof such pirates : random Joe cracker , no matter if he 's from Razor 1911 or any lessergroup is * not * going to crack public/private key crypto.A private key has been used to generate all these serials and unless you get holdof that private key there 's no way you 're generating a valid serial.Unless of course the Assassin 's Creed 2 coders are total moron that overlookedsomething trivial , but cryptography is here and well known , and , no , " given enoughtime " , you are n't going to crack it in your lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If enough computation is done on the server-side it's good game pirates.I've been arguing about that ten years ago with a someone very smart who refused to believe it.
Yet it has *already* happened: nobody is playing WOW in the real-world economies (ie one of the real Blizzard servers, with all the legit players) with a generated serial key of WOW.Done correctly a client/server scheme is impossible to defeat.The author of TFA is of course completely pointless when it comes to cryptography, from TFA (yup I read it, I'm new here ;) :"  2.
Trick the Ubisoft servers into believing you have a legit copy,"  so that they will let you save your game.
"" OK, the hackers will probably eventually come up with a keygen program.
" This is tricky, because the software that generates the keys will be in Ubisoft's" hands, far from prying eyes.
But they could possible do it, given a bit of time.Oh really?
The NSA may want to hire such crackers and possibly try to create clonesof such pirates: random Joe cracker, no matter if he's from Razor 1911 or any lessergroup is *not* going to crack public/private key crypto.A private key has been used to generate all these serials and unless you get holdof that private key there's no way you're generating a valid serial.Unless of course the Assassin's Creed 2 coders are total moron that overlookedsomething trivial, but cryptography is here and well known, and, no, "given enoughtime", you aren't going to crack it in your lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31307324</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1267383480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You practically <em>have</em> to be a pirate to navigate through this many comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You practically have to be a pirate to navigate through this many comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You practically have to be a pirate to navigate through this many comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31350270</id>
	<title>L-A-M-E</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate this idea. I'm a military member and often have a laptop with me living in a tent in a field in the middle of a third world country for entertainment. If this catches on I won't be able to play games I own while I'm on the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate this idea .
I 'm a military member and often have a laptop with me living in a tent in a field in the middle of a third world country for entertainment .
If this catches on I wo n't be able to play games I own while I 'm on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate this idea.
I'm a military member and often have a laptop with me living in a tent in a field in the middle of a third world country for entertainment.
If this catches on I won't be able to play games I own while I'm on the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302550</id>
	<title>Starforce Saga...</title>
	<author>warncke</author>
	<datestamp>1267291440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These DRM schemes probably cost more money than they ever get back in increased revenue.

People download games for free for all kinds of reasons.  That in no way means that they would actually pay money for the game if they couldn't download it.  There is zero correlation between the two things.

It is just security programmers earning a paycheck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  (nothing wrong with that)

I recall Starforce going uncracked for a long time, and being used in many commercial titles.  Until Reloaded released a half-dozen Starforce protected games on Christmas day, along with extensive details on how to bypass Starforce.

Interested that these are called "cracks."  The more accurate term is "fixes."  It is taking broken software and making it work...

The ubiquity of internet connections makes it easier to do crazier and crazier schemes based on encryption, server interaction, and obfuscation, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that piracy has little to do with sales revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These DRM schemes probably cost more money than they ever get back in increased revenue .
People download games for free for all kinds of reasons .
That in no way means that they would actually pay money for the game if they could n't download it .
There is zero correlation between the two things .
It is just security programmers earning a paycheck : ) ( nothing wrong with that ) I recall Starforce going uncracked for a long time , and being used in many commercial titles .
Until Reloaded released a half-dozen Starforce protected games on Christmas day , along with extensive details on how to bypass Starforce .
Interested that these are called " cracks .
" The more accurate term is " fixes .
" It is taking broken software and making it work.. . The ubiquity of internet connections makes it easier to do crazier and crazier schemes based on encryption , server interaction , and obfuscation , but it does n't change the underlying fact that piracy has little to do with sales revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These DRM schemes probably cost more money than they ever get back in increased revenue.
People download games for free for all kinds of reasons.
That in no way means that they would actually pay money for the game if they couldn't download it.
There is zero correlation between the two things.
It is just security programmers earning a paycheck :)  (nothing wrong with that)

I recall Starforce going uncracked for a long time, and being used in many commercial titles.
Until Reloaded released a half-dozen Starforce protected games on Christmas day, along with extensive details on how to bypass Starforce.
Interested that these are called "cracks.
"  The more accurate term is "fixes.
"  It is taking broken software and making it work...

The ubiquity of internet connections makes it easier to do crazier and crazier schemes based on encryption, server interaction, and obfuscation, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that piracy has little to do with sales revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297770</id>
	<title>Ask Konami how this is going for them...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because they've been doing this for QUITE a while on their arcade games, and this is a VERY small hurdle for those hackers to get by, and quite a niche audience for a bootleg compared to AC2. Long story short, Konami lost this battle in 2002. Ubisoft didn't pay attention, learn, and will lose again in 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because they 've been doing this for QUITE a while on their arcade games , and this is a VERY small hurdle for those hackers to get by , and quite a niche audience for a bootleg compared to AC2 .
Long story short , Konami lost this battle in 2002 .
Ubisoft did n't pay attention , learn , and will lose again in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because they've been doing this for QUITE a while on their arcade games, and this is a VERY small hurdle for those hackers to get by, and quite a niche audience for a bootleg compared to AC2.
Long story short, Konami lost this battle in 2002.
Ubisoft didn't pay attention, learn, and will lose again in 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297862</id>
	<title>Save the process's memory</title>
	<author>falckon</author>
	<datestamp>1267296540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If creating a server that actually implements the save-game functionality is too difficult, then perhaps they could just save the process's memory to a file and reload it. Sure the save files would be on the order of gigabytes but disk space is cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If creating a server that actually implements the save-game functionality is too difficult , then perhaps they could just save the process 's memory to a file and reload it .
Sure the save files would be on the order of gigabytes but disk space is cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If creating a server that actually implements the save-game functionality is too difficult, then perhaps they could just save the process's memory to a file and reload it.
Sure the save files would be on the order of gigabytes but disk space is cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1267302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Blizzard's sales figures based on an ONLINE ONLY game called World of Warcraft is proof that the average customer is fine with being tied to a server.</p><p>What are the chances that the once per day will be during your gaming session?  That sounds inconvenient regardless if you have a game with DRM.</p><p>Do you hate HULU and Netflix Instant View because of this as well?</p><p>It seems very selective to pick out something which doesn't normally require an internet connection as the only thing that annoys you going out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Blizzard 's sales figures based on an ONLINE ONLY game called World of Warcraft is proof that the average customer is fine with being tied to a server.What are the chances that the once per day will be during your gaming session ?
That sounds inconvenient regardless if you have a game with DRM.Do you hate HULU and Netflix Instant View because of this as well ? It seems very selective to pick out something which does n't normally require an internet connection as the only thing that annoys you going out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Blizzard's sales figures based on an ONLINE ONLY game called World of Warcraft is proof that the average customer is fine with being tied to a server.What are the chances that the once per day will be during your gaming session?
That sounds inconvenient regardless if you have a game with DRM.Do you hate HULU and Netflix Instant View because of this as well?It seems very selective to pick out something which doesn't normally require an internet connection as the only thing that annoys you going out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302944</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>joemck</author>
	<datestamp>1267294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not being able to use Hulu when my connection is down IS annoying, but quite understandable. Having a single-player game that I bought on a disc and installed to my hard disk, which have ZERO online component, not work when I'm offline is also annoying. But it isn't so understandable and therefore more annoying.</p><p>It's like finding out your TV doesn't work during a power outage, vs. finding out your board games don't work when the power's out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being able to use Hulu when my connection is down IS annoying , but quite understandable .
Having a single-player game that I bought on a disc and installed to my hard disk , which have ZERO online component , not work when I 'm offline is also annoying .
But it is n't so understandable and therefore more annoying.It 's like finding out your TV does n't work during a power outage , vs. finding out your board games do n't work when the power 's out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being able to use Hulu when my connection is down IS annoying, but quite understandable.
Having a single-player game that I bought on a disc and installed to my hard disk, which have ZERO online component, not work when I'm offline is also annoying.
But it isn't so understandable and therefore more annoying.It's like finding out your TV doesn't work during a power outage, vs. finding out your board games don't work when the power's out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31323848</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldnt agree more, there are tons of drm-free games worth supporting instead:</p><p>http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/</p><p>is a good place to start</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I couldnt agree more , there are tons of drm-free games worth supporting instead : http : //www.reclaimyourgame.com/is a good place to start</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldnt agree more, there are tons of drm-free games worth supporting instead:http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/is a good place to start</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298702</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>liquiddark</author>
	<datestamp>1267301340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would think the furor over ACTA would put the lie to this at this point.  Perhaps the out is that in the current climate it's far from a free market, but whatever is happening, it seems very likely that DRM is going to get much worse before it gets better, and it's going to be enshrined in law and hardware to boot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think the furor over ACTA would put the lie to this at this point .
Perhaps the out is that in the current climate it 's far from a free market , but whatever is happening , it seems very likely that DRM is going to get much worse before it gets better , and it 's going to be enshrined in law and hardware to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think the furor over ACTA would put the lie to this at this point.
Perhaps the out is that in the current climate it's far from a free market, but whatever is happening, it seems very likely that DRM is going to get much worse before it gets better, and it's going to be enshrined in law and hardware to boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305706</id>
	<title>Don't hate the players.</title>
	<author>Derpnooner</author>
	<datestamp>1267372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been reading a lot of these posts and I can't help but click on TPB and notice all new titles for the PC, XBOX, and PS3.  I'm not much for Socialism in gaming, but I can't be upset with a company for trying to protect its products and offerings.  Sure, someone may be pissed that they can't play unless their online - however, as someone else suggested, you don't HAVE to buy the game.
<br>
<br>
Remember when Half-Life 2 came out on Steam, and how no one could play, even when online?  I was one of the affected "no internet available" people who couldn't play at first.  I had to hook my PC up at the parents house and wait for it to update.  This did piss me off at the time, but I still love Half-Life 2.
<br>
<br>
You wouldn't be upset if your parents put a security system in their home.  So, why be pissed that UBI Soft wants to make some scratch off their work?  Can't blame them.
<br>
<br>
Just take a look at the below link (be careful, TPB is filled with Nasties) and put yourself in the developers shoes.
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://thepiratebay.org/top/401" title="thepiratebay.org" rel="nofollow">Pirate Bay Top 100 PC Games</a> [thepiratebay.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading a lot of these posts and I ca n't help but click on TPB and notice all new titles for the PC , XBOX , and PS3 .
I 'm not much for Socialism in gaming , but I ca n't be upset with a company for trying to protect its products and offerings .
Sure , someone may be pissed that they ca n't play unless their online - however , as someone else suggested , you do n't HAVE to buy the game .
Remember when Half-Life 2 came out on Steam , and how no one could play , even when online ?
I was one of the affected " no internet available " people who could n't play at first .
I had to hook my PC up at the parents house and wait for it to update .
This did piss me off at the time , but I still love Half-Life 2 .
You would n't be upset if your parents put a security system in their home .
So , why be pissed that UBI Soft wants to make some scratch off their work ?
Ca n't blame them .
Just take a look at the below link ( be careful , TPB is filled with Nasties ) and put yourself in the developers shoes .
Pirate Bay Top 100 PC Games [ thepiratebay.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading a lot of these posts and I can't help but click on TPB and notice all new titles for the PC, XBOX, and PS3.
I'm not much for Socialism in gaming, but I can't be upset with a company for trying to protect its products and offerings.
Sure, someone may be pissed that they can't play unless their online - however, as someone else suggested, you don't HAVE to buy the game.
Remember when Half-Life 2 came out on Steam, and how no one could play, even when online?
I was one of the affected "no internet available" people who couldn't play at first.
I had to hook my PC up at the parents house and wait for it to update.
This did piss me off at the time, but I still love Half-Life 2.
You wouldn't be upset if your parents put a security system in their home.
So, why be pissed that UBI Soft wants to make some scratch off their work?
Can't blame them.
Just take a look at the below link (be careful, TPB is filled with Nasties) and put yourself in the developers shoes.
Pirate Bay Top 100 PC Games [thepiratebay.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298060</id>
	<title>Easy to solve on two points</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1267297680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Don't buy the game at all.</p><p>2. Wait for the pirated version. Someone is sure to make a little local server and just redirect the conversation to that.</p><p>Either way DRM is evil, its not a question of them doing what is right, its a question of them doing what is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Do n't buy the game at all.2 .
Wait for the pirated version .
Someone is sure to make a little local server and just redirect the conversation to that.Either way DRM is evil , its not a question of them doing what is right , its a question of them doing what is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Don't buy the game at all.2.
Wait for the pirated version.
Someone is sure to make a little local server and just redirect the conversation to that.Either way DRM is evil, its not a question of them doing what is right, its a question of them doing what is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302072</id>
	<title>Sooner than they think</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1267287300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just install a packet sniffer between your machine and the network connection. Problem solved. Then copy the code that they transmit and install it on a server on your network.  Find out the connection details and point them at your local server. Presto, problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just install a packet sniffer between your machine and the network connection .
Problem solved .
Then copy the code that they transmit and install it on a server on your network .
Find out the connection details and point them at your local server .
Presto , problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just install a packet sniffer between your machine and the network connection.
Problem solved.
Then copy the code that they transmit and install it on a server on your network.
Find out the connection details and point them at your local server.
Presto, problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298808</id>
	<title>Sooo all that needs to be done...</title>
	<author>TavisJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267302120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All some enterprising hacker needs to do is rig up a local server app instead.  Hack the game to talk to the 127.0.0.1 instead of the "official" server.</p><p>If "private" World of Warcraft servers can exist, then so can a private save server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All some enterprising hacker needs to do is rig up a local server app instead .
Hack the game to talk to the 127.0.0.1 instead of the " official " server.If " private " World of Warcraft servers can exist , then so can a private save server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All some enterprising hacker needs to do is rig up a local server app instead.
Hack the game to talk to the 127.0.0.1 instead of the "official" server.If "private" World of Warcraft servers can exist, then so can a private save server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298888</id>
	<title>Re:Save States</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1267302660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can save entire machine states in Virtual Box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can save entire machine states in Virtual Box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can save entire machine states in Virtual Box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299766</id>
	<title>Never underestimate the ingenuity</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1267266540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Of crackers...
</p><p>
If it needs an outside server to save games, they may very well make an outside server-to-save-games program.  And patch the game to contact the local server instead.
</p><p>
They might not normally go through the trouble.
</p><p>
But...  some of the people now who <b>hate the DRM</b> and want to break it will be legitimate customers who never intend to actually pirate it.
</p><p>
IOW, they now have an itch to scratch.
If enough of those legitimate customers are sufficiently annoyed by the DRM but like the play of a game enough,  Ubisoft has manufactured a reason for them to work on the problem.
</p><p>
Requiring a constant internet connection is a major annoyance for the legitimate customers,  and so,  there may be lots of hackers working on this problem.
</p><p>
Lots of hackers who are skilled at reverse engineering protocols, since they see Ubisoft as basically "creating a challenge for them"    ("Unbreakable DRM, you say?" Hah! sounds like a day)
</p><p>
So IOW, no,  I don't think it's correct that it will work, necessarily.
</p><p>
Just depends on how much real dependency on the server is there,  how complex the interactions are, and how good/how popular the game is.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of crackers.. . If it needs an outside server to save games , they may very well make an outside server-to-save-games program .
And patch the game to contact the local server instead .
They might not normally go through the trouble .
But... some of the people now who hate the DRM and want to break it will be legitimate customers who never intend to actually pirate it .
IOW , they now have an itch to scratch .
If enough of those legitimate customers are sufficiently annoyed by the DRM but like the play of a game enough , Ubisoft has manufactured a reason for them to work on the problem .
Requiring a constant internet connection is a major annoyance for the legitimate customers , and so , there may be lots of hackers working on this problem .
Lots of hackers who are skilled at reverse engineering protocols , since they see Ubisoft as basically " creating a challenge for them " ( " Unbreakable DRM , you say ?
" Hah !
sounds like a day ) So IOW , no , I do n't think it 's correct that it will work , necessarily .
Just depends on how much real dependency on the server is there , how complex the interactions are , and how good/how popular the game is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Of crackers...

If it needs an outside server to save games, they may very well make an outside server-to-save-games program.
And patch the game to contact the local server instead.
They might not normally go through the trouble.
But...  some of the people now who hate the DRM and want to break it will be legitimate customers who never intend to actually pirate it.
IOW, they now have an itch to scratch.
If enough of those legitimate customers are sufficiently annoyed by the DRM but like the play of a game enough,  Ubisoft has manufactured a reason for them to work on the problem.
Requiring a constant internet connection is a major annoyance for the legitimate customers,  and so,  there may be lots of hackers working on this problem.
Lots of hackers who are skilled at reverse engineering protocols, since they see Ubisoft as basically "creating a challenge for them"    ("Unbreakable DRM, you say?
" Hah!
sounds like a day)

So IOW, no,  I don't think it's correct that it will work, necessarily.
Just depends on how much real dependency on the server is there,  how complex the interactions are, and how good/how popular the game is.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297896</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>chatgris</author>
	<datestamp>1267296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming. I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.</p></div><p>Thankfully, you have a simple, legal option available to you: Don't buy the game. It's just entertainment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With that said , this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming .
I 'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.Thankfully , you have a simple , legal option available to you : Do n't buy the game .
It 's just entertainment : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming.
I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.Thankfully, you have a simple, legal option available to you: Don't buy the game.
It's just entertainment :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31317780</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267465200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... then customers stay away in droves.</p></div><p>I've never seen a stationary drove before..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... then customers stay away in droves.I 've never seen a stationary drove before. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... then customers stay away in droves.I've never seen a stationary drove before..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304078</id>
	<title>DRM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one says that World of Warcraft has DRM because it cannot be played without connection to game server. Is this any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one says that World of Warcraft has DRM because it can not be played without connection to game server .
Is this any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one says that World of Warcraft has DRM because it cannot be played without connection to game server.
Is this any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299366</id>
	<title>Re:Save States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datel\_Action\_Replay" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Action Replay Cartridge!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot .
Action Replay Cartridge !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot.
Action Replay Cartridge!
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31337974</id>
	<title>Make your own server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267533720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Option 1 doesn't sound as bad as he makes it out to be. You don't need to run public servers that pretend to be Ubisofts server. Just run a server process on the local machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Option 1 does n't sound as bad as he makes it out to be .
You do n't need to run public servers that pretend to be Ubisofts server .
Just run a server process on the local machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Option 1 doesn't sound as bad as he makes it out to be.
You don't need to run public servers that pretend to be Ubisofts server.
Just run a server process on the local machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300946</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>Sasayaki</author>
	<datestamp>1267277940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My DSL goes down (for just a minute or two) daily. It's usually no big deal, but here it apparently would be. Thus this is a game I could never purchase. Let's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement.</p></div><p>Let me whip out my Corporate-Speak translator for you.</p><p>"Blah blah blah three letter acronym breaks a few times a day. ??? technical stuff, do not want.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm not buying your product, it's a lost sale, therefore piracy. I am STEALING your software as we speak."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My DSL goes down ( for just a minute or two ) daily .
It 's usually no big deal , but here it apparently would be .
Thus this is a game I could never purchase .
Let 's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they 're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement.Let me whip out my Corporate-Speak translator for you .
" Blah blah blah three letter acronym breaks a few times a day .
? ? ? technical stuff , do not want .
... I 'm not buying your product , it 's a lost sale , therefore piracy .
I am STEALING your software as we speak .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My DSL goes down (for just a minute or two) daily.
It's usually no big deal, but here it apparently would be.
Thus this is a game I could never purchase.
Let's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement.Let me whip out my Corporate-Speak translator for you.
"Blah blah blah three letter acronym breaks a few times a day.
??? technical stuff, do not want.
... I'm not buying your product, it's a lost sale, therefore piracy.
I am STEALING your software as we speak.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306488</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1267378020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about encrypting the uploaded data with a public key ?</p><p>this system can be made a great annoyance to crack. unfortunately, it will also mean a huge annoyance to those who purchase it, so direct customers again will be hurt the most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about encrypting the uploaded data with a public key ? this system can be made a great annoyance to crack .
unfortunately , it will also mean a huge annoyance to those who purchase it , so direct customers again will be hurt the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about encrypting the uploaded data with a public key ?this system can be made a great annoyance to crack.
unfortunately, it will also mean a huge annoyance to those who purchase it, so direct customers again will be hurt the most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299704</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Waruwaru</author>
	<datestamp>1267265820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did they even bother to sell a ~$250 collector's edition?  Even New In Box, that thing is worthless in 10 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they even bother to sell a ~ $ 250 collector 's edition ?
Even New In Box , that thing is worthless in 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they even bother to sell a ~$250 collector's edition?
Even New In Box, that thing is worthless in 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297504</id>
	<title>Sweet spot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all about finding the sweet spot. DRM is invariably going to piss of a certain number of paying users but if you piss off too many you lose revenue, or worse yet, if your product gets a rep for being unreliable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you're throwing away potential customers. DRM is a risky game to play, and if you're gonna do it you better make damn sure it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about finding the sweet spot .
DRM is invariably going to piss of a certain number of paying users but if you piss off too many you lose revenue , or worse yet , if your product gets a rep for being unreliable ... you 're throwing away potential customers .
DRM is a risky game to play , and if you 're gon na do it you better make damn sure it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about finding the sweet spot.
DRM is invariably going to piss of a certain number of paying users but if you piss off too many you lose revenue, or worse yet, if your product gets a rep for being unreliable ... you're throwing away potential customers.
DRM is a risky game to play, and if you're gonna do it you better make damn sure it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299124</id>
	<title>cost and price</title>
	<author>one85\_db</author>
	<datestamp>1267304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many good arguments on here and most of them addresses the dislike and disgust of DRM. What I don't understand is this:
<br> <br>
All of these game companies are striving to create control of their software; they are spending just as much money on software that is used to prevent hackers from pirating a program as they are the games themselves. The software that they are creating is simply not working and if it does, then it does not work for long. This means that software programmers and engineers are going to have to keep on updating and changing the anti-piracy software to stay ahead of the hackers; costing the software companies even more money over the life of a game. In order for the game companies to continue to make money on their product, with all this extra cost of security,  then they must increase the price of the game, create subscription fees, or have limited time on license for their software.
<br> <br>
It seems reasonable to me that if they would stop focusing so much on the anti-piracy measures and focus more on making their games enjoyable and AFFORDABLE then they would sell more and make more on their games.
<br> <br>
I know that when I can't afford a game that I want to play then I won't even attempt to save up for it. I will, however, find a way to play the game without buying it, and if that means that I have to play it for only an hour at a friend's house then that is what I will do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many good arguments on here and most of them addresses the dislike and disgust of DRM .
What I do n't understand is this : All of these game companies are striving to create control of their software ; they are spending just as much money on software that is used to prevent hackers from pirating a program as they are the games themselves .
The software that they are creating is simply not working and if it does , then it does not work for long .
This means that software programmers and engineers are going to have to keep on updating and changing the anti-piracy software to stay ahead of the hackers ; costing the software companies even more money over the life of a game .
In order for the game companies to continue to make money on their product , with all this extra cost of security , then they must increase the price of the game , create subscription fees , or have limited time on license for their software .
It seems reasonable to me that if they would stop focusing so much on the anti-piracy measures and focus more on making their games enjoyable and AFFORDABLE then they would sell more and make more on their games .
I know that when I ca n't afford a game that I want to play then I wo n't even attempt to save up for it .
I will , however , find a way to play the game without buying it , and if that means that I have to play it for only an hour at a friend 's house then that is what I will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many good arguments on here and most of them addresses the dislike and disgust of DRM.
What I don't understand is this:
 
All of these game companies are striving to create control of their software; they are spending just as much money on software that is used to prevent hackers from pirating a program as they are the games themselves.
The software that they are creating is simply not working and if it does, then it does not work for long.
This means that software programmers and engineers are going to have to keep on updating and changing the anti-piracy software to stay ahead of the hackers; costing the software companies even more money over the life of a game.
In order for the game companies to continue to make money on their product, with all this extra cost of security,  then they must increase the price of the game, create subscription fees, or have limited time on license for their software.
It seems reasonable to me that if they would stop focusing so much on the anti-piracy measures and focus more on making their games enjoyable and AFFORDABLE then they would sell more and make more on their games.
I know that when I can't afford a game that I want to play then I won't even attempt to save up for it.
I will, however, find a way to play the game without buying it, and if that means that I have to play it for only an hour at a friend's house then that is what I will do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300362</id>
	<title>It's already been cracked</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1267272600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't suppose anyone bothered to point out the obvious. That the game is already cracked and  available for download on the pirate bay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't suppose anyone bothered to point out the obvious .
That the game is already cracked and available for download on the pirate bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't suppose anyone bothered to point out the obvious.
That the game is already cracked and  available for download on the pirate bay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300476</id>
	<title>Re:It's stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267273560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's until the company that makes your baseball bat adds in a chip to make sure you only use their balls, gloves, and bases.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's until the company that makes your baseball bat adds in a chip to make sure you only use their balls , gloves , and bases .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's until the company that makes your baseball bat adds in a chip to make sure you only use their balls, gloves, and bases.
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300692</id>
	<title>holding hackers off long enough</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1267275540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, regardless of the fact, that I am not interested in this game (no harsh critic, just simply does not interest me at all)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I have to put my 2c:</p><p>I would not buy a program that exits if the server is not reachable. I find it dreadful even for an online game, not a single player one.</p><p>I would say, that I would return it, but we all know, that this is not an option most of the time. Games have absolutely crap support, canned responses from Ubi (Ghost Recon problems), from EA (NFS) and from Codemasters (Dirt)......</p><p>In fact I got so mad over zero help from EA, that I haven't turned on my gaming machine for 3 months and I am not even planning to. All the games I purchased in the last final months of my gaming were full of bugs, lag issues, crashes, and some took more that a week to be able to run (with 0 help from the companies), that I just quit.....</p><p>Most of them were a console port, stripped of prior features and just plain dreadfully crap....</p><p>But either way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a game, that has this kind of protection that makes legal customers miserable is just plain ignorance from the publisher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , regardless of the fact , that I am not interested in this game ( no harsh critic , just simply does not interest me at all ) ... I have to put my 2c : I would not buy a program that exits if the server is not reachable .
I find it dreadful even for an online game , not a single player one.I would say , that I would return it , but we all know , that this is not an option most of the time .
Games have absolutely crap support , canned responses from Ubi ( Ghost Recon problems ) , from EA ( NFS ) and from Codemasters ( Dirt ) ......In fact I got so mad over zero help from EA , that I have n't turned on my gaming machine for 3 months and I am not even planning to .
All the games I purchased in the last final months of my gaming were full of bugs , lag issues , crashes , and some took more that a week to be able to run ( with 0 help from the companies ) , that I just quit.....Most of them were a console port , stripped of prior features and just plain dreadfully crap....But either way ... a game , that has this kind of protection that makes legal customers miserable is just plain ignorance from the publisher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, regardless of the fact, that I am not interested in this game (no harsh critic, just simply does not interest me at all) ... I have to put my 2c:I would not buy a program that exits if the server is not reachable.
I find it dreadful even for an online game, not a single player one.I would say, that I would return it, but we all know, that this is not an option most of the time.
Games have absolutely crap support, canned responses from Ubi (Ghost Recon problems), from EA (NFS) and from Codemasters (Dirt)......In fact I got so mad over zero help from EA, that I haven't turned on my gaming machine for 3 months and I am not even planning to.
All the games I purchased in the last final months of my gaming were full of bugs, lag issues, crashes, and some took more that a week to be able to run (with 0 help from the companies), that I just quit.....Most of them were a console port, stripped of prior features and just plain dreadfully crap....But either way ... a game, that has this kind of protection that makes legal customers miserable is just plain ignorance from the publisher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298262</id>
	<title>Bioware/Bethesda...</title>
	<author>keith\_nt4</author>
	<datestamp>1267298700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think anyone has yet mentioned that games from Bethesda and Bioware have seem to have little DRM outside of a disc check. Games like Oblivion, FO3 and Dragon Age all seem to lack this crippling DRM. And yet they're still in business happily producing games. Maybe it's not enough to simply not buy games that have crippling DRM. Maybe we should also go out of our way to also buy games that are so lacking in DRM even if it would be trivial to get it for free. I think sending these non-DRM (relatively) developers my $50 or $60 is worth it just to support the idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone has yet mentioned that games from Bethesda and Bioware have seem to have little DRM outside of a disc check .
Games like Oblivion , FO3 and Dragon Age all seem to lack this crippling DRM .
And yet they 're still in business happily producing games .
Maybe it 's not enough to simply not buy games that have crippling DRM .
Maybe we should also go out of our way to also buy games that are so lacking in DRM even if it would be trivial to get it for free .
I think sending these non-DRM ( relatively ) developers my $ 50 or $ 60 is worth it just to support the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone has yet mentioned that games from Bethesda and Bioware have seem to have little DRM outside of a disc check.
Games like Oblivion, FO3 and Dragon Age all seem to lack this crippling DRM.
And yet they're still in business happily producing games.
Maybe it's not enough to simply not buy games that have crippling DRM.
Maybe we should also go out of our way to also buy games that are so lacking in DRM even if it would be trivial to get it for free.
I think sending these non-DRM (relatively) developers my $50 or $60 is worth it just to support the idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303162</id>
	<title>Hard to beat?</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1267296900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't someone just reverse engineer the datastream in order to figure out the save/load logic then redirect the URL call to another IP (maybe your own)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't someone just reverse engineer the datastream in order to figure out the save/load logic then redirect the URL call to another IP ( maybe your own ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't someone just reverse engineer the datastream in order to figure out the save/load logic then redirect the URL call to another IP (maybe your own)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31307460</id>
	<title>Blame Gamestop not Pirates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have AT&amp;T and my service goes down many times a day.  If I were to buy a game with a DRM like this, I'd be really pissed off getting the game to crash multiple times a day.  Could you imagine playing a RPG like this?  I buy NEW games all the time, and I NEVER buy games used or at ebgames/gamestop because I strongly believe in supporting the publishers.  Games will always be pirated, but most of us would rather spend less on games for something new than to spend less on something used.  Make it illegal to resell games and drop the overall price of games / consoles and of course forget about DRMs.  While not many share the same interest as I, I know for a fact that the last 12 games that my roommate bought gave no profit to publishers because they were used.  Might as well download them illegally right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have AT&amp;T and my service goes down many times a day .
If I were to buy a game with a DRM like this , I 'd be really pissed off getting the game to crash multiple times a day .
Could you imagine playing a RPG like this ?
I buy NEW games all the time , and I NEVER buy games used or at ebgames/gamestop because I strongly believe in supporting the publishers .
Games will always be pirated , but most of us would rather spend less on games for something new than to spend less on something used .
Make it illegal to resell games and drop the overall price of games / consoles and of course forget about DRMs .
While not many share the same interest as I , I know for a fact that the last 12 games that my roommate bought gave no profit to publishers because they were used .
Might as well download them illegally right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have AT&amp;T and my service goes down many times a day.
If I were to buy a game with a DRM like this, I'd be really pissed off getting the game to crash multiple times a day.
Could you imagine playing a RPG like this?
I buy NEW games all the time, and I NEVER buy games used or at ebgames/gamestop because I strongly believe in supporting the publishers.
Games will always be pirated, but most of us would rather spend less on games for something new than to spend less on something used.
Make it illegal to resell games and drop the overall price of games / consoles and of course forget about DRMs.
While not many share the same interest as I, I know for a fact that the last 12 games that my roommate bought gave no profit to publishers because they were used.
Might as well download them illegally right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298286</id>
	<title>It really makes me wonder...</title>
	<author>Backward Z</author>
	<datestamp>1267298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how much these companies pay to have DRM integrated into their product.  Or even how much they have to pay for the DRM vs. how much it "gets them back" vs. piracy.</p><p>But I'd be really interested to see the numbers they project to lose to piracy vs. how much they're spending on DRM.  It seems to me that buying the DRM would only hurt them more--it obviously does very little if anything to deter piracy.  Wouldn't piracy be hurting their bottom line like this?:</p><p>Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRM</p><p>It's like if you lost some jewelry down the sink so you throw more down there to clog the hole so no more can get through.  Just doesn't make any damn sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how much these companies pay to have DRM integrated into their product .
Or even how much they have to pay for the DRM vs. how much it " gets them back " vs. piracy.But I 'd be really interested to see the numbers they project to lose to piracy vs. how much they 're spending on DRM .
It seems to me that buying the DRM would only hurt them more--it obviously does very little if anything to deter piracy .
Would n't piracy be hurting their bottom line like this ?
: Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRMIt 's like if you lost some jewelry down the sink so you throw more down there to clog the hole so no more can get through .
Just does n't make any damn sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how much these companies pay to have DRM integrated into their product.
Or even how much they have to pay for the DRM vs. how much it "gets them back" vs. piracy.But I'd be really interested to see the numbers they project to lose to piracy vs. how much they're spending on DRM.
It seems to me that buying the DRM would only hurt them more--it obviously does very little if anything to deter piracy.
Wouldn't piracy be hurting their bottom line like this?
:Income lost to piracy = income lost to piracy + cost of DRMIt's like if you lost some jewelry down the sink so you throw more down there to clog the hole so no more can get through.
Just doesn't make any damn sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303276</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267298520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a safe bet that emulating a WoW server is harder than a save game server for whatever crap Ubisoft is spewing this week.</p><p>Do you know how samba came into existence?  Reverse engineering the network packets to figure out what the server was doing.</p><p>Nothing they can do will last long term, its just a question of how long it lasts and if anyone cares enough to defeat it.</p><p>If what they are doing really is an issue that creates problems for users it won't last long.  All of the 'rants' about DRM now are limited to a small percentage of customers, most of them techies who know whats going on and are just bitchy about it or do something that causes the DRM to get angry and cut them off (be it local, Steam or whatever).</p><p>Its really just not as big of an issue as slashdotters would like to think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a safe bet that emulating a WoW server is harder than a save game server for whatever crap Ubisoft is spewing this week.Do you know how samba came into existence ?
Reverse engineering the network packets to figure out what the server was doing.Nothing they can do will last long term , its just a question of how long it lasts and if anyone cares enough to defeat it.If what they are doing really is an issue that creates problems for users it wo n't last long .
All of the 'rants ' about DRM now are limited to a small percentage of customers , most of them techies who know whats going on and are just bitchy about it or do something that causes the DRM to get angry and cut them off ( be it local , Steam or whatever ) .Its really just not as big of an issue as slashdotters would like to think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a safe bet that emulating a WoW server is harder than a save game server for whatever crap Ubisoft is spewing this week.Do you know how samba came into existence?
Reverse engineering the network packets to figure out what the server was doing.Nothing they can do will last long term, its just a question of how long it lasts and if anyone cares enough to defeat it.If what they are doing really is an issue that creates problems for users it won't last long.
All of the 'rants' about DRM now are limited to a small percentage of customers, most of them techies who know whats going on and are just bitchy about it or do something that causes the DRM to get angry and cut them off (be it local, Steam or whatever).Its really just not as big of an issue as slashdotters would like to think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303264</id>
	<title>Speculation.</title>
	<author>Seyren</author>
	<datestamp>1267298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with this method of DRM, but I really want to play this game. Also, I don't pirate games as a matter of principle (though if I made a game and it was pirated widely, I'd take that as a compliment, it just means people liked it).</p><p>So what I'm going to do is borrow a friend's xbox and play his old copy. I get to play the game, I don't have to deal with the ham-fisted DRM, I don't pay a cent, and all without doing anything illegal.</p><p>Still, it makes me kind of sad that I don't get to play on my platform of choice. I don't like where this fight is going either, it seems like publishers are just intending to take piracy as an excuse to leave the PC market for the console market. I like my all in one work and entertainment machine, and the thought of having to purchase additional hardware just to play games is really annoying.</p><p>The worst part of all this is that they did it on a really popular game. Most people will just suck it up and buy the game with the inconvenient DRM because they just want to play the game, and then Ubisoft will claim high sales numbers as proof that the system "reduces piracy rates". This doesn't work because all it means is that more people are playing the game. Once the game is cracked, the ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies will probably still look the same as for any other game. If this was done on a less popular title, that title's sales numbers would fall because the mentality would be "oh, I wanted to try that game, but the DRM is a pain in the ass so I guess I won't bother". And since the game didn't get a chance to prove itself before the inevitable cracking, less people would be looking to pirate it due to lack of general interest and word-of-mouth advertising, resulting in overall less copies in the wild, but a pretty much similar ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies.</p><p>Of course, there's no way to tell if the above would actually be the case until the scenario actually happens, so let's wait and see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with this method of DRM , but I really want to play this game .
Also , I do n't pirate games as a matter of principle ( though if I made a game and it was pirated widely , I 'd take that as a compliment , it just means people liked it ) .So what I 'm going to do is borrow a friend 's xbox and play his old copy .
I get to play the game , I do n't have to deal with the ham-fisted DRM , I do n't pay a cent , and all without doing anything illegal.Still , it makes me kind of sad that I do n't get to play on my platform of choice .
I do n't like where this fight is going either , it seems like publishers are just intending to take piracy as an excuse to leave the PC market for the console market .
I like my all in one work and entertainment machine , and the thought of having to purchase additional hardware just to play games is really annoying.The worst part of all this is that they did it on a really popular game .
Most people will just suck it up and buy the game with the inconvenient DRM because they just want to play the game , and then Ubisoft will claim high sales numbers as proof that the system " reduces piracy rates " .
This does n't work because all it means is that more people are playing the game .
Once the game is cracked , the ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies will probably still look the same as for any other game .
If this was done on a less popular title , that title 's sales numbers would fall because the mentality would be " oh , I wanted to try that game , but the DRM is a pain in the ass so I guess I wo n't bother " .
And since the game did n't get a chance to prove itself before the inevitable cracking , less people would be looking to pirate it due to lack of general interest and word-of-mouth advertising , resulting in overall less copies in the wild , but a pretty much similar ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies.Of course , there 's no way to tell if the above would actually be the case until the scenario actually happens , so let 's wait and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with this method of DRM, but I really want to play this game.
Also, I don't pirate games as a matter of principle (though if I made a game and it was pirated widely, I'd take that as a compliment, it just means people liked it).So what I'm going to do is borrow a friend's xbox and play his old copy.
I get to play the game, I don't have to deal with the ham-fisted DRM, I don't pay a cent, and all without doing anything illegal.Still, it makes me kind of sad that I don't get to play on my platform of choice.
I don't like where this fight is going either, it seems like publishers are just intending to take piracy as an excuse to leave the PC market for the console market.
I like my all in one work and entertainment machine, and the thought of having to purchase additional hardware just to play games is really annoying.The worst part of all this is that they did it on a really popular game.
Most people will just suck it up and buy the game with the inconvenient DRM because they just want to play the game, and then Ubisoft will claim high sales numbers as proof that the system "reduces piracy rates".
This doesn't work because all it means is that more people are playing the game.
Once the game is cracked, the ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies will probably still look the same as for any other game.
If this was done on a less popular title, that title's sales numbers would fall because the mentality would be "oh, I wanted to try that game, but the DRM is a pain in the ass so I guess I won't bother".
And since the game didn't get a chance to prove itself before the inevitable cracking, less people would be looking to pirate it due to lack of general interest and word-of-mouth advertising, resulting in overall less copies in the wild, but a pretty much similar ratio of pirated copies to legitimate copies.Of course, there's no way to tell if the above would actually be the case until the scenario actually happens, so let's wait and see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298386</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1267299420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wait a few years to throw money down the drain? Someone could simply start DDoSing the server on <em>launch day</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wait a few years to throw money down the drain ?
Someone could simply start DDoSing the server on launch day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wait a few years to throw money down the drain?
Someone could simply start DDoSing the server on launch day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298688</id>
	<title>Number One...</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1267301280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set our botnet to DDoS mode, target their main servers and transmit our extortion email. Mr Lawyer, load the "DMCA take-down" torpedoes and target their upstream provider (Network Solutions).</p><p>All your game copies belonging to us now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set our botnet to DDoS mode , target their main servers and transmit our extortion email .
Mr Lawyer , load the " DMCA take-down " torpedoes and target their upstream provider ( Network Solutions ) .All your game copies belonging to us now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set our botnet to DDoS mode, target their main servers and transmit our extortion email.
Mr Lawyer, load the "DMCA take-down" torpedoes and target their upstream provider (Network Solutions).All your game copies belonging to us now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298596</id>
	<title>No, it isn't very hard.</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away, with said machine being programmed to accept, save, and return the game data. This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent.'</p></div></blockquote><p>Apparently, the OP isn't a 'hacker'.  Or a somewhat experienced programmer, for that matter.</p><p>Is it harder than something like a CD Key?  Sure.  Is it 'far more difficult'?  Not really.  Wireshark the data if it's unencrypted.  If it's encrypted, dump it from memory after the game decrypts it.  Both are easy.  Disable the network login and the network status code (trivial).  Replace "save" and "load" functionality with something using fopen() on the previously-snooped data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away , with said machine being programmed to accept , save , and return the game data .
This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent .
'Apparently , the OP is n't a 'hacker' .
Or a somewhat experienced programmer , for that matter.Is it harder than something like a CD Key ?
Sure. Is it 'far more difficult ' ?
Not really .
Wireshark the data if it 's unencrypted .
If it 's encrypted , dump it from memory after the game decrypts it .
Both are easy .
Disable the network login and the network status code ( trivial ) .
Replace " save " and " load " functionality with something using fopen ( ) on the previously-snooped data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away, with said machine being programmed to accept, save, and return the game data.
This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent.
'Apparently, the OP isn't a 'hacker'.
Or a somewhat experienced programmer, for that matter.Is it harder than something like a CD Key?
Sure.  Is it 'far more difficult'?
Not really.
Wireshark the data if it's unencrypted.
If it's encrypted, dump it from memory after the game decrypts it.
Both are easy.
Disable the network login and the network status code (trivial).
Replace "save" and "load" functionality with something using fopen() on the previously-snooped data.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592</id>
	<title>Actually, I've solved the problem quite easily.</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1267295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was considering this one. I'd played the first Assassin's Creed borrowed from a friend, and I liked it quite well. But given this issue, I have an easy solution for the DRM.</p><p>I just won't buy the game, since I can't be assured of it continuing to function if Ubisoft goes out of business tomorrow. They sure showed me!</p><p>Also, remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon, because of the overly invasive DRM? That actually worked. Why not do the same here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was considering this one .
I 'd played the first Assassin 's Creed borrowed from a friend , and I liked it quite well .
But given this issue , I have an easy solution for the DRM.I just wo n't buy the game , since I ca n't be assured of it continuing to function if Ubisoft goes out of business tomorrow .
They sure showed me ! Also , remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon , because of the overly invasive DRM ?
That actually worked .
Why not do the same here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was considering this one.
I'd played the first Assassin's Creed borrowed from a friend, and I liked it quite well.
But given this issue, I have an easy solution for the DRM.I just won't buy the game, since I can't be assured of it continuing to function if Ubisoft goes out of business tomorrow.
They sure showed me!Also, remember the horrible ratings Spore got on Amazon, because of the overly invasive DRM?
That actually worked.
Why not do the same here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298068</id>
	<title>Re:It's stupid.</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1267297680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, all their games save offline, and the "online save" (which is optional) works by uploading your saved game directory to their servers when you log out.  PC Gamer confirmed this, though an NDA prevents them from using any actual screenshots in their reviews anymore.  They said if you have saved game saving turned on, when you hit quit, you get a progress meter as it uploads your saves, and you can turn this feature off if, like every person in the world, you don't have a pressing need to have your saves concurrent across multiple machines.  So all you  have to do is find ConfirmDRMConnectionAndCrashIfNone() and NOP it, and the game will work just fine, save and load is done locally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , all their games save offline , and the " online save " ( which is optional ) works by uploading your saved game directory to their servers when you log out .
PC Gamer confirmed this , though an NDA prevents them from using any actual screenshots in their reviews anymore .
They said if you have saved game saving turned on , when you hit quit , you get a progress meter as it uploads your saves , and you can turn this feature off if , like every person in the world , you do n't have a pressing need to have your saves concurrent across multiple machines .
So all you have to do is find ConfirmDRMConnectionAndCrashIfNone ( ) and NOP it , and the game will work just fine , save and load is done locally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, all their games save offline, and the "online save" (which is optional) works by uploading your saved game directory to their servers when you log out.
PC Gamer confirmed this, though an NDA prevents them from using any actual screenshots in their reviews anymore.
They said if you have saved game saving turned on, when you hit quit, you get a progress meter as it uploads your saves, and you can turn this feature off if, like every person in the world, you don't have a pressing need to have your saves concurrent across multiple machines.
So all you  have to do is find ConfirmDRMConnectionAndCrashIfNone() and NOP it, and the game will work just fine, save and load is done locally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298616</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1267300920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Requirements:<br>1 teenager with time to waste and $60 to buy the game and the brains of a monkey.<br> <br>
Steps:<br>
1. Install and run the game.<br>
2. Run wireshark to capture all the game traffic.<br>
3. Repeat and do some application layer traffic analysis<br>
4. Mimic<br>
5. Profit<br>
<br>
Other solutions? don't buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Requirements : 1 teenager with time to waste and $ 60 to buy the game and the brains of a monkey .
Steps : 1 .
Install and run the game .
2. Run wireshark to capture all the game traffic .
3. Repeat and do some application layer traffic analysis 4 .
Mimic 5 .
Profit Other solutions ?
do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Requirements:1 teenager with time to waste and $60 to buy the game and the brains of a monkey.
Steps:
1.
Install and run the game.
2. Run wireshark to capture all the game traffic.
3. Repeat and do some application layer traffic analysis
4.
Mimic
5.
Profit

Other solutions?
don't buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300400</id>
	<title>Re:Save States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267272960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called "hibernate".<br>Or, in the case of nintendo DS(i) cards that allow you to play, erm, homebrew apps or, *ahem*, backups, "real-time save".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " hibernate " .Or , in the case of nintendo DS ( i ) cards that allow you to play , erm , homebrew apps or , * ahem * , backups , " real-time save " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "hibernate".Or, in the case of nintendo DS(i) cards that allow you to play, erm, homebrew apps or, *ahem*, backups, "real-time save".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297546</id>
	<title>The very worst</title>
	<author>PenisLands</author>
	<datestamp>1267295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the very worst copy-protection I've heard of. Nobody should buy this game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the very worst copy-protection I 've heard of .
Nobody should buy this game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the very worst copy-protection I've heard of.
Nobody should buy this game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300410</id>
	<title>I'm not sure the Spore thing worked</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267273020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason Spore's sales were less than stellar (they were still sufficient to make money by the way) is because the game sucks. It really isn't very much fun. I don't think the anti-DRM campaign had much to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason Spore 's sales were less than stellar ( they were still sufficient to make money by the way ) is because the game sucks .
It really is n't very much fun .
I do n't think the anti-DRM campaign had much to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason Spore's sales were less than stellar (they were still sufficient to make money by the way) is because the game sucks.
It really isn't very much fun.
I don't think the anti-DRM campaign had much to do with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302256</id>
	<title>For me the line that they should not cross..</title>
	<author>Z80a</author>
	<datestamp>1267289280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the reset thing.<br> <br>

This reset will hurt almost ALL the legitimate users of the game in a horrible horrible way, and no, it's NOT like WOW or something because afaik these games don't punish you sending back to the last checkpoint because your internet sucks.<br> <br>

Why reset the game when the internet falls instead of lets say... saving the current state?<br> <br>
They have fear people will hack the savestate to pirate the game? if thats the case, just use a huge 512 bit key to encrypt the savestate that comes from the server, and thats it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the reset thing .
This reset will hurt almost ALL the legitimate users of the game in a horrible horrible way , and no , it 's NOT like WOW or something because afaik these games do n't punish you sending back to the last checkpoint because your internet sucks .
Why reset the game when the internet falls instead of lets say... saving the current state ?
They have fear people will hack the savestate to pirate the game ?
if thats the case , just use a huge 512 bit key to encrypt the savestate that comes from the server , and thats it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the reset thing.
This reset will hurt almost ALL the legitimate users of the game in a horrible horrible way, and no, it's NOT like WOW or something because afaik these games don't punish you sending back to the last checkpoint because your internet sucks.
Why reset the game when the internet falls instead of lets say... saving the current state?
They have fear people will hack the savestate to pirate the game?
if thats the case, just use a huge 512 bit key to encrypt the savestate that comes from the server, and thats it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303452</id>
	<title>Your game dies with Ubisoft.</title>
	<author>WoollyMittens</author>
	<datestamp>1267300380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This clever new DRM system has a nasty side-effect I can't live with. If Ubisoft goes bankrupt or gets fed up with hosting the DRM server, my $60 games dies. They can kill my game at a whim.

This is closer to renting than it is to buying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This clever new DRM system has a nasty side-effect I ca n't live with .
If Ubisoft goes bankrupt or gets fed up with hosting the DRM server , my $ 60 games dies .
They can kill my game at a whim .
This is closer to renting than it is to buying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This clever new DRM system has a nasty side-effect I can't live with.
If Ubisoft goes bankrupt or gets fed up with hosting the DRM server, my $60 games dies.
They can kill my game at a whim.
This is closer to renting than it is to buying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303020</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267295400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>As already suggested, there's a "sweet spot". Different customers tolerate different levels. Lots of my friends enthuse about AC2, so they must be willing to tolerate this DRM. I wouldn't, partly because my internet connection is so flaky that I'd never be able to progress with the game. On the other hand, I am willing to tolerate having to have a disk in the drive, possibly because I've been gaming since the days that a decent game wouldn't fit in memory so it was a technical, not a DRM, requirement. You p</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>As already suggested , there 's a " sweet spot " .
Different customers tolerate different levels .
Lots of my friends enthuse about AC2 , so they must be willing to tolerate this DRM .
I would n't , partly because my internet connection is so flaky that I 'd never be able to progress with the game .
On the other hand , I am willing to tolerate having to have a disk in the drive , possibly because I 've been gaming since the days that a decent game would n't fit in memory so it was a technical , not a DRM , requirement .
You p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As already suggested, there's a "sweet spot".
Different customers tolerate different levels.
Lots of my friends enthuse about AC2, so they must be willing to tolerate this DRM.
I wouldn't, partly because my internet connection is so flaky that I'd never be able to progress with the game.
On the other hand, I am willing to tolerate having to have a disk in the drive, possibly because I've been gaming since the days that a decent game wouldn't fit in memory so it was a technical, not a DRM, requirement.
You p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299492</id>
	<title>Not a chance.</title>
	<author>touchin\_myself</author>
	<datestamp>1267263900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever thinks this will work is crazy or stupid. One modified exe later and the game will run without talking to the servers. I would be surprised if this sets the crackers back a whole day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever thinks this will work is crazy or stupid .
One modified exe later and the game will run without talking to the servers .
I would be surprised if this sets the crackers back a whole day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever thinks this will work is crazy or stupid.
One modified exe later and the game will run without talking to the servers.
I would be surprised if this sets the crackers back a whole day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306270</id>
	<title>Re:It's stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud.  So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.</p></div><p>Citation please - how do you know that all Ubisoft placed in was game routines that merely save and load functions onto outside servers, and nothing else (like complicated hashes that the game client expects, or bytecode that generates the save file that gets loaded, etc)?  So, you've asserted a conclusion that this will be an easy hack (it may be, and it may not be easy), and then based on this assumption, you then assert it'll only take a week to break (it may be shorter, and it may be much longer if your aforementioned asserted conclusion is wrong).  So once again - citation please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud .
So , in effect instead of having a copy that does n't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.Citation please - how do you know that all Ubisoft placed in was game routines that merely save and load functions onto outside servers , and nothing else ( like complicated hashes that the game client expects , or bytecode that generates the save file that gets loaded , etc ) ?
So , you 've asserted a conclusion that this will be an easy hack ( it may be , and it may not be easy ) , and then based on this assumption , you then assert it 'll only take a week to break ( it may be shorter , and it may be much longer if your aforementioned asserted conclusion is wrong ) .
So once again - citation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud.
So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released.Citation please - how do you know that all Ubisoft placed in was game routines that merely save and load functions onto outside servers, and nothing else (like complicated hashes that the game client expects, or bytecode that generates the save file that gets loaded, etc)?
So, you've asserted a conclusion that this will be an easy hack (it may be, and it may not be easy), and then based on this assumption, you then assert it'll only take a week to break (it may be shorter, and it may be much longer if your aforementioned asserted conclusion is wrong).
So once again - citation please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297714</id>
	<title>people will accept anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I've seen over the years is that people will accept any form of corporate control over their computer.  It doesn't matter how draconian: it can be "you can only buy software from *us*", and they will cheerfully accept it.</p><p>Occasionally a big stink gets made, for example Spore, and everyone group-thinks and many avoid buying it.  But mostly that doesn't happen, and the next thing, even if *more* draconian yet, will succeed.  It always does.  It's a lumpy road, but the path is clear if you look at things in the 70's and again now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've seen over the years is that people will accept any form of corporate control over their computer .
It does n't matter how draconian : it can be " you can only buy software from * us * " , and they will cheerfully accept it.Occasionally a big stink gets made , for example Spore , and everyone group-thinks and many avoid buying it .
But mostly that does n't happen , and the next thing , even if * more * draconian yet , will succeed .
It always does .
It 's a lumpy road , but the path is clear if you look at things in the 70 's and again now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've seen over the years is that people will accept any form of corporate control over their computer.
It doesn't matter how draconian: it can be "you can only buy software from *us*", and they will cheerfully accept it.Occasionally a big stink gets made, for example Spore, and everyone group-thinks and many avoid buying it.
But mostly that doesn't happen, and the next thing, even if *more* draconian yet, will succeed.
It always does.
It's a lumpy road, but the path is clear if you look at things in the 70's and again now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297794</id>
	<title>Trivial. :-)</title>
	<author>Midnight Ryder</author>
	<datestamp>1267296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conceptually, cracking this game is trivial.  If it's using a DNS lookup to find the server, edit hosts. so it just loops back to the local machine (127.0.0.1).  Then, write app that simulates the DRM server to save games, etc. are handled locally.  Of course, I say it's conceptually trivial - depending on some specifics, it could get a little more difficult, but definitely doable.  Same goes for the idea of streaming textures, etc. that someone else suggested - it's all crackable, just like nearly every scheme. Heck, even having the game live online only can be overcome with the help of some really determined people - if you can set up a WoW server at home, then even streaming game content isn't viable as a copyprotection mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conceptually , cracking this game is trivial .
If it 's using a DNS lookup to find the server , edit hosts .
so it just loops back to the local machine ( 127.0.0.1 ) .
Then , write app that simulates the DRM server to save games , etc .
are handled locally .
Of course , I say it 's conceptually trivial - depending on some specifics , it could get a little more difficult , but definitely doable .
Same goes for the idea of streaming textures , etc .
that someone else suggested - it 's all crackable , just like nearly every scheme .
Heck , even having the game live online only can be overcome with the help of some really determined people - if you can set up a WoW server at home , then even streaming game content is n't viable as a copyprotection mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conceptually, cracking this game is trivial.
If it's using a DNS lookup to find the server, edit hosts.
so it just loops back to the local machine (127.0.0.1).
Then, write app that simulates the DRM server to save games, etc.
are handled locally.
Of course, I say it's conceptually trivial - depending on some specifics, it could get a little more difficult, but definitely doable.
Same goes for the idea of streaming textures, etc.
that someone else suggested - it's all crackable, just like nearly every scheme.
Heck, even having the game live online only can be overcome with the help of some really determined people - if you can set up a WoW server at home, then even streaming game content isn't viable as a copyprotection mechanism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301838</id>
	<title>There is an easier way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another alternative. I heard a talk in which a researcher showed how Paradyn could be used to dynamically rewrite portions of the binary code to just not execute the "DRM". (In the application he talked about, the software contacted a license server to validate that you had a license before running. That function was rewritten to return "A-OK" and away the program went.) Figure out where in the code the DRM is called and patch it not to do that. In this case, there may be several places but it won't be too many because this is a game to be played after all... Unless we are all mistaken and the real game is the challenge in getting past the DRM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another alternative .
I heard a talk in which a researcher showed how Paradyn could be used to dynamically rewrite portions of the binary code to just not execute the " DRM " .
( In the application he talked about , the software contacted a license server to validate that you had a license before running .
That function was rewritten to return " A-OK " and away the program went .
) Figure out where in the code the DRM is called and patch it not to do that .
In this case , there may be several places but it wo n't be too many because this is a game to be played after all... Unless we are all mistaken and the real game is the challenge in getting past the DRM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another alternative.
I heard a talk in which a researcher showed how Paradyn could be used to dynamically rewrite portions of the binary code to just not execute the "DRM".
(In the application he talked about, the software contacted a license server to validate that you had a license before running.
That function was rewritten to return "A-OK" and away the program went.
) Figure out where in the code the DRM is called and patch it not to do that.
In this case, there may be several places but it won't be too many because this is a game to be played after all... Unless we are all mistaken and the real game is the challenge in getting past the DRM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297634</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you should need is actually a cloned/alternate process tied in to treat 127.0.0.1 as the server.</p><p>Save locally. Play without having to be connected. God forbid someone would want to play a SINGLE PLAYER title somewhere where they didn't have a network connection up and running...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you should need is actually a cloned/alternate process tied in to treat 127.0.0.1 as the server.Save locally .
Play without having to be connected .
God forbid someone would want to play a SINGLE PLAYER title somewhere where they did n't have a network connection up and running.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you should need is actually a cloned/alternate process tied in to treat 127.0.0.1 as the server.Save locally.
Play without having to be connected.
God forbid someone would want to play a SINGLE PLAYER title somewhere where they didn't have a network connection up and running...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299082</id>
	<title>Summary obviously written by a non-programmer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just shifts the cracking effort to one of reverse engineering the network protocol.  Hardly touch the client and write your own server.  That sort of thing has been done before (I remember 10 years ago playing Blizzard games with an open source Battle.net server.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just shifts the cracking effort to one of reverse engineering the network protocol .
Hardly touch the client and write your own server .
That sort of thing has been done before ( I remember 10 years ago playing Blizzard games with an open source Battle.net server .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just shifts the cracking effort to one of reverse engineering the network protocol.
Hardly touch the client and write your own server.
That sort of thing has been done before (I remember 10 years ago playing Blizzard games with an open source Battle.net server.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297710</id>
	<title>What's old is new again</title>
	<author>Patoski</author>
	<datestamp>1267295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This new DRM system is essentially a virtual dongle and will likely hold up about as well as the old DRM systems (i.e. not very well at all).  The remote server will be emulated or the bits of code which check for the dongle will be cracked.</p><p>I don't see how this system is all that different from early attempts at DRM in the 80's other than potentially annoying their legitimate customers a lot more.  That and there are a lot more skilled crackers now than in the 80's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This new DRM system is essentially a virtual dongle and will likely hold up about as well as the old DRM systems ( i.e .
not very well at all ) .
The remote server will be emulated or the bits of code which check for the dongle will be cracked.I do n't see how this system is all that different from early attempts at DRM in the 80 's other than potentially annoying their legitimate customers a lot more .
That and there are a lot more skilled crackers now than in the 80 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new DRM system is essentially a virtual dongle and will likely hold up about as well as the old DRM systems (i.e.
not very well at all).
The remote server will be emulated or the bits of code which check for the dongle will be cracked.I don't see how this system is all that different from early attempts at DRM in the 80's other than potentially annoying their legitimate customers a lot more.
That and there are a lot more skilled crackers now than in the 80's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304044</id>
	<title>It Just Hit Me!</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1267351260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere along the line, publishers got confused!</p><p>Marketing Strategist: "Well, its a form of piracy prevention, see? We proliferate our "cracked" copy through the piracy channels, effectively shipping it with a trojan. When the pirate runs it, we have the malware phone home and ta-da, we remotely render their copy useless."</p><p>Boss: "So you're saying we can prevent paying customers from enjoying their product <em>and</em> spy on them? Ship it!"</p><p>Strategist: "But..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere along the line , publishers got confused ! Marketing Strategist : " Well , its a form of piracy prevention , see ?
We proliferate our " cracked " copy through the piracy channels , effectively shipping it with a trojan .
When the pirate runs it , we have the malware phone home and ta-da , we remotely render their copy useless .
" Boss : " So you 're saying we can prevent paying customers from enjoying their product and spy on them ?
Ship it !
" Strategist : " But... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere along the line, publishers got confused!Marketing Strategist: "Well, its a form of piracy prevention, see?
We proliferate our "cracked" copy through the piracy channels, effectively shipping it with a trojan.
When the pirate runs it, we have the malware phone home and ta-da, we remotely render their copy useless.
"Boss: "So you're saying we can prevent paying customers from enjoying their product and spy on them?
Ship it!
"Strategist: "But..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31308948</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267352580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is irrelevant.<br>The lack of sales will kill it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is irrelevant.The lack of sales will kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is irrelevant.The lack of sales will kill it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299104</id>
	<title>Round and round it goes...</title>
	<author>Therilith</author>
	<datestamp>1267304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same thing will happen as every other time they've tried to use intrusive or annoying DRM.<br>
Sales will plummet, piracy will be blamed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing will happen as every other time they 've tried to use intrusive or annoying DRM .
Sales will plummet , piracy will be blamed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing will happen as every other time they've tried to use intrusive or annoying DRM.
Sales will plummet, piracy will be blamed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297724</id>
	<title>progress</title>
	<author>edutiao</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cloud" DRM! Damn, next you know be nanobots inside your game DVD waiting to strike...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cloud " DRM !
Damn , next you know be nanobots inside your game DVD waiting to strike.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cloud" DRM!
Damn, next you know be nanobots inside your game DVD waiting to strike...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298874</id>
	<title>I think most of you are missing the point</title>
	<author>LordArgon</author>
	<datestamp>1267302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This system isn't supposed to eliminate cracking, it's just supposed to delay it for a while.  If they can delay the cracks for a significant amount of time, they believe would-be pirates will get impatient and buy it.  I don't know if that theory's correct, but I'm pretty sure that's their model.</p><p>Also, there's nothing particularly novel about streaming actual game content from a server.  You've pretty much just described an MMO, but without the Ms or the recurring fee.  The piracy model will be roughly the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This system is n't supposed to eliminate cracking , it 's just supposed to delay it for a while .
If they can delay the cracks for a significant amount of time , they believe would-be pirates will get impatient and buy it .
I do n't know if that theory 's correct , but I 'm pretty sure that 's their model.Also , there 's nothing particularly novel about streaming actual game content from a server .
You 've pretty much just described an MMO , but without the Ms or the recurring fee .
The piracy model will be roughly the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system isn't supposed to eliminate cracking, it's just supposed to delay it for a while.
If they can delay the cracks for a significant amount of time, they believe would-be pirates will get impatient and buy it.
I don't know if that theory's correct, but I'm pretty sure that's their model.Also, there's nothing particularly novel about streaming actual game content from a server.
You've pretty much just described an MMO, but without the Ms or the recurring fee.
The piracy model will be roughly the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302104</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267287600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't be that hard.  As my evidence, I present the following.  Treat the network like a file format, with any control codes functioning similar to the JFIF marker types.</p><p>Packed executables are routinely cracked, so encryption is not a problem.  A simple update of an open-source virtual machine can record the execution path (and addresses if you want), so you can reverse engineer from assembly without having to decrypt the executable yourself.  So the client should be understandable, eventually.</p><p>From there, you use wireshark and record the traffic.  If you understand the client, it should be easy to figure out where you access the variables and do something and send them.</p><p>Last, the file format.  Basically you're sending the save file over a network instead of writing it locally.  It might have some control commands, not unlike FTP, but the file format has to have recognizable patterns.  Treating the data like a file format means you save locally whatever you would normally send.</p><p>All you need at that point is dll injection to patch up the load/save routines, and you have a clean, distributable hack.  It contains no copyrighted code, and is needed for interoperability.  Sure you could reassemble patched disassembly, usually that's how it works, but I'm going for legal here.</p><p>Anyone who has written a binary parser for something could modify Qemu to trace the output, put the instructions in the correct addresses based on the dump, recreating the self-decrypted executable (identifiable because instructions overwrite different instructions, or execution outside the range of the disassembly).  Anyone with a functioning mental faculty can capture network traffic.  The binary parser guy can get a start on the network traffic part while someone else ports the disassembly to pseudocode, revealing what's happening.</p><p>You can be rather ignorant about the nature of the data if you just compare the written data with the input data, and provide a playback which matches expectations.  It could be as simple as FTP, could be more difficult.</p><p>It's going to be a lot of data, and probably take a lot of time, but people are already doing this with every game ever published.</p><p>Of course, then you just have to worry about using an asymmetric encryption algorithm, so that the playback never matches the save game data that's written.  So patch the executable so it skips the data encryption, and skip implementing it on the server.  One less thing you have to know.</p><p>You'd have to write some extremely clever code to make this impossible.  Especially since once something is being called "uncrackable" it becomes a target for some of the smartest people in the business.</p><p>Bytecode miniprogram to re-create the game state?  Clever.  It will be in the disassembly.</p><p>Every variable which needs to be saved has a set and get point.  If you don't like how it sets or gets those, you just rewrite it.</p><p>It takes time, but some people are in it for the pr0pz.  They're probably already doing it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't be that hard .
As my evidence , I present the following .
Treat the network like a file format , with any control codes functioning similar to the JFIF marker types.Packed executables are routinely cracked , so encryption is not a problem .
A simple update of an open-source virtual machine can record the execution path ( and addresses if you want ) , so you can reverse engineer from assembly without having to decrypt the executable yourself .
So the client should be understandable , eventually.From there , you use wireshark and record the traffic .
If you understand the client , it should be easy to figure out where you access the variables and do something and send them.Last , the file format .
Basically you 're sending the save file over a network instead of writing it locally .
It might have some control commands , not unlike FTP , but the file format has to have recognizable patterns .
Treating the data like a file format means you save locally whatever you would normally send.All you need at that point is dll injection to patch up the load/save routines , and you have a clean , distributable hack .
It contains no copyrighted code , and is needed for interoperability .
Sure you could reassemble patched disassembly , usually that 's how it works , but I 'm going for legal here.Anyone who has written a binary parser for something could modify Qemu to trace the output , put the instructions in the correct addresses based on the dump , recreating the self-decrypted executable ( identifiable because instructions overwrite different instructions , or execution outside the range of the disassembly ) .
Anyone with a functioning mental faculty can capture network traffic .
The binary parser guy can get a start on the network traffic part while someone else ports the disassembly to pseudocode , revealing what 's happening.You can be rather ignorant about the nature of the data if you just compare the written data with the input data , and provide a playback which matches expectations .
It could be as simple as FTP , could be more difficult.It 's going to be a lot of data , and probably take a lot of time , but people are already doing this with every game ever published.Of course , then you just have to worry about using an asymmetric encryption algorithm , so that the playback never matches the save game data that 's written .
So patch the executable so it skips the data encryption , and skip implementing it on the server .
One less thing you have to know.You 'd have to write some extremely clever code to make this impossible .
Especially since once something is being called " uncrackable " it becomes a target for some of the smartest people in the business.Bytecode miniprogram to re-create the game state ?
Clever. It will be in the disassembly.Every variable which needs to be saved has a set and get point .
If you do n't like how it sets or gets those , you just rewrite it.It takes time , but some people are in it for the pr0pz .
They 're probably already doing it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't be that hard.
As my evidence, I present the following.
Treat the network like a file format, with any control codes functioning similar to the JFIF marker types.Packed executables are routinely cracked, so encryption is not a problem.
A simple update of an open-source virtual machine can record the execution path (and addresses if you want), so you can reverse engineer from assembly without having to decrypt the executable yourself.
So the client should be understandable, eventually.From there, you use wireshark and record the traffic.
If you understand the client, it should be easy to figure out where you access the variables and do something and send them.Last, the file format.
Basically you're sending the save file over a network instead of writing it locally.
It might have some control commands, not unlike FTP, but the file format has to have recognizable patterns.
Treating the data like a file format means you save locally whatever you would normally send.All you need at that point is dll injection to patch up the load/save routines, and you have a clean, distributable hack.
It contains no copyrighted code, and is needed for interoperability.
Sure you could reassemble patched disassembly, usually that's how it works, but I'm going for legal here.Anyone who has written a binary parser for something could modify Qemu to trace the output, put the instructions in the correct addresses based on the dump, recreating the self-decrypted executable (identifiable because instructions overwrite different instructions, or execution outside the range of the disassembly).
Anyone with a functioning mental faculty can capture network traffic.
The binary parser guy can get a start on the network traffic part while someone else ports the disassembly to pseudocode, revealing what's happening.You can be rather ignorant about the nature of the data if you just compare the written data with the input data, and provide a playback which matches expectations.
It could be as simple as FTP, could be more difficult.It's going to be a lot of data, and probably take a lot of time, but people are already doing this with every game ever published.Of course, then you just have to worry about using an asymmetric encryption algorithm, so that the playback never matches the save game data that's written.
So patch the executable so it skips the data encryption, and skip implementing it on the server.
One less thing you have to know.You'd have to write some extremely clever code to make this impossible.
Especially since once something is being called "uncrackable" it becomes a target for some of the smartest people in the business.Bytecode miniprogram to re-create the game state?
Clever.  It will be in the disassembly.Every variable which needs to be saved has a set and get point.
If you don't like how it sets or gets those, you just rewrite it.It takes time, but some people are in it for the pr0pz.
They're probably already doing it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298070</id>
	<title>How about the lost of people on dial up and low ca</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267297680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the lost of people on dial up and low cap ips? does this work on Sat internet as well?<br>l</p><p>This may even force people to pirate as they will be able to use the game they paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the lost of people on dial up and low cap ips ?
does this work on Sat internet as well ? lThis may even force people to pirate as they will be able to use the game they paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the lost of people on dial up and low cap ips?
does this work on Sat internet as well?lThis may even force people to pirate as they will be able to use the game they paid for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299752</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>weekendgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267266420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So by your 'logic', because I browse the web, I should be perfectly fine that my word processor closes down and discards all of my work if I lose my internet connection?</p><p>Really?  WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So by your 'logic ' , because I browse the web , I should be perfectly fine that my word processor closes down and discards all of my work if I lose my internet connection ? Really ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by your 'logic', because I browse the web, I should be perfectly fine that my word processor closes down and discards all of my work if I lose my internet connection?Really?
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298818</id>
	<title>Re:And in a few years....</title>
	<author>TavisJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267302240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why I will not be purchasing this game.  I like to go back and play games over and over again.  I have some games that are 15+ years old that I still go back and play.</p><p>(Thanks to ScummVM I am in the middle of LOOM on my Palm Pre)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why I will not be purchasing this game .
I like to go back and play games over and over again .
I have some games that are 15 + years old that I still go back and play .
( Thanks to ScummVM I am in the middle of LOOM on my Palm Pre )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why I will not be purchasing this game.
I like to go back and play games over and over again.
I have some games that are 15+ years old that I still go back and play.
(Thanks to ScummVM I am in the middle of LOOM on my Palm Pre)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298568</id>
	<title>Can't be that hard.</title>
	<author>nataflux</author>
	<datestamp>1267300680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its probably not that complicated at all, trick the software into thinking that the "remote machine" is the end-user's computer, or even easier a virtual machine with spoofed information. This method would be much quicker and easier than trying to dismantle the drm altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its probably not that complicated at all , trick the software into thinking that the " remote machine " is the end-user 's computer , or even easier a virtual machine with spoofed information .
This method would be much quicker and easier than trying to dismantle the drm altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its probably not that complicated at all, trick the software into thinking that the "remote machine" is the end-user's computer, or even easier a virtual machine with spoofed information.
This method would be much quicker and easier than trying to dismantle the drm altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302538</id>
	<title>Taking bets on how fast this will be broken</title>
	<author>vt@home</author>
	<datestamp>1267291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publicly available game save server? Glutton for punishment. Vulnerable and breakable. Details: <a href="http://drums-of-peace.blogspot.com/2010/02/awful-anti-pirate-system-that-will.html" title="blogspot.com">http://drums-of-peace.blogspot.com/2010/02/awful-anti-pirate-system-that-will.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publicly available game save server ?
Glutton for punishment .
Vulnerable and breakable .
Details : http : //drums-of-peace.blogspot.com/2010/02/awful-anti-pirate-system-that-will.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publicly available game save server?
Glutton for punishment.
Vulnerable and breakable.
Details: http://drums-of-peace.blogspot.com/2010/02/awful-anti-pirate-system-that-will.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297748</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That means someone has to reverse engineer the protocol and code everything the real server has, like load/save system.</p><p>Personally I think they will take this one step further too and serve some data from the server too when an user needs it in the game. If you spread such around in the game wisely, it's not possible to ever retrieve and rebuild everything needed from the server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That means someone has to reverse engineer the protocol and code everything the real server has , like load/save system.Personally I think they will take this one step further too and serve some data from the server too when an user needs it in the game .
If you spread such around in the game wisely , it 's not possible to ever retrieve and rebuild everything needed from the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means someone has to reverse engineer the protocol and code everything the real server has, like load/save system.Personally I think they will take this one step further too and serve some data from the server too when an user needs it in the game.
If you spread such around in the game wisely, it's not possible to ever retrieve and rebuild everything needed from the server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299604</id>
	<title>It will be cracked like every other game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm quite surprised that nobody seems to have read the FAQ from Ubisoft:</p><p>"Will all my saved games be stored online? Yes! They will be stored both online and on your PC."</p><p>Source: http://support.uk.ubi.com/online-services-platform/</p><p>"...and on your PC."</p><p>It will be cracked in no-time. End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite surprised that nobody seems to have read the FAQ from Ubisoft : " Will all my saved games be stored online ?
Yes ! They will be stored both online and on your PC .
" Source : http : //support.uk.ubi.com/online-services-platform/ " ...and on your PC .
" It will be cracked in no-time .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite surprised that nobody seems to have read the FAQ from Ubisoft:"Will all my saved games be stored online?
Yes! They will be stored both online and on your PC.
"Source: http://support.uk.ubi.com/online-services-platform/"...and on your PC.
"It will be cracked in no-time.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303338</id>
	<title>Re:The Free Market</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267299180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>nd it died by the time the 1990's showed up</p></div></blockquote><p>WTF are you talking about?  It didn't die, now its just done on CDs and DVDs instead of floppies.  Its still almost the exact same methods.  Copy protection today with SecureROM and the like is conceptually identical to the old bad sector tricks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they are still bad sector tricks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... still screwing with the ECC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nd it died by the time the 1990 's showed upWTF are you talking about ?
It did n't die , now its just done on CDs and DVDs instead of floppies .
Its still almost the exact same methods .
Copy protection today with SecureROM and the like is conceptually identical to the old bad sector tricks ... you know ... because ... they are still bad sector tricks ... still screwing with the ECC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nd it died by the time the 1990's showed upWTF are you talking about?
It didn't die, now its just done on CDs and DVDs instead of floppies.
Its still almost the exact same methods.
Copy protection today with SecureROM and the like is conceptually identical to the old bad sector tricks ... you know ... because ... they are still bad sector tricks ... still screwing with the ECC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401816</id>
	<title>Re:Diminish Piracy via Online Content</title>
	<author>Little\_Professor</author>
	<datestamp>1268070240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm an <a href="http://www.dejobaan.com/" title="dejobaan.com" rel="nofollow">indie developer</a> [dejobaan.com], and I see our games <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa+torrent&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=42f169bf8c7d0e94" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">pirated all over the place</a> [google.com]</p> </div><p>Those torrents have very few seeders and leechers - even on meta-engines like isohunt there are only 12 seeders/leechers in total. Can hardly blame that for your lack of sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an indie developer [ dejobaan.com ] , and I see our games pirated all over the place [ google.com ] Those torrents have very few seeders and leechers - even on meta-engines like isohunt there are only 12 seeders/leechers in total .
Can hardly blame that for your lack of sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an indie developer [dejobaan.com], and I see our games pirated all over the place [google.com] Those torrents have very few seeders and leechers - even on meta-engines like isohunt there are only 12 seeders/leechers in total.
Can hardly blame that for your lack of sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31368314</id>
	<title>Cracking improves profitability...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267821480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it, cracking the DRM should actually *help* the game publishers to realise sales... My decision to purchase a game might be influenced by the knowledge that I can avoid the abuse by using a crack, and still not feel like a thief because I paid my money for the game.  The crackers are doing Ubisoft et al. a huge service by improving the customer experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it , cracking the DRM should actually * help * the game publishers to realise sales... My decision to purchase a game might be influenced by the knowledge that I can avoid the abuse by using a crack , and still not feel like a thief because I paid my money for the game .
The crackers are doing Ubisoft et al .
a huge service by improving the customer experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it, cracking the DRM should actually *help* the game publishers to realise sales... My decision to purchase a game might be influenced by the knowledge that I can avoid the abuse by using a crack, and still not feel like a thief because I paid my money for the game.
The crackers are doing Ubisoft et al.
a huge service by improving the customer experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298094</id>
	<title>Steam</title>
	<author>simcaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267297860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might hold off the pirates, but what's the point when you're alienating your entire user base?  It's been said before and i'll say it again: I don't own the media that i buy, i only rent it.  I and most other pc gamers that i know simply wont buy any games with a drm this restrictive.  There's a sweetspot to drm, that sweetspot is called Steam, companies need to stop ruining games with useless attempts DRM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might hold off the pirates , but what 's the point when you 're alienating your entire user base ?
It 's been said before and i 'll say it again : I do n't own the media that i buy , i only rent it .
I and most other pc gamers that i know simply wont buy any games with a drm this restrictive .
There 's a sweetspot to drm , that sweetspot is called Steam , companies need to stop ruining games with useless attempts DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might hold off the pirates, but what's the point when you're alienating your entire user base?
It's been said before and i'll say it again: I don't own the media that i buy, i only rent it.
I and most other pc gamers that i know simply wont buy any games with a drm this restrictive.
There's a sweetspot to drm, that sweetspot is called Steam, companies need to stop ruining games with useless attempts DRM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305332</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267369860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.</i></p><p>If this is worth money to them then they'll keep changing the system.  They will assume that whatever they put out will eventually get a break, but the point of security is never to win, it's to delay and incur costs.</p><p>They only need to stay unbroken long enough to get through most of their profit-generating phase, or if they have recurring profits, keep updating until it costs more to update than the profit stream reflects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.If this is worth money to them then they 'll keep changing the system .
They will assume that whatever they put out will eventually get a break , but the point of security is never to win , it 's to delay and incur costs.They only need to stay unbroken long enough to get through most of their profit-generating phase , or if they have recurring profits , keep updating until it costs more to update than the profit stream reflects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.If this is worth money to them then they'll keep changing the system.
They will assume that whatever they put out will eventually get a break, but the point of security is never to win, it's to delay and incur costs.They only need to stay unbroken long enough to get through most of their profit-generating phase, or if they have recurring profits, keep updating until it costs more to update than the profit stream reflects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301406</id>
	<title>$720 per year</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people who regularly post comments to Slashdot claim that they have no need for a laptop unless it has a mobile data plan: a a USB 3G card, a 3G phone with a tethering plan, or a MiFi 3G to 802.11b adapter. But I ultimately agree with you: I'm not going to pay $719.40 per year just to play a video game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people who regularly post comments to Slashdot claim that they have no need for a laptop unless it has a mobile data plan : a a USB 3G card , a 3G phone with a tethering plan , or a MiFi 3G to 802.11b adapter .
But I ultimately agree with you : I 'm not going to pay $ 719.40 per year just to play a video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people who regularly post comments to Slashdot claim that they have no need for a laptop unless it has a mobile data plan: a a USB 3G card, a 3G phone with a tethering plan, or a MiFi 3G to 802.11b adapter.
But I ultimately agree with you: I'm not going to pay $719.40 per year just to play a video game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299180</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267261440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the crackers can figure out how to emulate and set up private WoW servers, I don't see this being that much harder. If they're using asymmetrical encryption to sign the savefiles then the private key from the server end could be the trickiest part, but I suspect that a client-side patch could easily replace the key that is being used to test against thereby allowing a hacked server to use whatever key it wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the crackers can figure out how to emulate and set up private WoW servers , I do n't see this being that much harder .
If they 're using asymmetrical encryption to sign the savefiles then the private key from the server end could be the trickiest part , but I suspect that a client-side patch could easily replace the key that is being used to test against thereby allowing a hacked server to use whatever key it wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the crackers can figure out how to emulate and set up private WoW servers, I don't see this being that much harder.
If they're using asymmetrical encryption to sign the savefiles then the private key from the server end could be the trickiest part, but I suspect that a client-side patch could easily replace the key that is being used to test against thereby allowing a hacked server to use whatever key it wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297768</id>
	<title>Only problem is...</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1267296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most gamers I know have decided to just skip the game entirely.  I know I will, I did buy the first one though and felt ripped off so I wasnt likely to buy the new one anyway.  Still, friends of mine that did like the first one have mentioned not buying it specifically because of the DRM, two of them live in a rural area though so its understandable they coulnt play if they wanted to.  Sure there are other games that are online only like WoW, etc but those are sold as an online experience, the first AC had single player only, the new one has some multiplayer modes tacked on but is still primarily a solo game.  Gamers that dont follow gaming news are likely looking at it as a single player game and many will be duped into buying it that wont be able to play it at all.</p><p>Actually it does bring up an interesting delima...are they putting huge warning stickers on the outside of the box?  I live in the midwest and there are still lots of rural areas around me that have no broadband access or very limited, a constant connection just isnt possible.  Concidering the joke of a EULA that basically is summed up as "If you opened the box to read this...its too late sucker". There had better be warnings the size of warnings of cigarette boxes or I smell a potential class action suit in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gamers I know have decided to just skip the game entirely .
I know I will , I did buy the first one though and felt ripped off so I wasnt likely to buy the new one anyway .
Still , friends of mine that did like the first one have mentioned not buying it specifically because of the DRM , two of them live in a rural area though so its understandable they coulnt play if they wanted to .
Sure there are other games that are online only like WoW , etc but those are sold as an online experience , the first AC had single player only , the new one has some multiplayer modes tacked on but is still primarily a solo game .
Gamers that dont follow gaming news are likely looking at it as a single player game and many will be duped into buying it that wont be able to play it at all.Actually it does bring up an interesting delima...are they putting huge warning stickers on the outside of the box ?
I live in the midwest and there are still lots of rural areas around me that have no broadband access or very limited , a constant connection just isnt possible .
Concidering the joke of a EULA that basically is summed up as " If you opened the box to read this...its too late sucker " .
There had better be warnings the size of warnings of cigarette boxes or I smell a potential class action suit in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gamers I know have decided to just skip the game entirely.
I know I will, I did buy the first one though and felt ripped off so I wasnt likely to buy the new one anyway.
Still, friends of mine that did like the first one have mentioned not buying it specifically because of the DRM, two of them live in a rural area though so its understandable they coulnt play if they wanted to.
Sure there are other games that are online only like WoW, etc but those are sold as an online experience, the first AC had single player only, the new one has some multiplayer modes tacked on but is still primarily a solo game.
Gamers that dont follow gaming news are likely looking at it as a single player game and many will be duped into buying it that wont be able to play it at all.Actually it does bring up an interesting delima...are they putting huge warning stickers on the outside of the box?
I live in the midwest and there are still lots of rural areas around me that have no broadband access or very limited, a constant connection just isnt possible.
Concidering the joke of a EULA that basically is summed up as "If you opened the box to read this...its too late sucker".
There had better be warnings the size of warnings of cigarette boxes or I smell a potential class action suit in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301402</id>
	<title>BS.</title>
	<author>MistrBlank</author>
	<datestamp>1267281540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will get cracked and once again the Pirates will enjoy a game unencumbered while those that legitimately pay for it have to deal with the inconveniences.</p><p>OH well, won't be buying this game, my game PC runs windows and I don't allow it to connect to the Internet so I don't have to worry about that nasty virus threat that happens when you network computers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will get cracked and once again the Pirates will enjoy a game unencumbered while those that legitimately pay for it have to deal with the inconveniences.OH well , wo n't be buying this game , my game PC runs windows and I do n't allow it to connect to the Internet so I do n't have to worry about that nasty virus threat that happens when you network computers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will get cracked and once again the Pirates will enjoy a game unencumbered while those that legitimately pay for it have to deal with the inconveniences.OH well, won't be buying this game, my game PC runs windows and I don't allow it to connect to the Internet so I don't have to worry about that nasty virus threat that happens when you network computers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300360</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1267272600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But as headkase implies in a comment below, it may be simpler to ignore how the real server is doing the save/load and replace all of that functionality with your own code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But as headkase implies in a comment below , it may be simpler to ignore how the real server is doing the save/load and replace all of that functionality with your own code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as headkase implies in a comment below, it may be simpler to ignore how the real server is doing the save/load and replace all of that functionality with your own code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298506</id>
	<title>Don't buy the bloody game.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1267300260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reward for a DRM system is not "people don't pirate it", it's "people buy it".</p><p>If you don't like it, don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reward for a DRM system is not " people do n't pirate it " , it 's " people buy it " .If you do n't like it , do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reward for a DRM system is not "people don't pirate it", it's "people buy it".If you don't like it, don't buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298308</id>
	<title>In principle, defeatable, in practice, not</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1267298880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In principle all you have to do is spoof the server.</p><p>In practice they've probably used strong encryption to make this nearly impossible without inside information or breaking the encryption.</p><p>However, you could attack the handshaking code so it handshakes with a spoofed server, probably one running locally on the same machine as the game.  You could even embed the server portion right into the game.</p><p>However, I would have a very hard time trusting this code unless I trusted the people who wrote it or had source, and as such I wouldn't put it only any non-expendable machine.</p><p>Therefore, in practice, this is a possible win for Ubisoft.</p><p>However, it is a big loss for the gaming industry:  If teens on limited budgets are forced to scale back to only a few games, they may lose interest in these games and move on to another form of entertainment, and won't be as interested in playing and paying as adults.  It could also lead to a loss of developer talent as today's and tomorrow's teenagers may choose another career besides game-development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In principle all you have to do is spoof the server.In practice they 've probably used strong encryption to make this nearly impossible without inside information or breaking the encryption.However , you could attack the handshaking code so it handshakes with a spoofed server , probably one running locally on the same machine as the game .
You could even embed the server portion right into the game.However , I would have a very hard time trusting this code unless I trusted the people who wrote it or had source , and as such I would n't put it only any non-expendable machine.Therefore , in practice , this is a possible win for Ubisoft.However , it is a big loss for the gaming industry : If teens on limited budgets are forced to scale back to only a few games , they may lose interest in these games and move on to another form of entertainment , and wo n't be as interested in playing and paying as adults .
It could also lead to a loss of developer talent as today 's and tomorrow 's teenagers may choose another career besides game-development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In principle all you have to do is spoof the server.In practice they've probably used strong encryption to make this nearly impossible without inside information or breaking the encryption.However, you could attack the handshaking code so it handshakes with a spoofed server, probably one running locally on the same machine as the game.
You could even embed the server portion right into the game.However, I would have a very hard time trusting this code unless I trusted the people who wrote it or had source, and as such I wouldn't put it only any non-expendable machine.Therefore, in practice, this is a possible win for Ubisoft.However, it is a big loss for the gaming industry:  If teens on limited budgets are forced to scale back to only a few games, they may lose interest in these games and move on to another form of entertainment, and won't be as interested in playing and paying as adults.
It could also lead to a loss of developer talent as today's and tomorrow's teenagers may choose another career besides game-development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297584</id>
	<title>Forget it.</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1267295280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just when I think about getting into some on-line game play. A company has to pull a bone-head maneuver like this. Good luck on <i>making those revenue streams before the crackers break your code</i> because <b>you won't get any of that revenue from me.</b> As usual most writers have their head up their ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just when I think about getting into some on-line game play .
A company has to pull a bone-head maneuver like this .
Good luck on making those revenue streams before the crackers break your code because you wo n't get any of that revenue from me .
As usual most writers have their head up their ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just when I think about getting into some on-line game play.
A company has to pull a bone-head maneuver like this.
Good luck on making those revenue streams before the crackers break your code because you won't get any of that revenue from me.
As usual most writers have their head up their ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304084</id>
	<title>DDoS a Game?</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1267351980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with any back-to-base monitored system, this DRM model is vulnerable to a basic DDoS attack. By changing to this model they are effectively selling a service, rather than a product, so disrupting the service would completely cripple the product. Effective DRM, but a risky business model.</p><p>Not that I'm suggesting you should DDoS their servers or anything...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with any back-to-base monitored system , this DRM model is vulnerable to a basic DDoS attack .
By changing to this model they are effectively selling a service , rather than a product , so disrupting the service would completely cripple the product .
Effective DRM , but a risky business model.Not that I 'm suggesting you should DDoS their servers or anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with any back-to-base monitored system, this DRM model is vulnerable to a basic DDoS attack.
By changing to this model they are effectively selling a service, rather than a product, so disrupting the service would completely cripple the product.
Effective DRM, but a risky business model.Not that I'm suggesting you should DDoS their servers or anything...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31330952</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they can build whole servers for game like World of Warcraft, simple save&amp;load application can't be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can build whole servers for game like World of Warcraft , simple save&amp;load application ca n't be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can build whole servers for game like World of Warcraft, simple save&amp;load application can't be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298124</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267297980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>those 'fucktards' have bills to pay. Unless you expect every single employee at ubisoft to work for free, and still work 60 hour weeks for 2 years to make assasins creed 2, you are either going tio have to put up with the fact that asshole pirates eman they need to use such strong DRM, or shut up and stop whinign and dont buy it.<br>What do you expect games comapnies to do? work for free?<br>would you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>those 'fucktards ' have bills to pay .
Unless you expect every single employee at ubisoft to work for free , and still work 60 hour weeks for 2 years to make assasins creed 2 , you are either going tio have to put up with the fact that asshole pirates eman they need to use such strong DRM , or shut up and stop whinign and dont buy it.What do you expect games comapnies to do ?
work for free ? would you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those 'fucktards' have bills to pay.
Unless you expect every single employee at ubisoft to work for free, and still work 60 hour weeks for 2 years to make assasins creed 2, you are either going tio have to put up with the fact that asshole pirates eman they need to use such strong DRM, or shut up and stop whinign and dont buy it.What do you expect games comapnies to do?
work for free?would you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948</id>
	<title>The Free Market</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1267297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like it, don't buy it.  Copy protection goes through cycles.  Companies think it's a great thing, start implementing it, and then customers stay away in droves.  If anyone here remembers the copy protections of the 1980's involving induced bad sectors and other things, you'll remember that it pissed off customers and it died by the time the 1990's showed up, because they simply wouldn't buy the games.</p><p>Then the industry largely forgot about it and here we are with another round.  Do the same thing - don't buy DRMed media and it will die the same death.</p><p>Don't break the DRM.  Don't pirate, either.  Pirating the game/software/media only skews the market in favor of the incumbents and locks out alternatives.  Give your money and market share to the alternatives if you don't like DRM/copy protection.  That part of the market will grow and favor companies that don't treat their customers like potential thieves.  Indeed, Bill Gates said as much 12 years ago when he said that Microsoft will get the Chinese "sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."</p><p>Strong copy protection and DRM in a free market always fails eventually, if you let it.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it , do n't buy it .
Copy protection goes through cycles .
Companies think it 's a great thing , start implementing it , and then customers stay away in droves .
If anyone here remembers the copy protections of the 1980 's involving induced bad sectors and other things , you 'll remember that it pissed off customers and it died by the time the 1990 's showed up , because they simply would n't buy the games.Then the industry largely forgot about it and here we are with another round .
Do the same thing - do n't buy DRMed media and it will die the same death.Do n't break the DRM .
Do n't pirate , either .
Pirating the game/software/media only skews the market in favor of the incumbents and locks out alternatives .
Give your money and market share to the alternatives if you do n't like DRM/copy protection .
That part of the market will grow and favor companies that do n't treat their customers like potential thieves .
Indeed , Bill Gates said as much 12 years ago when he said that Microsoft will get the Chinese " sort of addicted , and then we 'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade .
" Strong copy protection and DRM in a free market always fails eventually , if you let it.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Copy protection goes through cycles.
Companies think it's a great thing, start implementing it, and then customers stay away in droves.
If anyone here remembers the copy protections of the 1980's involving induced bad sectors and other things, you'll remember that it pissed off customers and it died by the time the 1990's showed up, because they simply wouldn't buy the games.Then the industry largely forgot about it and here we are with another round.
Do the same thing - don't buy DRMed media and it will die the same death.Don't break the DRM.
Don't pirate, either.
Pirating the game/software/media only skews the market in favor of the incumbents and locks out alternatives.
Give your money and market share to the alternatives if you don't like DRM/copy protection.
That part of the market will grow and favor companies that don't treat their customers like potential thieves.
Indeed, Bill Gates said as much 12 years ago when he said that Microsoft will get the Chinese "sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
"Strong copy protection and DRM in a free market always fails eventually, if you let it.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299556</id>
	<title>Re:Yep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the entire point of this article is that in this case mr pirate would be affected</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the entire point of this article is that in this case mr pirate would be affected</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the entire point of this article is that in this case mr pirate would be affected</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299648</id>
	<title>Uncrackable?  I Think not.</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1267265280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software pirates have had a 100\% success rate at cracking games with any sort of protection.  I'm no pirate cracker guy, but couldn't a creative hacker just host the 'magic same game server' on the local computer?  I'm thinking using a little hosts lookup like suck.ubisoft.com = 127.0.0.1?  Why is this approach so 'revolutionary'?  If people can crack other online activation schemes why is this one significantly different? <br> <br> To date, the only activation scheme that I haven't seen cracked properly is Arma 2, and I think the only reason is that it's really not apparent when the game "isn't working", it just causes accuracy with all your weapons to be off a little, just enough to make you miss 20\% of the time.  I'm sure the cracker got the game to start and said "done!". <br> <br> So I look forward to watching the BT hordes downloading the <i>fully operational</i> crack for assassins creed 2, as they have with every single DRM / copy protected game ever made.<br> <br>Here's a new idea for the DRM pushers... Don't do it.  It does not help prevent piracy and really pisses off your legitimate customers.  Today, someone who pirates a game is going to have a better experience than a person who bought the game and does not circumvent the DRM.  And to what end?  The people who you were trying to fetter are actually having a better experence with your game than your paying customers.  Nothing was accomplished and many bridges were burned.  The worst part for UBI was that the people pirating the game probably were not going to buy the game anyway, so the idea that preventing piracy would increase sales is a flawed theory in the first place.  It would be like stopping a 17yr old meth addict from pirating autoCAD.  To what end?  To what end?  Seems like nobody really thinks things all the way though these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software pirates have had a 100 \ % success rate at cracking games with any sort of protection .
I 'm no pirate cracker guy , but could n't a creative hacker just host the 'magic same game server ' on the local computer ?
I 'm thinking using a little hosts lookup like suck.ubisoft.com = 127.0.0.1 ?
Why is this approach so 'revolutionary ' ?
If people can crack other online activation schemes why is this one significantly different ?
To date , the only activation scheme that I have n't seen cracked properly is Arma 2 , and I think the only reason is that it 's really not apparent when the game " is n't working " , it just causes accuracy with all your weapons to be off a little , just enough to make you miss 20 \ % of the time .
I 'm sure the cracker got the game to start and said " done ! " .
So I look forward to watching the BT hordes downloading the fully operational crack for assassins creed 2 , as they have with every single DRM / copy protected game ever made .
Here 's a new idea for the DRM pushers... Do n't do it .
It does not help prevent piracy and really pisses off your legitimate customers .
Today , someone who pirates a game is going to have a better experience than a person who bought the game and does not circumvent the DRM .
And to what end ?
The people who you were trying to fetter are actually having a better experence with your game than your paying customers .
Nothing was accomplished and many bridges were burned .
The worst part for UBI was that the people pirating the game probably were not going to buy the game anyway , so the idea that preventing piracy would increase sales is a flawed theory in the first place .
It would be like stopping a 17yr old meth addict from pirating autoCAD .
To what end ?
To what end ?
Seems like nobody really thinks things all the way though these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software pirates have had a 100\% success rate at cracking games with any sort of protection.
I'm no pirate cracker guy, but couldn't a creative hacker just host the 'magic same game server' on the local computer?
I'm thinking using a little hosts lookup like suck.ubisoft.com = 127.0.0.1?
Why is this approach so 'revolutionary'?
If people can crack other online activation schemes why is this one significantly different?
To date, the only activation scheme that I haven't seen cracked properly is Arma 2, and I think the only reason is that it's really not apparent when the game "isn't working", it just causes accuracy with all your weapons to be off a little, just enough to make you miss 20\% of the time.
I'm sure the cracker got the game to start and said "done!".
So I look forward to watching the BT hordes downloading the fully operational crack for assassins creed 2, as they have with every single DRM / copy protected game ever made.
Here's a new idea for the DRM pushers... Don't do it.
It does not help prevent piracy and really pisses off your legitimate customers.
Today, someone who pirates a game is going to have a better experience than a person who bought the game and does not circumvent the DRM.
And to what end?
The people who you were trying to fetter are actually having a better experence with your game than your paying customers.
Nothing was accomplished and many bridges were burned.
The worst part for UBI was that the people pirating the game probably were not going to buy the game anyway, so the idea that preventing piracy would increase sales is a flawed theory in the first place.
It would be like stopping a 17yr old meth addict from pirating autoCAD.
To what end?
To what end?
Seems like nobody really thinks things all the way though these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298272</id>
	<title>Crackers Creed #1:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger the Flag that states "Im uncrackable!"<br>The quicker they will run a Jockstrap up Ubisofts Flagpole.</p><p>Anyone actually pays for a game that demands you be 100\% wired to The Man, needs their head examined.  Its not like you have to overuse the imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the legit consumer is gonna come incross the inevitable flaw in this particular DRM Theory.</p><p>May Work - But Probably Wont.  Wait on the Crack, because buying this is, quite simply, pissing away your rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger the Flag that states " Im uncrackable !
" The quicker they will run a Jockstrap up Ubisofts Flagpole.Anyone actually pays for a game that demands you be 100 \ % wired to The Man , needs their head examined .
Its not like you have to overuse the imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the legit consumer is gon na come incross the inevitable flaw in this particular DRM Theory.May Work - But Probably Wont .
Wait on the Crack , because buying this is , quite simply , pissing away your rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger the Flag that states "Im uncrackable!
"The quicker they will run a Jockstrap up Ubisofts Flagpole.Anyone actually pays for a game that demands you be 100\% wired to The Man, needs their head examined.
Its not like you have to overuse the imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the legit consumer is gonna come incross the inevitable flaw in this particular DRM Theory.May Work - But Probably Wont.
Wait on the Crack, because buying this is, quite simply, pissing away your rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298148</id>
	<title>Step 1</title>
	<author>Gaygirlie</author>
	<datestamp>1267298100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: "Make your own, free saved game server and alter the application code to use it."

Well, the author assumes incorrectly that the server must be a big server somewhere on the internet and must handle thousands of users...What he didn't think of is that the hacker/cracker could just write a very small and dirty server that runs only on local machine and accepts only local connections and just redirect the game's requests to that. POOF, no need for costly server maintenance, no need for internet connection etc.. And this has been done before, it's not the first time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : " Make your own , free saved game server and alter the application code to use it .
" Well , the author assumes incorrectly that the server must be a big server somewhere on the internet and must handle thousands of users...What he did n't think of is that the hacker/cracker could just write a very small and dirty server that runs only on local machine and accepts only local connections and just redirect the game 's requests to that .
POOF , no need for costly server maintenance , no need for internet connection etc.. And this has been done before , it 's not the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: "Make your own, free saved game server and alter the application code to use it.
"

Well, the author assumes incorrectly that the server must be a big server somewhere on the internet and must handle thousands of users...What he didn't think of is that the hacker/cracker could just write a very small and dirty server that runs only on local machine and accepts only local connections and just redirect the game's requests to that.
POOF, no need for costly server maintenance, no need for internet connection etc.. And this has been done before, it's not the first time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299634</id>
	<title>Come over.</title>
	<author>dadelbunts</author>
	<datestamp>1267265100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soon you will be forced to travel to the publishers studio and play the game there while being monitored by cameras.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon you will be forced to travel to the publishers studio and play the game there while being monitored by cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon you will be forced to travel to the publishers studio and play the game there while being monitored by cameras.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298856</id>
	<title>locally run save server?</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1267302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so the crack will include a locally run save game server?  I fail to see how this will be all that much of a barrier unless the save games are not even created locally, but rather created by a remote system as it receives constant status updates from the game, much like an MMO.<br> <br>how exactly is losing your ass on server upkeep costs for a game going to save you from piracy? by bankrupting you before the pirates can?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the crack will include a locally run save game server ?
I fail to see how this will be all that much of a barrier unless the save games are not even created locally , but rather created by a remote system as it receives constant status updates from the game , much like an MMO .
how exactly is losing your ass on server upkeep costs for a game going to save you from piracy ?
by bankrupting you before the pirates can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the crack will include a locally run save game server?
I fail to see how this will be all that much of a barrier unless the save games are not even created locally, but rather created by a remote system as it receives constant status updates from the game, much like an MMO.
how exactly is losing your ass on server upkeep costs for a game going to save you from piracy?
by bankrupting you before the pirates can?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706</id>
	<title>Save States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot.  It's been done with emulated games, it will be done with these games, and will avoid the whole mess of picking apart the mechanism used by the game's DRM.  If you update the game, however, it will cause problems, but it's certainly doable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot .
It 's been done with emulated games , it will be done with these games , and will avoid the whole mess of picking apart the mechanism used by the game 's DRM .
If you update the game , however , it will cause problems , but it 's certainly doable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot.
It's been done with emulated games, it will be done with these games, and will avoid the whole mess of picking apart the mechanism used by the game's DRM.
If you update the game, however, it will cause problems, but it's certainly doable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298674</id>
	<title>Don't worry, this time it'll work</title>
	<author>liquiddark</author>
	<datestamp>1267301220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who haven't been paying attention, there are several reverse-engineered versions of the server software for World of Warcraft.  Your shitty little save-game routine is never going to be magically delicious enough that someone can't crack it.  Pirates win, Ubisoft loses, consumers lose.  And who wants to put money down that somewhere in the code left on the disk there's a partial or even complete local save routine left over from the development phase?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who have n't been paying attention , there are several reverse-engineered versions of the server software for World of Warcraft .
Your shitty little save-game routine is never going to be magically delicious enough that someone ca n't crack it .
Pirates win , Ubisoft loses , consumers lose .
And who wants to put money down that somewhere in the code left on the disk there 's a partial or even complete local save routine left over from the development phase ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who haven't been paying attention, there are several reverse-engineered versions of the server software for World of Warcraft.
Your shitty little save-game routine is never going to be magically delicious enough that someone can't crack it.
Pirates win, Ubisoft loses, consumers lose.
And who wants to put money down that somewhere in the code left on the disk there's a partial or even complete local save routine left over from the development phase?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31360724</id>
	<title>Well, it look like an uber FAIL for Ubisoft.</title>
	<author>Eloking</author>
	<datestamp>1267731240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been cracked guys : <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/ubisofts-uber-drm-cracked-within-a-day-100304/" title="torrentfreak.com" rel="nofollow">http://torrentfreak.com/ubisofts-uber-drm-cracked-within-a-day-100304/</a> [torrentfreak.com]

I can't believe how ironic it is. Not only Ubisoft DRM will piss customers so much that help pirating their own product, but an incredible blow have just been made to anti-piracy group.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been cracked guys : http : //torrentfreak.com/ubisofts-uber-drm-cracked-within-a-day-100304/ [ torrentfreak.com ] I ca n't believe how ironic it is .
Not only Ubisoft DRM will piss customers so much that help pirating their own product , but an incredible blow have just been made to anti-piracy group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been cracked guys : http://torrentfreak.com/ubisofts-uber-drm-cracked-within-a-day-100304/ [torrentfreak.com]

I can't believe how ironic it is.
Not only Ubisoft DRM will piss customers so much that help pirating their own product, but an incredible blow have just been made to anti-piracy group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297864</id>
	<title>Hacker ethic</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1267296600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the harder DRM is designed to crack the harder crackers will work to beat the challenge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the harder DRM is designed to crack the harder crackers will work to beat the challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the harder DRM is designed to crack the harder crackers will work to beat the challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304202</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the problem most DRM has is that the DRM code runs on the customer/crackers machine and thus can be disassembled. However, if you remove access to the DRM code (which is running on the server now), the crackers have much less things to work with (essentially only the input/output data).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the problem most DRM has is that the DRM code runs on the customer/crackers machine and thus can be disassembled .
However , if you remove access to the DRM code ( which is running on the server now ) , the crackers have much less things to work with ( essentially only the input/output data ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the problem most DRM has is that the DRM code runs on the customer/crackers machine and thus can be disassembled.
However, if you remove access to the DRM code (which is running on the server now), the crackers have much less things to work with (essentially only the input/output data).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298990</id>
	<title>I bet it will be figured out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sniff the data,  set up your second machine to be their remote machine and return the data locally. Or make a little app to do that on your game playing box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sniff the data , set up your second machine to be their remote machine and return the data locally .
Or make a little app to do that on your game playing box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sniff the data,  set up your second machine to be their remote machine and return the data locally.
Or make a little app to do that on your game playing box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298592</id>
	<title>An alternative to DRM</title>
	<author>mnooning</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love bringing this patent application up. There are different ways of preventing software piracy, including the one applied for below. No points for guessing why I love writing about it. It is effective antipiracy without the overreaching DRM.<br>
<br>
USPTO Application Number 11678137<br>
<br>
Basically, each and every copy of a protected program gets it's own internal intelligence, interpretable only by itself, which includes time of program creation, etc., etc.. The only hitch is that each copy of the program must be compiled or otherwise created at the time of purchase. Also, the maker must keep track of each and every set of created special software in case the user emails in that he needs to reinstall. Perhaps even the purchasers name would be included as part of the intelligence. The number of permissible occurrences of requests for new key codes, say, 5 times, can be controlled by the program maker. If a pirate cracks the code for that single copy of the program, still, it will work only for that copy, and only in the time frame tat the internal intelligence says it can be installed.<br>
<br>
The upshot is that program maker gets money, the purchaser can own it, install on more than one computer in his home, again within a day or so, and new key codes can be obtained in case of needed reinstalls, a reasonable amount of times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love bringing this patent application up .
There are different ways of preventing software piracy , including the one applied for below .
No points for guessing why I love writing about it .
It is effective antipiracy without the overreaching DRM .
USPTO Application Number 11678137 Basically , each and every copy of a protected program gets it 's own internal intelligence , interpretable only by itself , which includes time of program creation , etc. , etc.. The only hitch is that each copy of the program must be compiled or otherwise created at the time of purchase .
Also , the maker must keep track of each and every set of created special software in case the user emails in that he needs to reinstall .
Perhaps even the purchasers name would be included as part of the intelligence .
The number of permissible occurrences of requests for new key codes , say , 5 times , can be controlled by the program maker .
If a pirate cracks the code for that single copy of the program , still , it will work only for that copy , and only in the time frame tat the internal intelligence says it can be installed .
The upshot is that program maker gets money , the purchaser can own it , install on more than one computer in his home , again within a day or so , and new key codes can be obtained in case of needed reinstalls , a reasonable amount of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love bringing this patent application up.
There are different ways of preventing software piracy, including the one applied for below.
No points for guessing why I love writing about it.
It is effective antipiracy without the overreaching DRM.
USPTO Application Number 11678137

Basically, each and every copy of a protected program gets it's own internal intelligence, interpretable only by itself, which includes time of program creation, etc., etc.. The only hitch is that each copy of the program must be compiled or otherwise created at the time of purchase.
Also, the maker must keep track of each and every set of created special software in case the user emails in that he needs to reinstall.
Perhaps even the purchasers name would be included as part of the intelligence.
The number of permissible occurrences of requests for new key codes, say, 5 times, can be controlled by the program maker.
If a pirate cracks the code for that single copy of the program, still, it will work only for that copy, and only in the time frame tat the internal intelligence says it can be installed.
The upshot is that program maker gets money, the purchaser can own it, install on more than one computer in his home, again within a day or so, and new key codes can be obtained in case of needed reinstalls, a reasonable amount of times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303056</id>
	<title>errhm</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hehe, you know a game that requires you to be connected 100\% of the time to be played? WoW. You know what game has been in the  the many piracy streets of my beloved La Paz Bolivia for years including expansions? WoW. I have stopped doing piracy when I grew up and just moved to open source, but I am fairy sure there are a lot of wow players in here that are not paying blizzard for the game. Then again, I have no idea how it works, most likely they are just using a pirate server...
<br>
<br>
It is naive to think the method described can work as well as the article claims, they assume it is actually hard to get rid of this form of DRM, but really.... Does the game use public key encryption? hack the game so that it does not use it!, simple! Or you thought they were gonna try to bruteforce the key? lol... my bet is that the pirates will get to play the game it even before the release date. (it is gonna be leaked, gratz!) Mean while, true costumers won't be able to play when internet goes down. Good work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , you know a game that requires you to be connected 100 \ % of the time to be played ?
WoW. You know what game has been in the the many piracy streets of my beloved La Paz Bolivia for years including expansions ?
WoW. I have stopped doing piracy when I grew up and just moved to open source , but I am fairy sure there are a lot of wow players in here that are not paying blizzard for the game .
Then again , I have no idea how it works , most likely they are just using a pirate server.. . It is naive to think the method described can work as well as the article claims , they assume it is actually hard to get rid of this form of DRM , but really.... Does the game use public key encryption ?
hack the game so that it does not use it ! , simple !
Or you thought they were gon na try to bruteforce the key ?
lol... my bet is that the pirates will get to play the game it even before the release date .
( it is gon na be leaked , gratz !
) Mean while , true costumers wo n't be able to play when internet goes down .
Good work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, you know a game that requires you to be connected 100\% of the time to be played?
WoW. You know what game has been in the  the many piracy streets of my beloved La Paz Bolivia for years including expansions?
WoW. I have stopped doing piracy when I grew up and just moved to open source, but I am fairy sure there are a lot of wow players in here that are not paying blizzard for the game.
Then again, I have no idea how it works, most likely they are just using a pirate server...


It is naive to think the method described can work as well as the article claims, they assume it is actually hard to get rid of this form of DRM, but really.... Does the game use public key encryption?
hack the game so that it does not use it!, simple!
Or you thought they were gonna try to bruteforce the key?
lol... my bet is that the pirates will get to play the game it even before the release date.
(it is gonna be leaked, gratz!
) Mean while, true costumers won't be able to play when internet goes down.
Good work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</id>
	<title>Down</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1267295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My DSL goes down (for just a minute or two) daily. It's usually no big deal, but here it apparently would be. Thus this is a game I could never purchase. Let's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My DSL goes down ( for just a minute or two ) daily .
It 's usually no big deal , but here it apparently would be .
Thus this is a game I could never purchase .
Let 's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they 're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My DSL goes down (for just a minute or two) daily.
It's usually no big deal, but here it apparently would be.
Thus this is a game I could never purchase.
Let's let our dollars send the message to the publisher that they're living in a dreamworld with such an unfeasible technical requirement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302070</id>
	<title>Templar Plot</title>
	<author>Pherlin</author>
	<datestamp>1267287300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a Templar plot to keep the masses from knowing the tr</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Templar plot to keep the masses from knowing the tr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Templar plot to keep the masses from knowing the tr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298074</id>
	<title>Re:It's stupid.</title>
	<author>xaos3k</author>
	<datestamp>1267297740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked the first Assassins Creed, it was fun to play.
If there's a demo for the second part i definitely check it out, but i won't buy this game (and neither pirate it) because of three simple things:
1. I don't like DRM.
2. I don't like activation through the internet. You'll never know what else is send to their server unless you sniff all the traffic and see what's in there.
3. I still cannot imagine playing a singleplayer-game which needs a constant internetconnection. It just doesn't make sense to me. Right now i'm thinking of unfinished server-software and broken servers which keep gamers from playing because they cannot connect.

I guess (but i don't really know) it' snot that hard to crack this kind of game. In my opinion all it should need would be a VPN-server and a crack.
I don't think that it would work to host a local server to save the game, i think that the developers will check if there is a connection, no matter where it leads to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the first Assassins Creed , it was fun to play .
If there 's a demo for the second part i definitely check it out , but i wo n't buy this game ( and neither pirate it ) because of three simple things : 1 .
I do n't like DRM .
2. I do n't like activation through the internet .
You 'll never know what else is send to their server unless you sniff all the traffic and see what 's in there .
3. I still can not imagine playing a singleplayer-game which needs a constant internetconnection .
It just does n't make sense to me .
Right now i 'm thinking of unfinished server-software and broken servers which keep gamers from playing because they can not connect .
I guess ( but i do n't really know ) it ' snot that hard to crack this kind of game .
In my opinion all it should need would be a VPN-server and a crack .
I do n't think that it would work to host a local server to save the game , i think that the developers will check if there is a connection , no matter where it leads to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the first Assassins Creed, it was fun to play.
If there's a demo for the second part i definitely check it out, but i won't buy this game (and neither pirate it) because of three simple things:
1.
I don't like DRM.
2. I don't like activation through the internet.
You'll never know what else is send to their server unless you sniff all the traffic and see what's in there.
3. I still cannot imagine playing a singleplayer-game which needs a constant internetconnection.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Right now i'm thinking of unfinished server-software and broken servers which keep gamers from playing because they cannot connect.
I guess (but i don't really know) it' snot that hard to crack this kind of game.
In my opinion all it should need would be a VPN-server and a crack.
I don't think that it would work to host a local server to save the game, i think that the developers will check if there is a connection, no matter where it leads to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297620</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless contents is served from a server (ala an MMORPG) then all this will require is a different toolkit. Most games are hacked these days semi-automatically, by specialized sotware that detects and replaces calls to "DRM compliance" sub-routines or emulates behavior of various external Windows APIs. With similar effort one can construct a kit that replaces calls to server communication sub-routines -- or better yet, the hackers can emulate the whole "mothership" server system, based on the analysis of the appropriate client sub-routines.
</p><p>And even if some contents is stored remotely, it will take enterprising hackers only some time to download it all. Then again, if the game is really a bastardized MMO (without the MM component) then a whole market segment - i.e. laptops used in remote work/study locations is nixed.
</p><p>In short the cost and lost sales is likely exceed any effectiveness of this (and any DRM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless contents is served from a server ( ala an MMORPG ) then all this will require is a different toolkit .
Most games are hacked these days semi-automatically , by specialized sotware that detects and replaces calls to " DRM compliance " sub-routines or emulates behavior of various external Windows APIs .
With similar effort one can construct a kit that replaces calls to server communication sub-routines -- or better yet , the hackers can emulate the whole " mothership " server system , based on the analysis of the appropriate client sub-routines .
And even if some contents is stored remotely , it will take enterprising hackers only some time to download it all .
Then again , if the game is really a bastardized MMO ( without the MM component ) then a whole market segment - i.e .
laptops used in remote work/study locations is nixed .
In short the cost and lost sales is likely exceed any effectiveness of this ( and any DRM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless contents is served from a server (ala an MMORPG) then all this will require is a different toolkit.
Most games are hacked these days semi-automatically, by specialized sotware that detects and replaces calls to "DRM compliance" sub-routines or emulates behavior of various external Windows APIs.
With similar effort one can construct a kit that replaces calls to server communication sub-routines -- or better yet, the hackers can emulate the whole "mothership" server system, based on the analysis of the appropriate client sub-routines.
And even if some contents is stored remotely, it will take enterprising hackers only some time to download it all.
Then again, if the game is really a bastardized MMO (without the MM component) then a whole market segment - i.e.
laptops used in remote work/study locations is nixed.
In short the cost and lost sales is likely exceed any effectiveness of this (and any DRM).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301508</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267282560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome to the cloud</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome to the cloud</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome to the cloud</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298014</id>
	<title>Support piracy</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1267297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is actually a reason to support "piracy" (or more accurately, cracking games, because not all crackers of games are pirates).  They give your games longevity and save you from annoyances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a reason to support " piracy " ( or more accurately , cracking games , because not all crackers of games are pirates ) .
They give your games longevity and save you from annoyances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a reason to support "piracy" (or more accurately, cracking games, because not all crackers of games are pirates).
They give your games longevity and save you from annoyances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298480</id>
	<title>Too bad I did not know this.</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1267300080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad I did not know this when I bought the game for PS3. Had I known, I would certainly have spent my money on something else.</p><p>I would like legislation forcing DRM:ed software and content to clearly state that in the labeling. Similar to how cigarettes now has to be labeled (although that in itself is a frigthening sign of stupidity), DRM:ed software and music should come with a "this is crippled, and may stop working, or not work at all"-warning.</p><p>Let's see how well DRM would do with an informed consumer-base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad I did not know this when I bought the game for PS3 .
Had I known , I would certainly have spent my money on something else.I would like legislation forcing DRM : ed software and content to clearly state that in the labeling .
Similar to how cigarettes now has to be labeled ( although that in itself is a frigthening sign of stupidity ) , DRM : ed software and music should come with a " this is crippled , and may stop working , or not work at all " -warning.Let 's see how well DRM would do with an informed consumer-base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad I did not know this when I bought the game for PS3.
Had I known, I would certainly have spent my money on something else.I would like legislation forcing DRM:ed software and content to clearly state that in the labeling.
Similar to how cigarettes now has to be labeled (although that in itself is a frigthening sign of stupidity), DRM:ed software and music should come with a "this is crippled, and may stop working, or not work at all"-warning.Let's see how well DRM would do with an informed consumer-base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299706</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.</p></div><p>If I couldn't resell my games I would never by them for $50 to begin with. For games, like most products, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market\_segmentation" title="wikipedia.org">market segmentation</a> [wikipedia.org] exists, and some form of price discrimination is necessary to maximize profits in such an environment. The used game market provides this without any additional work on the publisher's behalf. Eliminating the used game market will just decrease the value of the new sales, resulting in a lower number of sales at a given price point.</p><p>Thus, they are not getting ZERO for the used games sold, they are getting the fraction of new sales that wouldn't happen without the used market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For every used game sold , the game editor gets ZERO.If I could n't resell my games I would never by them for $ 50 to begin with .
For games , like most products , market segmentation [ wikipedia.org ] exists , and some form of price discrimination is necessary to maximize profits in such an environment .
The used game market provides this without any additional work on the publisher 's behalf .
Eliminating the used game market will just decrease the value of the new sales , resulting in a lower number of sales at a given price point.Thus , they are not getting ZERO for the used games sold , they are getting the fraction of new sales that would n't happen without the used market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.If I couldn't resell my games I would never by them for $50 to begin with.
For games, like most products, market segmentation [wikipedia.org] exists, and some form of price discrimination is necessary to maximize profits in such an environment.
The used game market provides this without any additional work on the publisher's behalf.
Eliminating the used game market will just decrease the value of the new sales, resulting in a lower number of sales at a given price point.Thus, they are not getting ZERO for the used games sold, they are getting the fraction of new sales that wouldn't happen without the used market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299868</id>
	<title>Don't tell</title>
	<author>dragisha</author>
	<datestamp>1267267500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny observation about remote saving.... We have people who made reverse engineered version of battle.net and now author questions hacker's ability to recreate some load/save stuff.<br>Give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny observation about remote saving.... We have people who made reverse engineered version of battle.net and now author questions hacker 's ability to recreate some load/save stuff.Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny observation about remote saving.... We have people who made reverse engineered version of battle.net and now author questions hacker's ability to recreate some load/save stuff.Give me a break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31320724</id>
	<title>Re:Save States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL You really compare this to emulated games? Saved state in emulated games works because you are emulating the hardware on a low level and can... save the hardware state. How are you going to do that with a PC game, dump the contents of RAM to disk, CPU state, GPU state? God kids are dumb these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL You really compare this to emulated games ?
Saved state in emulated games works because you are emulating the hardware on a low level and can... save the hardware state .
How are you going to do that with a PC game , dump the contents of RAM to disk , CPU state , GPU state ?
God kids are dumb these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL You really compare this to emulated games?
Saved state in emulated games works because you are emulating the hardware on a low level and can... save the hardware state.
How are you going to do that with a PC game, dump the contents of RAM to disk, CPU state, GPU state?
God kids are dumb these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299524</id>
	<title>Re:If it ever gets hit by a DoS attack</title>
	<author>AnonymouseUser</author>
	<datestamp>1267264140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I hate DoS attacks, I hate DRM even more, and would love to see this happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I hate DoS attacks , I hate DRM even more , and would love to see this happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I hate DoS attacks, I hate DRM even more, and would love to see this happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298490</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy is not the real target : used video game</title>
	<author>ink</author>
	<datestamp>1267300140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  Considering the game's $60 price tag, and the fact that you cannot trade it in at Gamespot, <b>and</b> this ridiculous DRM... it'll be a wonder if any PC user buys this game.  I may end up picking it up for $20 some point down the road, or just renting it for $5 and playing it on the PS3.  Good job Ubisoft, I guess you win.  Now you can go crunch numbers and come to the wrong conclusion that PC games "don't sell well".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Considering the game 's $ 60 price tag , and the fact that you can not trade it in at Gamespot , and this ridiculous DRM... it 'll be a wonder if any PC user buys this game .
I may end up picking it up for $ 20 some point down the road , or just renting it for $ 5 and playing it on the PS3 .
Good job Ubisoft , I guess you win .
Now you can go crunch numbers and come to the wrong conclusion that PC games " do n't sell well " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Considering the game's $60 price tag, and the fact that you cannot trade it in at Gamespot, and this ridiculous DRM... it'll be a wonder if any PC user buys this game.
I may end up picking it up for $20 some point down the road, or just renting it for $5 and playing it on the PS3.
Good job Ubisoft, I guess you win.
Now you can go crunch numbers and come to the wrong conclusion that PC games "don't sell well".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31310182</id>
	<title>Simply do not buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear pasty nerd,</p><p>Simply. Do. Not. Buy. It.</p><p>They will lose money. You will gain sunshine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear pasty nerd,Simply .
Do. Not .
Buy. It.They will lose money .
You will gain sunshine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear pasty nerd,Simply.
Do. Not.
Buy. It.They will lose money.
You will gain sunshine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300464</id>
	<title>Gaming is becoming tedious.</title>
	<author>dasherjan</author>
	<datestamp>1267273440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I thought that Dawn of War 2 was annoying. Sheesh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I thought that Dawn of War 2 was annoying .
Sheesh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I thought that Dawn of War 2 was annoying.
Sheesh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298264</id>
	<title>Why bother emulating a server...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1267298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When you can patch a *single bit* in the binary to make the game believe it is already connected to the server?
</p><p>
That way you could play without any network setup at all.
</p><p>
This is the part that I really don't get.  All of the DRM schemes to date are provably insecure, yet industry continues to buy into them.  Why?  Don't they understand that all it takes is *one* enterprising hacker to find the CMP instruction where the game checks for the internet connection, and flip a bit to reverse the comparison?  Or worse, patch around the connection-checking code entirely.
</p><p>
Once your code is on someone else's machine, you have no control over which parts of it run, and which parts don't.  No control - none, nada, zip.  Really, how hard is it to understand this?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you can patch a * single bit * in the binary to make the game believe it is already connected to the server ?
That way you could play without any network setup at all .
This is the part that I really do n't get .
All of the DRM schemes to date are provably insecure , yet industry continues to buy into them .
Why ? Do n't they understand that all it takes is * one * enterprising hacker to find the CMP instruction where the game checks for the internet connection , and flip a bit to reverse the comparison ?
Or worse , patch around the connection-checking code entirely .
Once your code is on someone else 's machine , you have no control over which parts of it run , and which parts do n't .
No control - none , nada , zip .
Really , how hard is it to understand this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When you can patch a *single bit* in the binary to make the game believe it is already connected to the server?
That way you could play without any network setup at all.
This is the part that I really don't get.
All of the DRM schemes to date are provably insecure, yet industry continues to buy into them.
Why?  Don't they understand that all it takes is *one* enterprising hacker to find the CMP instruction where the game checks for the internet connection, and flip a bit to reverse the comparison?
Or worse, patch around the connection-checking code entirely.
Once your code is on someone else's machine, you have no control over which parts of it run, and which parts don't.
No control - none, nada, zip.
Really, how hard is it to understand this?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299548</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>CSFFlame</author>
	<datestamp>1267264260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree, this DRM will not slow hackers down by more than a day or 2.  Additionally, you're going to get a MASSIVE loss of sales due to this.

All in all the pirated version is FAR better.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Personally I don't really care about ACII.

Also for every new DRM it takes a little longer to break, then every time thereafter is shorter (see Securom)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , this DRM will not slow hackers down by more than a day or 2 .
Additionally , you 're going to get a MASSIVE loss of sales due to this .
All in all the pirated version is FAR better .
/Personally I do n't really care about ACII .
Also for every new DRM it takes a little longer to break , then every time thereafter is shorter ( see Securom )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, this DRM will not slow hackers down by more than a day or 2.
Additionally, you're going to get a MASSIVE loss of sales due to this.
All in all the pirated version is FAR better.
/Personally I don't really care about ACII.
Also for every new DRM it takes a little longer to break, then every time thereafter is shorter (see Securom)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298194</id>
	<title>Re:Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that if we don't buy the game, they will say that it's because of piracy and not because we refuse to buy their game due to the DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that if we do n't buy the game , they will say that it 's because of piracy and not because we refuse to buy their game due to the DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that if we don't buy the game, they will say that it's because of piracy and not because we refuse to buy their game due to the DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31329116</id>
	<title>It won't be cracked? Suuuure</title>
	<author>dublindan</author>
	<datestamp>1267541760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like it already has been: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=assassin's+creed+2+torrents&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=assassin's+creed+2+torrents&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=</a> [google.com]

From what I hear, it was even cracked 2 weeks before release, though I have no references to back that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like it already has been : http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;q = assassin 's + creed + 2 + torrents&amp;aq = f&amp;aqi = g10&amp;aql = &amp;oq = [ google.com ] From what I hear , it was even cracked 2 weeks before release , though I have no references to back that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like it already has been: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=assassin's+creed+2+torrents&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq= [google.com]

From what I hear, it was even cracked 2 weeks before release, though I have no references to back that up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297810</id>
	<title>I need an example</title>
	<author>sabre86</author>
	<datestamp>1267296300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What game has Ubisoft lost money on due to lack of DRM? It remains a poor solution looking for a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What game has Ubisoft lost money on due to lack of DRM ?
It remains a poor solution looking for a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What game has Ubisoft lost money on due to lack of DRM?
It remains a poor solution looking for a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298906</id>
	<title>Re:Step 1</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1267302840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easier than that.</p><p>Step 1: Patch out everything that goes to the server.  Return "Network is OK" on the network check, and use fopen() for load/save.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easier than that.Step 1 : Patch out everything that goes to the server .
Return " Network is OK " on the network check , and use fopen ( ) for load/save .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easier than that.Step 1: Patch out everything that goes to the server.
Return "Network is OK" on the network check, and use fopen() for load/save.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298756</id>
	<title>Re:Sure it's hard to crack</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1267301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't take us that long. There are very good tools for disassembling games and/or getting network dumps from apps nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't take us that long .
There are very good tools for disassembling games and/or getting network dumps from apps nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't take us that long.
There are very good tools for disassembling games and/or getting network dumps from apps nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298588</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the server is doing any processing more complicated than accepting data from the client and sending it back on command, it will be brought to its knees on release day. The more complicated the operation it performs on the saved game, the more hardware Ubi has to pay for - and unless they want to have a lot of very pissed off legitimate purchasers on release day, they need to budget for <i>peak</i> load, not <i>average</i> load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the server is doing any processing more complicated than accepting data from the client and sending it back on command , it will be brought to its knees on release day .
The more complicated the operation it performs on the saved game , the more hardware Ubi has to pay for - and unless they want to have a lot of very pissed off legitimate purchasers on release day , they need to budget for peak load , not average load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the server is doing any processing more complicated than accepting data from the client and sending it back on command, it will be brought to its knees on release day.
The more complicated the operation it performs on the saved game, the more hardware Ubi has to pay for - and unless they want to have a lot of very pissed off legitimate purchasers on release day, they need to budget for peak load, not average load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299316</id>
	<title>This is the worst copy protection ever.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1267262580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I mean in every regard.<p>
1. It is bad at actual copy protection. It can be circumvented without the crackers ever having to mess with the actual program - all they need to do is to simulate the server.</p><p>
2. It is bad for the customer. Come on, losing game progress because your internet connection decided to fall into a coma? WTF are these people thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I mean in every regard .
1. It is bad at actual copy protection .
It can be circumvented without the crackers ever having to mess with the actual program - all they need to do is to simulate the server .
2. It is bad for the customer .
Come on , losing game progress because your internet connection decided to fall into a coma ?
WTF are these people thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I mean in every regard.
1. It is bad at actual copy protection.
It can be circumvented without the crackers ever having to mess with the actual program - all they need to do is to simulate the server.
2. It is bad for the customer.
Come on, losing game progress because your internet connection decided to fall into a coma?
WTF are these people thinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910</id>
	<title>Re:The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1267296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emulating the server can be pretty complicated. I'm imagining a setup where the "save" function sends a bunch of unprocessed data in one format to the server, then the "load" process accepts a bunch of heavily processed data in another format. The server could very well do things like pickle AI state, remap function, all the way up to generating an entire bytecode miniprogram to recreate the game state.</p><p>I'm not saying it does, note, but it could. Saying "all they have to do is emulate the server" is pretty meaningless when you don't know what the server is doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emulating the server can be pretty complicated .
I 'm imagining a setup where the " save " function sends a bunch of unprocessed data in one format to the server , then the " load " process accepts a bunch of heavily processed data in another format .
The server could very well do things like pickle AI state , remap function , all the way up to generating an entire bytecode miniprogram to recreate the game state.I 'm not saying it does , note , but it could .
Saying " all they have to do is emulate the server " is pretty meaningless when you do n't know what the server is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emulating the server can be pretty complicated.
I'm imagining a setup where the "save" function sends a bunch of unprocessed data in one format to the server, then the "load" process accepts a bunch of heavily processed data in another format.
The server could very well do things like pickle AI state, remap function, all the way up to generating an entire bytecode miniprogram to recreate the game state.I'm not saying it does, note, but it could.
Saying "all they have to do is emulate the server" is pretty meaningless when you don't know what the server is doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297764</id>
	<title>Is this really new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really deal with much third party software, but this seems like a better version of the old scheme of authenticating over the internet, because it builds a dependency for consumers while supposedly providing a service. As long as you can make it seem like it's a real service and not just a onerous form of DRM, nobody minds. This is why, for instance, automatically posting scores to a shared space for players is a great idea -- buys you authentication while giving clients a feature pretty much all of them would either like or see as reasonable.</p><p>And yes, I'm putting these things in positive terms because they provide options for getting paid for work I make for sale to the public. If I don't get paid, then I stop working on publicly available software - or at least publicly available software that's not on closed hardware. That's what it boils down to, since I'm not independently wealthy or immortal. Obviously the best form of DRM is the kind you don't notice, and developing a natural dependence on a central server can be a slick way to go. Of course if it's completely artificial, then it pisses everyone off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really deal with much third party software , but this seems like a better version of the old scheme of authenticating over the internet , because it builds a dependency for consumers while supposedly providing a service .
As long as you can make it seem like it 's a real service and not just a onerous form of DRM , nobody minds .
This is why , for instance , automatically posting scores to a shared space for players is a great idea -- buys you authentication while giving clients a feature pretty much all of them would either like or see as reasonable.And yes , I 'm putting these things in positive terms because they provide options for getting paid for work I make for sale to the public .
If I do n't get paid , then I stop working on publicly available software - or at least publicly available software that 's not on closed hardware .
That 's what it boils down to , since I 'm not independently wealthy or immortal .
Obviously the best form of DRM is the kind you do n't notice , and developing a natural dependence on a central server can be a slick way to go .
Of course if it 's completely artificial , then it pisses everyone off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really deal with much third party software, but this seems like a better version of the old scheme of authenticating over the internet, because it builds a dependency for consumers while supposedly providing a service.
As long as you can make it seem like it's a real service and not just a onerous form of DRM, nobody minds.
This is why, for instance, automatically posting scores to a shared space for players is a great idea -- buys you authentication while giving clients a feature pretty much all of them would either like or see as reasonable.And yes, I'm putting these things in positive terms because they provide options for getting paid for work I make for sale to the public.
If I don't get paid, then I stop working on publicly available software - or at least publicly available software that's not on closed hardware.
That's what it boils down to, since I'm not independently wealthy or immortal.
Obviously the best form of DRM is the kind you don't notice, and developing a natural dependence on a central server can be a slick way to go.
Of course if it's completely artificial, then it pisses everyone off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298834</id>
	<title>Vote with your wallet</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1267302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit whining, and complaining, the only way you can make the companies that do this kind of crap, is to not buy their products.</p><p>Stop buying the game!  And tell them why you are not buying the game.</p><p>Tell your friends to do the same and find some other game to entertain yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit whining , and complaining , the only way you can make the companies that do this kind of crap , is to not buy their products.Stop buying the game !
And tell them why you are not buying the game.Tell your friends to do the same and find some other game to entertain yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit whining, and complaining, the only way you can make the companies that do this kind of crap, is to not buy their products.Stop buying the game!
And tell them why you are not buying the game.Tell your friends to do the same and find some other game to entertain yourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298192</id>
	<title>The Best DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spending the majority of your efforts making sure that people don't steal your content, instead of producing content that's worth stealing is clearly the way to go. Kudos Ubi!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spending the majority of your efforts making sure that people do n't steal your content , instead of producing content that 's worth stealing is clearly the way to go .
Kudos Ubi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spending the majority of your efforts making sure that people don't steal your content, instead of producing content that's worth stealing is clearly the way to go.
Kudos Ubi!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297856</id>
	<title>Seems to have worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/23/assassins-creed-2-sales-better-than-original/</p><p>It sold more than the original</p><p>http://thepiratebay.org/search/assassin\%5C\%27s\%20creed\%202/0/99/0</p><p>Zero hits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/23/assassins-creed-2-sales-better-than-original/It sold more than the originalhttp : //thepiratebay.org/search/assassin \ % 5C \ % 27s \ % 20creed \ % 202/0/99/0Zero hits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/23/assassins-creed-2-sales-better-than-original/It sold more than the originalhttp://thepiratebay.org/search/assassin\%5C\%27s\%20creed\%202/0/99/0Zero hits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305034</id>
	<title>Bullshit!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the code is executed on your own CPU, it&rsquo;s cracked by simply fetching the decrypted code out of RAM. Even when they send you code fragments from the server so that they never touch the hard disk.</p><p>The only way it will ever work, is if they use an external system to compute vital parts of the game.<br>And the only way that is going to happen, is by it being a online game, in the sense of WoW. With some game logic being solely decided by a server, trough an API. Which of course also creates lag.</p><p>So my guess is, that in the future every game will either have a vital physical device that you need to play it (e.g. a controller or an FPGA chip on a USB dongle), or will be a real online game.<br>To make the fucked-up reality of the content mafia real, that all you&rsquo;d do, is rent the software.</p><p>Well, I&rsquo;ve already designed a general model and a business model, that works in <em>reality</em>, without having to make up fantasy lies like &ldquo;IP&rdquo;. It does&rsquo;t need government to change. It doesn&rsquo;t need laws or forced behavior of people. It doesn&rsquo;t even need the content mafia to go away, as it can work in parallel. And I am already in contact with the Pirate party, to spread the concept.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Content mafia: You&rsquo;re going down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the code is executed on your own CPU , it    s cracked by simply fetching the decrypted code out of RAM .
Even when they send you code fragments from the server so that they never touch the hard disk.The only way it will ever work , is if they use an external system to compute vital parts of the game.And the only way that is going to happen , is by it being a online game , in the sense of WoW .
With some game logic being solely decided by a server , trough an API .
Which of course also creates lag.So my guess is , that in the future every game will either have a vital physical device that you need to play it ( e.g .
a controller or an FPGA chip on a USB dongle ) , or will be a real online game.To make the fucked-up reality of the content mafia real , that all you    d do , is rent the software.Well , I    ve already designed a general model and a business model , that works in reality , without having to make up fantasy lies like    IP    .
It does    t need government to change .
It doesn    t need laws or forced behavior of people .
It doesn    t even need the content mafia to go away , as it can work in parallel .
And I am already in contact with the Pirate party , to spread the concept .
: ) Content mafia : You    re going down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the code is executed on your own CPU, it’s cracked by simply fetching the decrypted code out of RAM.
Even when they send you code fragments from the server so that they never touch the hard disk.The only way it will ever work, is if they use an external system to compute vital parts of the game.And the only way that is going to happen, is by it being a online game, in the sense of WoW.
With some game logic being solely decided by a server, trough an API.
Which of course also creates lag.So my guess is, that in the future every game will either have a vital physical device that you need to play it (e.g.
a controller or an FPGA chip on a USB dongle), or will be a real online game.To make the fucked-up reality of the content mafia real, that all you’d do, is rent the software.Well, I’ve already designed a general model and a business model, that works in reality, without having to make up fantasy lies like “IP”.
It does’t need government to change.
It doesn’t need laws or forced behavior of people.
It doesn’t even need the content mafia to go away, as it can work in parallel.
And I am already in contact with the Pirate party, to spread the concept.
:)Content mafia: You’re going down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303718</id>
	<title>Why is this such a big deal?</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1267389960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was publishing a game, I would give the fucker away: a free download.  Play away!  BUT, if you want to participate in the really cool group activities and higher end graphics and physics, in game features like saves, well, you gotta sign up for access to the online servers.  That is charged by the hour.   Not a lot per hour.  Just enough.  Has anyone tried this model?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was publishing a game , I would give the fucker away : a free download .
Play away !
BUT , if you want to participate in the really cool group activities and higher end graphics and physics , in game features like saves , well , you got ta sign up for access to the online servers .
That is charged by the hour .
Not a lot per hour .
Just enough .
Has anyone tried this model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was publishing a game, I would give the fucker away: a free download.
Play away!
BUT, if you want to participate in the really cool group activities and higher end graphics and physics, in game features like saves, well, you gotta sign up for access to the online servers.
That is charged by the hour.
Not a lot per hour.
Just enough.
Has anyone tried this model?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594</id>
	<title>The Crackers Will Win</title>
	<author>Manatra</author>
	<datestamp>1267295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't work, because all the crackers will have to do is emulate that distant server on your own box and route any traffic Assassin's Creed II sends through 127.0.0.1 (this is a simplification). That said, it may work for Assassin's Creed II, but for any subsequent releases (Splinter Cell Conviction, Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands, etc.) the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work , because all the crackers will have to do is emulate that distant server on your own box and route any traffic Assassin 's Creed II sends through 127.0.0.1 ( this is a simplification ) .
That said , it may work for Assassin 's Creed II , but for any subsequent releases ( Splinter Cell Conviction , Prince of Persia : Forgotten Sands , etc .
) the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't work, because all the crackers will have to do is emulate that distant server on your own box and route any traffic Assassin's Creed II sends through 127.0.0.1 (this is a simplification).
That said, it may work for Assassin's Creed II, but for any subsequent releases (Splinter Cell Conviction, Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands, etc.
) the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303024</id>
	<title>difficult?</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends if hackers attack the system its designers think they wrote, doesn't it?  Only 300 million years of evolution can design survivability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends if hackers attack the system its designers think they wrote , does n't it ?
Only 300 million years of evolution can design survivability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends if hackers attack the system its designers think they wrote, doesn't it?
Only 300 million years of evolution can design survivability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305504</id>
	<title>'Not buying' isn't the same as 'complaining'</title>
	<author>recrudescence</author>
	<datestamp>1267371240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people here are essentially saying something along the lines of "I won't be buying the game, as a form of protest". </p><p>Am I the only one that thinks that this is completely naive, not to mention ineffective as a form of protest? Ubisoft (or any other manufacturer) has no idea how many sales have been <i>lost</i> due to DRM as opposed to, say, low demand for the game itself, due to overall quality, targeted audience, current economic climate, recend trends in gaming memes, etc. </p><p>If you want to give Ubisoft some numbers to work with, then for every game you feel the need to inform them the reason for not buying was in fact their shitty DRM, send them a letter / email -- labour the point that you were really excited about the game and would have bought it otherwise, but now they blew it for this game, and any potential sequels that they may have released, since the connecting link is now broken.</p><p>If they received a lot of those, then maybe they'd start counting. Otherwise, with no clear indication as to 'why' people aren't buying the game, they'll turn to the more convenient suspects, like 'those damn pirates', 'not enough marketing', 'we should have used more explosions/cussing', 'there was no hot chick with big boobs on the cover' etc. DRM protesters would be the last thing on the list to explain low sales IMO. </p><p> Otherwise your protest has just gone to waste. Nobody even knew you were protesting to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people here are essentially saying something along the lines of " I wo n't be buying the game , as a form of protest " .
Am I the only one that thinks that this is completely naive , not to mention ineffective as a form of protest ?
Ubisoft ( or any other manufacturer ) has no idea how many sales have been lost due to DRM as opposed to , say , low demand for the game itself , due to overall quality , targeted audience , current economic climate , recend trends in gaming memes , etc .
If you want to give Ubisoft some numbers to work with , then for every game you feel the need to inform them the reason for not buying was in fact their shitty DRM , send them a letter / email -- labour the point that you were really excited about the game and would have bought it otherwise , but now they blew it for this game , and any potential sequels that they may have released , since the connecting link is now broken.If they received a lot of those , then maybe they 'd start counting .
Otherwise , with no clear indication as to 'why ' people are n't buying the game , they 'll turn to the more convenient suspects , like 'those damn pirates ' , 'not enough marketing ' , 'we should have used more explosions/cussing ' , 'there was no hot chick with big boobs on the cover ' etc .
DRM protesters would be the last thing on the list to explain low sales IMO .
Otherwise your protest has just gone to waste .
Nobody even knew you were protesting to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people here are essentially saying something along the lines of "I won't be buying the game, as a form of protest".
Am I the only one that thinks that this is completely naive, not to mention ineffective as a form of protest?
Ubisoft (or any other manufacturer) has no idea how many sales have been lost due to DRM as opposed to, say, low demand for the game itself, due to overall quality, targeted audience, current economic climate, recend trends in gaming memes, etc.
If you want to give Ubisoft some numbers to work with, then for every game you feel the need to inform them the reason for not buying was in fact their shitty DRM, send them a letter / email -- labour the point that you were really excited about the game and would have bought it otherwise, but now they blew it for this game, and any potential sequels that they may have released, since the connecting link is now broken.If they received a lot of those, then maybe they'd start counting.
Otherwise, with no clear indication as to 'why' people aren't buying the game, they'll turn to the more convenient suspects, like 'those damn pirates', 'not enough marketing', 'we should have used more explosions/cussing', 'there was no hot chick with big boobs on the cover' etc.
DRM protesters would be the last thing on the list to explain low sales IMO.
Otherwise your protest has just gone to waste.
Nobody even knew you were protesting to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298452</id>
	<title>/etc/hosts</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1267299840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my mind, the easiest way to break this is to:<ul>
<li>Monitor the data being sent to and from the client with Wireshark</li><li>Place an entry into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts to redirect the traffic i.e. 127.0.0.1    dataserver1.ubisoft.com</li><li>Run a local server service in the background which will respond to these requests</li></ul><p>
If the data is encrypted, it will be much harder to figure out though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind , the easiest way to break this is to : Monitor the data being sent to and from the client with WiresharkPlace an entry into /etc/hosts to redirect the traffic i.e .
127.0.0.1 dataserver1.ubisoft.comRun a local server service in the background which will respond to these requests If the data is encrypted , it will be much harder to figure out though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind, the easiest way to break this is to:
Monitor the data being sent to and from the client with WiresharkPlace an entry into /etc/hosts to redirect the traffic i.e.
127.0.0.1    dataserver1.ubisoft.comRun a local server service in the background which will respond to these requests
If the data is encrypted, it will be much harder to figure out though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297602</id>
	<title>Sooooo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...just DoS the servers. The entire plan hinges on connectivity. Remove that aspect.</p><p>Sometimes (and really most of the time) civil disobedience is the best way to get your message across.  If you make a game that no one can play (thanks to a DDoS, DNS hijack, or some other trickeration that mucks up their DRM), who wins?  The consumers are pissed because they can't play the game they purchased, the devs are pissed having worked so hard on something that no one is enjoying, and both sides are forced to re-evaluate their stance on using/purchasing games with DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...just DoS the servers .
The entire plan hinges on connectivity .
Remove that aspect.Sometimes ( and really most of the time ) civil disobedience is the best way to get your message across .
If you make a game that no one can play ( thanks to a DDoS , DNS hijack , or some other trickeration that mucks up their DRM ) , who wins ?
The consumers are pissed because they ca n't play the game they purchased , the devs are pissed having worked so hard on something that no one is enjoying , and both sides are forced to re-evaluate their stance on using/purchasing games with DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just DoS the servers.
The entire plan hinges on connectivity.
Remove that aspect.Sometimes (and really most of the time) civil disobedience is the best way to get your message across.
If you make a game that no one can play (thanks to a DDoS, DNS hijack, or some other trickeration that mucks up their DRM), who wins?
The consumers are pissed because they can't play the game they purchased, the devs are pissed having worked so hard on something that no one is enjoying, and both sides are forced to re-evaluate their stance on using/purchasing games with DRM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050</id>
	<title>Piracy is not the real target : used video games</title>
	<author>AwaxSlashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1267297620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, the real target is to kill used video games.

In France, 40\% of video games sold are used games. For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO. But video games recyclers get a important commission and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game, it's the occasion to sell him goodies, accessories and useless insurances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , the real target is to kill used video games .
In France , 40 \ % of video games sold are used games .
For every used game sold , the game editor gets ZERO .
But video games recyclers get a important commission and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game , it 's the occasion to sell him goodies , accessories and useless insurances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, the real target is to kill used video games.
In France, 40\% of video games sold are used games.
For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO.
But video games recyclers get a important commission and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game, it's the occasion to sell him goodies, accessories and useless insurances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401842</id>
	<title>Re:Well, well, well. Seems it's already cracked:</title>
	<author>Little\_Professor</author>
	<datestamp>1268070360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the Xbox 360 version, dumbass. It doesn't come with the DRM we are talking about in this discussion</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the Xbox 360 version , dumbass .
It does n't come with the DRM we are talking about in this discussion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the Xbox 360 version, dumbass.
It doesn't come with the DRM we are talking about in this discussion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31316140</id>
	<title>And once more, my list grows</title>
	<author>Morthoronus</author>
	<datestamp>1267459080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know for that for me, as an avid gamer I'll be adding Ubisoft's games to my not gonna waste any time on list. Games simply don't have the same hold they used to any more because it is all the same thing. I have enough games in my catalog, all legal of course, to keep me entertained for a few hundred years, many of them go back to 1996.

Besides... there are enough open source games out there at this point to pick up any of the slack when I get bored of the ones I have.

When a company tells me that I have to play their game when the sun is blue, the moon is green, oh and you have to call us every time and get an authorization key to click on the icon to get an authorization key to load the game....then I simply tell them they have no rights to my money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know for that for me , as an avid gamer I 'll be adding Ubisoft 's games to my not gon na waste any time on list .
Games simply do n't have the same hold they used to any more because it is all the same thing .
I have enough games in my catalog , all legal of course , to keep me entertained for a few hundred years , many of them go back to 1996 .
Besides... there are enough open source games out there at this point to pick up any of the slack when I get bored of the ones I have .
When a company tells me that I have to play their game when the sun is blue , the moon is green , oh and you have to call us every time and get an authorization key to click on the icon to get an authorization key to load the game....then I simply tell them they have no rights to my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know for that for me, as an avid gamer I'll be adding Ubisoft's games to my not gonna waste any time on list.
Games simply don't have the same hold they used to any more because it is all the same thing.
I have enough games in my catalog, all legal of course, to keep me entertained for a few hundred years, many of them go back to 1996.
Besides... there are enough open source games out there at this point to pick up any of the slack when I get bored of the ones I have.
When a company tells me that I have to play their game when the sun is blue, the moon is green, oh and you have to call us every time and get an authorization key to click on the icon to get an authorization key to load the game....then I simply tell them they have no rights to my money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298476</id>
	<title>If so, it's time to adopt plan B</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This article explains why, as dreadful as the system is, it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money."</p><p>Then I won't buy it or play it.  And I encourage other people to do the same.</p><p>If this is the future of DRM in games then it is in my best interests to ensure this awful experiment will fail.  You can forget about my dollars, Ubisoft.  I'm an honest player that does buy games, but I'm not putting up with this level of nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This article explains why , as dreadful as the system is , it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money .
" Then I wo n't buy it or play it .
And I encourage other people to do the same.If this is the future of DRM in games then it is in my best interests to ensure this awful experiment will fail .
You can forget about my dollars , Ubisoft .
I 'm an honest player that does buy games , but I 'm not putting up with this level of nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This article explains why, as dreadful as the system is, it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money.
"Then I won't buy it or play it.
And I encourage other people to do the same.If this is the future of DRM in games then it is in my best interests to ensure this awful experiment will fail.
You can forget about my dollars, Ubisoft.
I'm an honest player that does buy games, but I'm not putting up with this level of nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297626</id>
	<title>If the data can be read it can be exploited</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reverse engineering the protocol used shouldn't be too hard with the aid of proper tools like Wireshark. As for encryption, at some point the data has to be unencrypted in order for your system to be able to use it.</p><p>Now, it may not be as easy as putting "activationserver.developer.com 127.0.0.1" in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts (or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) but I'm sure someone will create a "pirate" server that can be run locally along with any required patches for the game itself.</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reverse engineering the protocol used should n't be too hard with the aid of proper tools like Wireshark .
As for encryption , at some point the data has to be unencrypted in order for your system to be able to use it.Now , it may not be as easy as putting " activationserver.developer.com 127.0.0.1 " in /etc/hosts ( or c : \ windows \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts ) but I 'm sure someone will create a " pirate " server that can be run locally along with any required patches for the game itself./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reverse engineering the protocol used shouldn't be too hard with the aid of proper tools like Wireshark.
As for encryption, at some point the data has to be unencrypted in order for your system to be able to use it.Now, it may not be as easy as putting "activationserver.developer.com 127.0.0.1" in /etc/hosts (or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) but I'm sure someone will create a "pirate" server that can be run locally along with any required patches for the game itself./Mikael</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31320724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31330952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31308062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31317780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31323848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31325454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31321262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_163226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31323848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31317780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31325454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31401816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31305332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31330952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31308062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31304096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31320724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31302944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31306722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31321262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31301406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31300362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31299664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31303302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31298416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_163226.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_163226.31297946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
