Tue, Sep 09, 2008 | 07:38 BST
SecuROM to be used on Red Alert 3
EA’s confirmed that SecuROM copy protection is to be used on Red Alert 3, despite the fact Spore’s been hammered by complaints about the system.
The settings aren’t going to be as stringent this time round though, said an EA staffer in this forum post.
- We will authenticate your game online when you install and launch it the first time.
- We will never re-authenticate an installation online after the first launch. In other words, no reaching out to a central server post-install to see if you’re “allowed” to play.
- You will be able to install and play on up to five computers.
- This system means you don’t have to play with the disc in your computer. Personally, I think this is a huge improvement over our previous copy protection requirements, which have always required a disk to play.
- Life happens. I know it’s unlikely, but for those unlucky few who install the game and have their machines nuked (virus, OS reinstall, major hardware upgrade, etc.) five times, EA Customer Service will be on hand to supply any additional authorizations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting customer support.
-You can, of course, play offline without impediment or penalty.
Wow. You can play a game you paid for offline without “impediment or penalty.” We truly live in the modern age.
Through the link.
2 comments
#1
gorman
09/09/08, 9:51 am
If the first authentication is all it’s needed, I tend to agree on this being better than needing the disc in the tray all the times. I’d much prefer this approach to protection than the “disc in the tray” one. It reminds me of those good “install and forget” times of the early Nineties.
#2
ByteShield
09/09/08, 8:09 pm
This is a terrible story for 2 parties – legitimate users who simply wanted to play Spore and couldn’t because the activation servers went down and EA because Spore was cracked even before it was released.
Often developers walk a tightrope with the trade off between protection strength and the degree of impact on legitimate users but this was a failure on both dimensions! Is this really what the publisher wants to ‘accomplish’? Why not use a solution which is friendly to honest users, has no impact on development time and the strongest available protection against crackers – see our whitepaper
http://www.byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.
Christian Olsson
ByteShield, Inc.
http://www.byteshield.net