<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SecuROM to be used on Red Alert 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.vg247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.vg247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/</link>
	<description>VG247.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:44:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ByteShield</title>
		<link>http://www.vg247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/comment-page-1/#comment-26593</link>
		<dc:creator>ByteShield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:09:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/#comment-26593</guid>
		<description>This is a terrible story for 2 parties - legitimate users who simply wanted to play Spore and couldn&#039;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 &#039;accomplish&#039;? 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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a terrible story for 2 parties &#8211; legitimate users who simply wanted to play Spore and couldn&#8217;t because the activation servers went down and EA because Spore was cracked even before it was released.   </p>
<p>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 &#8216;accomplish&#8217;? Why not use a solution which is friendly to honest users, has no impact on development time and the strongest available protection against crackers &#8211; see our whitepaper<br />
<a href="http://www.byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Christian Olsson<br />
ByteShield, Inc.<br />
<a href="http://www.byteshield.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.byteshield.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gorman</title>
		<link>http://www.vg247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/comment-page-1/#comment-26407</link>
		<dc:creator>gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/09/09/securom-to-be-used-on-red-alert-3/#comment-26407</guid>
		<description>If the first authentication is all it&#039;s needed, I tend to agree on this being better than needing the disc in the tray all the times. I&#039;d much prefer this approach to protection than the &quot;disc in the tray&quot; one. It reminds me of those good &quot;install and forget&quot; times of the early Nineties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the first authentication is all it&#8217;s needed, I tend to agree on this being better than needing the disc in the tray all the times. I&#8217;d much prefer this approach to protection than the &#8220;disc in the tray&#8221; one. It reminds me of those good &#8220;install and forget&#8221; times of the early Nineties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

