* But the DiabloIII screw-up is nothing compared to what happened when Creator/ElectronicArts and Maxis released the 2013 version of ''VideoGame/SimCity''. While they haven't said if the game's "always online" requirement was due to copy protection, it seems very likely, given that hackers have found that the game works perfectly fine offline - you simply can't save your city. In fact, the game actually allows players to play for twenty minutes offline if they get disconnected because there is a variable disconnect timer that forces the game to quit when it elapses.[[note]]All this despite [[WordOfGod official claims that]] [[LyingCreator it would not be possible to play the game offline without "a significant amount of engineering work"]][[/note]] In any case, many players could not play the game when it came out due to - again - server overload. This time, Amazon.com temporarily stopped selling the game, a patch was released that actually cut out several features in an attempt to relieve sever pressure, and EA actually told websites to ''stop advertising the game''.
* The launch of ''VideoGame/{{BioShock|1}}'' was screwed up, plain and simple, when the single-player offline game shipped with [=SecuROM=] CopyProtection that allowed installation twice, ever, before the customer had to contact support[[hottip:*:it was intended that uninstalling the game properly would give access to another install... turns out this feature didn't actually work]]. In its wake came crashing authentication servers, the customer support of the publisher and of its parent company each referring people to the other, said support demanding photos of the CD and the manual, people in smaller countries being asked to phone the same support - i.e., to make international calls in a foreign language, PR representatives assuaging the public by falsely stating that properly uninstalling the game would give the right to another installation[[hottip:*:they weren't knowingly lying; this was one of [=SecuROM's=] intended features]], finding out that installing on another account or making what [=SecuROM=] deems to be a significant hardware change counts, the protection disrupting other programs if they look like the sort that might be used for cracking, the demo coming with [=SecuROM=] - without activation - when it acknowledgedly has no reason to do so, and [[ArsonMurderandJaywalking halitosis]]. It would've been nice to tell about the limit beforehand, too. Others are cool with that and just dislike having unannounced, nonconsensual, unremovable data on their computers. Some parts of [=SecuROM=] don't like being told to leave.

to:

* But the DiabloIII screw-up is nothing compared to what happened when Creator/ElectronicArts and Maxis released the 2013 version of ''VideoGame/SimCity''. While they haven't said if the game's "always online" requirement was due to copy protection, it seems very likely, given that hackers have found that the game works perfectly fine offline -- you simply can't save your city. In fact, the game actually allows players to play for twenty minutes offline if they get disconnected because there is a variable disconnect timer that forces the game to quit when it elapses.[[note]]All this despite [[WordOfGod official claims that]] [[LyingCreator it would not be possible to play the game offline without "a significant amount of engineering work"]][[/note]] In any case, many players could not play the game when it came out due to -- again -- server overload. This time, Amazon.com temporarily stopped selling the game, a patch was released that actually cut out several features in an attempt to relieve sever pressure, and EA actually told websites to ''stop advertising the game''.
* The launch of ''VideoGame/{{BioShock|1}}'' was screwed up, plain and simple, when the single-player offline game shipped with [=SecuROM=] CopyProtection that allowed installation twice, ever, before the customer had to contact support[[hottip:*:it was intended that uninstalling the game properly would give access to another install... turns out this feature didn't actually work]]. In its wake came crashing authentication servers, the customer support of the publisher and of its parent company each referring people to the other, said support demanding photos of the CD and the manual, people in smaller countries being asked to phone the same support -- i.e., to make international calls in a foreign language, PR representatives assuaging the public by falsely stating that properly uninstalling the game would give the right to another installation[[hottip:*:they weren't knowingly lying; this was one of [=SecuROM's=] intended features]], finding out that installing on another account or making what [=SecuROM=] deems to be a significant hardware change counts, the protection disrupting other programs if they look like the sort that might be used for cracking, the demo coming with [=SecuROM=] -- without activation -- when it acknowledgedly has no reason to do so, and [[ArsonMurderandJaywalking halitosis]]. It would've been nice to tell about the limit beforehand, too. Others are cool with that and just dislike having unannounced, nonconsensual, unremovable data on their computers. Some parts of [=SecuROM=] don't like being told to leave.

Changed line(s) 159 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 162 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 164 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 169 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 181 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 183 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 186 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 191 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 202,203 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 208 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 239 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 241,243 (click to see context) from:

** [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk A sequel]] recently came out, and while it's musically more advanced , the message is still not as clear as the creators intended. Case in point: [[http://sati1984.tumblr.com/post/202537346/this-video-alone-is-going-to-increase-the-rate-of this YouTube comment]] and [[http://www.retrothing.com/2009/09/stunning-sequel-to-dont-copy-that-floppy.html this Retro Thing article]], the latter providing an excellent analysis of the video.
* Maxis' ''TheSims 3'' has recently been leaked on line several weeks early, giving many players a sneak peek at the game's functionality. EA caught wind of this pretty quickly, saying that the leaked version was missing half the game's content and was glitched to hell, and instead of hunting down every single person who's downloaded the game and preventing them from accessing the game altogether, has settled on telling them they're running an unauthorized version and pleading them to buy the full version to get extra content. Which is surprisingly fair, considering this is ''EA'' we're talking about here.
** In actual fact, the retail copies of the game are missing this same half of the game's content as well, in the form of an extra city that is offered as a download upon registering the game. It should be noted however, that the common leaked version is apparently 17 builds behind the retail version, as found by reading information about the first patch for the game, which for some reason this information was already uploaded to EA's servers.\\

to:

** [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk A sequel]] recently came out, and while it's musically more advanced, the message is still not as clear as the creators intended. Case in point: [[http://sati1984.tumblr.com/post/202537346/this-video-alone-is-going-to-increase-the-rate-of this YouTube comment]] and [[http://www.retrothing.com/2009/09/stunning-sequel-to-dont-copy-that-floppy.html this Retro Thing article]], the latter providing an excellent analysis of the video.
* Maxis' ''TheSims 3'' has recently been leaked online several weeks early, giving many players a sneak peek at the game's functionality. EA caught wind of this pretty quickly, saying that the leaked version was missing half the game's content and was glitched to hell, and instead of hunting down every single person who's downloaded the game and preventing them from accessing the game altogether, has settled on telling them they're running an unauthorized version and pleading them to buy the full version to get extra content. Which is surprisingly fair, considering this is ''EA'' we're talking about here.
** In actual fact, the retail copies of the game are missing this same half of the game's content as well, in the form of an extra city that is offered as a download upon registering the game. It should be noted, however, that the common leaked version is apparently 17 builds behind the retail version, as found by reading information about the first patch for the game, which for some reason this information was already uploaded to EA's servers.\\

Changed line(s) 245 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 251 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 257 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 260 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 262,263 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 265,267 (click to see context) from:

* Some games on the original PlayStation, such as ''LegendOfDragoon'' and ''VideoGame/VandalHearts 2'', would detect if you had a mod-chip (which lets you play imported or copied games) in your system, and then the game would not play and a message to call a place to report the problem would come up on screen. What it boiled down to was that people who had mod chips and COULD pirate the games but DIDN'T could not play the games they bought legitimately. It was probably in an attempt to get people to abandon their mod chip consoles, guess what they abandoned instead?
* ''VideoGame/RobotOdyssey'', an Electrical-Engineering-based adventure game by the Learning Company utilized copy protection by checking the 5.25" disk for a "flaky bit". If the bit was not found, the player's ability to solder connections in the robots of the main game was disabled, rendering the game [[UnwinnableByDesign unwinnable]]. However, the copy protection was never disclosed in the manual and the flaky bit had a tendency to "settle" over time, meaning that many users found their legitimate games impossible to play past the third level.
* On certain emulators ''Hamtaro Ham-Ham Heartbreak'' would not go past the character-naming screen.

to:

* Some games on the original PlayStation, such as ''LegendOfDragoon'' and ''VideoGame/VandalHearts 2'', would detect if you had a mod-chip (which lets you play imported or copied games) in your system, and then the game would not play and a message to call a place to report the problem would come up on screen. What it boiled down to was that people who had mod chips and COULD pirate the games but DIDN'T could not play the games they bought legitimately. It was probably an attempt to get people to abandon their mod chip consoles; guess what they abandoned instead?
* ''VideoGame/RobotOdyssey'', an Electrical-Engineering-based adventure game by the Learning Company, utilized copy protection by checking the 5.25" disk for a "flaky bit". If the bit was not found, the player's ability to solder connections in the robots of the main game was disabled, rendering the game [[UnwinnableByDesign unwinnable]]. However, the copy protection was never disclosed in the manual and the flaky bit had a tendency to "settle" over time, meaning that many users found their legitimate games impossible to play past the third level.
* On certain emulators, ''Hamtaro Ham-Ham Heartbreak'' would not go past the character-naming screen.

Changed line(s) 270,271 (click to see context) from:

* ''MarioAndLuigiBowsersInsideStory'' locks up at the file select screen. That was quickly patched, though. It also had a couple, lesser known ones: The tutorial battle with Bowser will go on forever because Bowser won't attack and Toadsworth won't do a tutorial which is required to progress (even if you say no to his offer). A second one occurs with another tutorial battle with a Goombule which won't progress because Starlow won't do a tutorial.
* {{Ubisoft}}'s [=uPlay=] [[InternetBackdraft caused much controversy]] that it deserves a mention. While its other purpose is to allow their games to include supplemental unlockable content, [=uPlay=] on ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedII'' and ''TheSettlers VII'' initally required you to remain online during play, and if shall even a slightest connectivity hitch to occur, ''you would be booted off from a game and lose any unsaved progress''. ''Assassin's Creed II'' and ''Splinter Cell Conviction'' have since had the always-online requirement removed; the games must now "only" access the Internet each time they start up.

to:

* ''MarioAndLuigiBowsersInsideStory'' locks up at the file select screen. That was quickly patched, though. It also had a couple, lesser-known ones: The tutorial battle with Bowser will go on forever because Bowser won't attack and Toadsworth won't do a tutorial which is required to progress (even if you say no to his offer). A second one occurs with another tutorial battle with a Goombule which won't progress because Starlow won't do a tutorial.
* {{Ubisoft}}'s [=uPlay=] [[InternetBackdraft has caused so much controversy]] that it deserves a mention. While its other purpose is to allow their games to include supplemental unlockable content, [=uPlay=] on ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedII'' and ''TheSettlers VII'' initally required you to remain online during play, and if even the slightest connectivity hitch occurs, ''you would be booted off from a game and lose any unsaved progress''. ''Assassin's Creed II'' and ''Splinter Cell Conviction'' have since had the always-online requirement removed; the games must now "only" access the Internet each time they start up.

Changed line(s) 273 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 277,278 (click to see context) from:

*** Additionally, the very next issue reviewed two more of Ubisoft's games - both of which had the exact same DRM - and actually brought BACK the "Copy Protection" descriptor, putting this in attention-getting RED (which they rarely use there) and actually docking off a few points for the DRM this time around.
** All the fans of Ubisoft-published ''VideoGame/IL2Sturmovik'' series also got screwed over after purchasing a legit copy of the final ''1946'' collection of the game - which is heavily protected by SECUROM. Trying to uninstall and reinstall the game for whatever logical reason (including the need to change damaged hardware) will cause the antipirate malware SECUROM to block the game from launching. Fortunately, there are already several easy methods on how to bypass the original install (by making your own copy) and then uninstall it along with SECUROM. '''Fun fact :''' The reason your hardware could mysteriously become damaged in the first place (if your a responsible PC user) is because SECUROM's influence will gradually mess it up, which then comes full circle when you have to pay for new hardware [[AbsurdityAscendant and SECUROM will ban you]] ''[[{{Hypocrite}} from installing the game again on said new hardware]]''.

to:

*** Additionally, the very next issue reviewed two more of Ubisoft's games -- both of which had the exact same DRM -- and actually brought BACK the "Copy Protection" descriptor, putting this in attention-getting RED (which they rarely use there) and actually docking off a few points for the DRM this time around.
** All the fans of Ubisoft-published ''VideoGame/IL2Sturmovik'' series also got screwed over after purchasing a legit copy of the final ''1946'' collection of the game -- which is heavily protected by SECUROM. Trying to uninstall and reinstall the game for whatever logical reason (including the need to change damaged hardware) will cause the antipirate malware SECUROM to block the game from launching. Fortunately, there are already several easy methods on how to bypass the original install (by making your own copy) and then uninstall it along with SECUROM. '''Fun fact:''' The reason your hardware could mysteriously become damaged in the first place (if your a responsible PC user) is because SECUROM's influence will gradually mess it up, which then comes full circle when you have to pay for new hardware [[AbsurdityAscendant and SECUROM will ban you]] ''[[{{Hypocrite}} from installing the game again on said new hardware]]''.

Changed line(s) 281,284 (click to see context) from:

** More recently, a sale on Steam revealed the constant risk of this kind of DRM: The flood of new sales crashed the servers, preventing not only the new gamers from authenticating their games, but also anyone who was trying to play an Ubisoft game tied to this service. The actual DRM (for, say, AssassinsCreedRevelations) is actually not too intrusive, simply requiring a one time authentication before being available for offline play (multiplayer not working, however, for obvious reasons), making it like the old CD-key authentication. The problem being, it may not be too intrusive, but if the servers keep failing, it doesn't matter. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, with some of the more paranoid gamers suggesting this was just as [[Creator/ValveSoftware Gabe Newell]] [[JustAsPlanned planned]]...
* ElectronicArts tried the same thing as Ubisoft with ''CommandAndConquer 4: Tiberian Twilight''. While it didn't bring up as much bad press as it was in Ubisoft's case, there were some people complaining about nonetheless, ''[[http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/26/0653202/EA-Editor-Criticizes-Command-amp-Conquer-4-DRM and that includes one of EA's own employees]]''.
** It should be noted that several companies, including Ubisoft, have previously tried to convince Microsoft and Sony to let them release console games that would require the player to be connected to Xbox Live or the Playstation Network at all times, irrespective of whether the game has any online elements. And despite the fact that such a mechanism would probably be far easier to implement on a console than on Windows, both Microsoft and Sony have smacked down such requests each and every time, on the grounds that they don't want to be responsible for the fallout that would inevitably happen. Let's reiterate: Sony, who ''love'' locking up everything harder than Fort Knox, using proprietary solutions wherever they can, and who have in the years attracted a lot of hatred due to their [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal boneheaded antipiracy measures]], [[EveryoneHasStandards have rejected Ubisoft's project]]. You'd think this would be an eye opener in and of itself for Ubisoft...
*** That certainly didn't stop {{Capcom}} of all things [[http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/23158177/Why_does_Final_Fight_Double_Impact_require_me_to_be_in_PSN pulling off that dirty trick on the consoles]]. At least the [[http://www.giantbomb.com/news/bionic-commando-rearmed-2-psn-requires-an-internet-connection/2895/ Second time]] they did it, they said it required a PSN login right on the description. (And it still only affects the PS3)

to:

** More recently, a sale on Steam revealed the constant risk of this kind of DRM: The flood of new sales crashed the servers, preventing not only the new gamers from authenticating their games, but also anyone who was trying to play an Ubisoft game tied to this service. The actual DRM (for, say, AssassinsCreedRevelations) is actually not too intrusive, simply requiring a one-time authentication before being available for offline play (multiplayer not working, however, for obvious reasons), making it like the old CD-key authentication. The problem being, it may not be too intrusive, but if the servers keep failing, it doesn't matter. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, with some of the more paranoid gamers suggesting this was just as [[Creator/ValveSoftware Gabe Newell]] [[JustAsPlanned planned]]...
* ElectronicArts tried the same thing as Ubisoft with ''CommandAndConquer 4: Tiberian Twilight''. While it didn't bring up as much bad press as it was in Ubisoft's case, there were some people complaining about it nonetheless, ''[[http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/26/0653202/EA-Editor-Criticizes-Command-amp-Conquer-4-DRM and that includes one of EA's own employees]]''.
** It should be noted that several companies, including Ubisoft, have previously tried to convince Microsoft and Sony to let them release console games that would require the player to be connected to Xbox Live or the Playstation Network at all times, irrespective of whether the game has any online elements. And despite the fact that such a mechanism would probably be far easier to implement on a console than on Windows, both Microsoft and Sony have smacked down such requests each and every time, on the grounds that they don't want to be responsible for [[InternetBackdraft the]] [[InternetCounterattack fallout]] that would inevitably happen. Let's reiterate: Sony, who ''love'' locking up everything harder than Fort Knox, using proprietary solutions wherever they can, and who have in the years attracted a lot of hatred due to their [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal boneheaded antipiracy measures]], [[EveryoneHasStandards have rejected Ubisoft's project]]. You'd think this would be an eye opener in and of itself for Ubisoft...
*** That certainly didn't stop {{Capcom}} of all things [[http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/23158177/Why_does_Final_Fight_Double_Impact_require_me_to_be_in_PSN pulling off that dirty trick on the consoles]]. At least the [[http://www.giantbomb.com/news/bionic-commando-rearmed-2-psn-requires-an-internet-connection/2895/ second time]] they did it, they said it required a PSN login right on the description. (And it still only affects the PS3).

Added line(s) 286 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 289 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 294 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 297,298 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 307,309 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 321 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 323 (click to see context) from: