Vista Games Cracked to Run on XP 376
Next Generation is reporting that Vista PC games have been cracked to run under XP. Hacking groups who apparently wanted to play new titles like Shadowrun and Halo 2 with driver support have taken it upon themselves to open up the playing field a bit. "The news is sure to irk Microsoft who may now face an increased delay in some consumers adopting Vista at this early stage. However, it shouldn't come as a surprise. Earlier this month Falling Leaf Systems said in a press release that it believed Microsoft was deceiving consumers by stating that the titles would only work on Vista, and announced its intentions to release compatibility software to disprove the claim. 'Microsoft has, in typical Microsoft fashion, decided to launch their forced migration onslaught in full force with the release of two games that will only run on Windows Vista,' said Falling Leaf Systems CEO Brian Thomason in the press release." Relatedly, Mitch Gitelman of the (now closed) FASA Studios has taken exception to negative reviews of Shadowrun.
Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have to download a pirated version just to use the software you've legitimately paid for because of artificial limitations like this, it doesn't exactly install a lot of goodwill in the customer. I never purchased anything from Cadence again, and don't intend to.
If enough of us refuse to buy software, music, or movies from companies that deliberately frustrate their paying customers, then they will either change their strategy or they will deservedly go out of business.
Where's The Justice Department? (Score:5, Insightful)
Console Emulators (Score:5, Insightful)
this is trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
(And as I understand it, you can't just port DX10 to XP - its functionality requires the new display driver model in Vista.)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW, the fact that Microsoft gets away with 'forced upgrades' and the like is all the proof you need that they should have been broken up following the DOJ anti-trust trial, per the orders of Judge Jackson.
DirectX 9 Only (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, it will be a while before we see games that are DirectX10-only, but I doubt Microsoft will be getting too worried yet.
Test case done (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for the hackers. There is no compelling reason to move to vista from an existing set-up, and neither of these games would compel anyone either. Stupid that you have to go to these lengths to run software. Stupid that MS would not catch on to the notion that it takes more than gloss like aero to get people to upgrade.
Re:Where's The Justice Department? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a wonderful response. I guess you completely missed the fact that about 85-90% of computers that ship have Windows pre-installed; you can't choose NOT to buy it, and you can't get a refund for it without jumping through a million hoops (or in the case of Toshiba laptops, there's a sticker on the outside that says "You will not receive a rebate for Windows, period."
So yeah, when the day comes that computer companies decouple Windows from their machines, I'd personally consider not running to the Justice Department every time they fuck up their software in a way to lock users in or make it more difficult for users to use something else. But on that day we'll also see Hell hit absolute zero, pigs will start designing interstellar spacecraft, etc.
Why do we put up with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was a carmaker that wired a lock on the gas cap that would only open when it read a coded pulse from gas pumps at Exxon stations, the carmaker would go out of business quickly.
Yet, when it comes to software, instead of people refusing to do business with a company like Microsoft they just buy the software anyway if they can get around the restrictions.
Consumers need to grow a pair if they want things to change.
Re:Where's The Justice Department? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't you choose not to buy the game?
Your point is stupid. (and if you wanted to choose not to buy the OS, there's a company called Apple...)
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't want to respect their license, that's fine, but then you shouldn't expect them to respect the GPL either.
No where did anyone mention patents in this discussion either. Again, argue the topic at hand, and stop setting up stupid, inacurate strawman arguments.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:2, Insightful)
If enough of us refuse to buy software, music, or movies from companies that deliberately frustrate their paying customers, then they will either change their strategy or they will deservedly go out of business.
The problem is if we refuse to buy from them, they will complain to the RIAA/MPAA that we are pirating. More pirates means more DRM.
Re:Why do we put up with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh, but if the biggest car-maker had signed an agreement with the biggest gasoline distributor(s) to do this, they'd end up putting everyone ELSE out of business. Get it?
I don't agree with it, but it's sort of the whole point of the publishers and Microsoft's DRM (and other little schemes).
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a question of intent. (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, NT4 maxed out at DX3 and "could not go any higher" according to the wisdom at the time, but it
was possible to graft DX5 onto it and it worked quite well as I recall.
Look at games such as "Slave Zero" (picture Carmageddon, only giant robot instead of a car) that were
so tied to Win98's directX calls that it usually did not function under other WinOS's.
Some enterprising hacker replaced the 98 DX calls with more generic functions and it worked great.
Vista exclusive games (DX10 Only) will be out sooner or later, and I'm sure that eventually it will overcome
the 5+ year's momentum that XP has, but I think it'll be very slow going.
The intent of game makers is to sell games, and locking out 90% of thier target markets is suicide.
(DX8/9 compatability at the very least will be around for a while, I'd think.)
Same with Microsoft, its intent is to sell Vista anyway it can, but unlike games you want/don't have, you
are likely running a WinOS of some stripe (gaming requirement, almost). The lack of want/need of a new
os, lack of games that won't run on XP (yet), resistance to change and XP "just working" (for the most part)
and/or just the way you like it setup makes for some heavy resistance.
The realy trick/story will be DX10 working under XP, or, DX10 game that have been changed like Slave Zero
to work under DX9 with few, if any problems.
Re:Where's The Justice Department? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't you choose not to buy the game?
Your point is stupid. (and if you wanted to choose not to buy the OS, there's a company called Apple...)
So basically you're giving them a free chance to run the show how they like, see if it works (most likely will), but if it doesn't they'll change, then you'll buy it? Simply not buying isn't enough, you have to remove the incentive to exploit in the first place. "Not buying" is passive; you have to do something that actively makes them stop. Otherwise every single time they can they'll just try it, because they can always change later and get your money if it doesn't work, i.e. they know you'll come running back to them.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
All in all, "Alky" is a waste of time (regardless of their placating comments to the Linux/Mac community). The people that can't afford to switch to Vista won't be able to afford the more powerful hardware needed for "Alky", and those who can afford good hardware but want to stay away from Vista will be disappointed by the performance penalty. Meanwhile, the unwashed masses will migrate to Vista and XP will die.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Why could you not return it for a refund?
Re:Where's The Justice Department? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly this keep popping several times in each article about Microsoft, and each time I see this, I want to twist the neck of a little sweet kitty or shoot a baby seal.
Writing it in bold makes it that much worse.
We know they are "convicted monopolist". We're not ignoring it, we're not "forgetting it", we just realize it doesn't automatically apply to everything Microsoft ever does.
By locking games to Vista they aren't using their OS monopoly to improve their games business. they are just crippling their games in attempt to make us migrate. Stupid and transparent? Sure. Illegal? No.
Almost a good arguement (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a course of action that sometimes does work though. Shareware, Trials, and Expiring Full Versions. I agree that software is difficult to produce, and thus costs $ to create requiring protection. It's just unfortunate that the current system does not allow for either protection, or consumer rights.
Remember kids, Corporations are in it for the stock holders, the stock holders are in it for the money, the money is in it because we Print and use it for legal tender for all debts public and private.
Just Goes to Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:2, Insightful)
They seem pretty certain to me, being as no one has ever challenged one. You'd think by now some company would take it all the way, get the legality of them thrown out and now be able to use as many copies of the software they choose.
Nevermind that the box does state that there are terms inside to which you must agree to use the product, and you can return the item for a refund. In other words, you know there's a license when you buy it, and you are given an oppurtunity to review the licnese before you use the software. Pretty clear cut to me.
The GPL doesnt extend beyond copyright law, the GPL grants rights the user does not _have_ under copyright law. It's a copyright license, falling back on copyright law. Without the GPL the distributor has no rights to distribute at all.
Being subject to copyright does not exclude the licensing of software. The GPL does go beyond copyright through, because even a substansial rewrite or addition of functionality to code ends up being covered by the license. I could modify GPL code substantally (enough that copyright would protect my work) and yet still be under the licnese of the GPL.
Software clickwrap licenses restrict the user beyond what copyright law does, and try to take away rights the user normally has. Such licenses fall back on contract law, and are in their nature vastly different in their enforcability (the contract has to be found valid at all, the clauses have to be deemed acceptable, etc), and if it isnt found enforcable then the user has all the rights copyright grants them (ie, to use the product any way they deem fit).
Yes, because its valid to license software. Again, if its so shakely legally, why has not a single company attempted to invalidate them? Whether or not something is copyrightable has nothing to do with whether it can also be licensed or not, and we're not talking about copyright, we're talking about licenes (which the GPL is).
Re:Where's The Justice Department? (Score:3, Insightful)
The were in fact convicted, but it takes a lawyer to prove it, not cops to make an arrest.
Re:Vista is dying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:3, Insightful)
To use your own analogy the Mustang is already 100lbs, air tight and has fusion reactor, they just decide to not use it.
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not OpenGL? (Score:5, Insightful)
This issue is why there is a lot of confusion on the part of many people out there. They install DirectX 9 for example, but their video card only handles DirectX 8 in hardware. They don't understand that to get decent performance, you need the video card to be able to handle DirectX 9 in hardware to get the performance and in many cases the features that games have to offer today.
As for why companies went with DirectX, from what I have read, when DirectX first came out, Windows itself was a HORRIBLE platform for games. At that point, you had the option to write DOS apps(and support the video cards yourself, needing different drivers for each one), or you could go for a native Windows application, where DirectX was a HUGE improvement in many ways. As time went on, and Windows native applications became more and more appropriate, programming for Windows performance was more important.
Once a company was working with DirectX, future projects went DirectX as well, just because the API was known. Even when OpenGL started to catch on, for a Windows-only application, why go OpenGL at that point? Linux wasn't really on the radar, and MacOS had more issues than just the graphics API as a reason not to be concerned with the Mac environment.
As a side effect of this, ATI had never come up with a great OpenGL driver for their cards, and there was never much pressure to do so for most of the user base(CAD and a handful of other applications the only exception). So, if your ATI users will encounter lower performance, and there is no serious benefit to making your application multi-platform, then why NOT go DirectX?
To make an application that is multi-platform, aside from the graphics angle, the company needs to consider the following question: Will the number of sales from each additional platform compensate for the additional development costs for that platform?
Linux users, due to the free nature of the operating system, tend to look for other free applications. Paying money for an application would be seen as unusual, and is even frowned on by those who are into the whole "Open Source" movement. This implies that even if there were 10,000,000 Linux users out there(not installed machines worth), there might be only 10,000 of them who might BUY a game. Not everyone enjoys the same types of games, so you now have the problem of how many copies will be sold. This is why the emulators you see for Linux and MacOS have gained the popularity they have, because unless your application is a high end/expensive application, there is very little to be gained from making a multi-platform application. $60/copy just won't cover the cost of development of new ports.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:1, Insightful)
If the box had been labeled correctly, the GP would not have had to return it for a refund, and presumably would never have bought it in the first place. In other words:
Grandparent Post: The box was labeled wrong so I had to do some extra work (e.g. calling tech support, who refused to help).
Parent Post: Why don't you do this other kind of extra work instead?
This Post: Methinks Parent Post missed the point.
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
So no, I wouldn't say that it's clearly piracy to download a modded version of software for which you have a valid license, particularly if you did so for compatibility purposes only, were only using the exact version of the software for which you're licensed, and could document trying to get the vendor to help out & their failure to make a good-faith effort to fix your problem. Would such a defense hold up in court? Dunno, probably not, but no sane vendor would go after you in such a situation, it's not a guaranteed win for them & would be a PR disaster. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more, right?
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new under the sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying a piece of software "works" under certain conditions isn't just a statement of technical possibility, it's a statement of confidence in that scenario. As in, how thoroughly was that combination of software tested.
The software companies aren't obligated to broaden their testing platform, or to allow people to run their software on platforms they didn't test for. (Regardless of disclaimers, doing things like that would cost them money, in the form of tech support calls asking how to get it working. The situation sucks from a user standpoint but it's not totally unreasonable...)
Re:No Online Play (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were talking Windows 2000 or 98 I would see your point, but we ain't, so I don't.
DirectX 9 uniformity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, one of the features I saw touted for DirectX 10 was that it is a single, uniform, all-or-nothing platform. Microsoft's ad copy said that DirectX 9 has something called "capability bits", or "cap bits". Games were supposed to check the cap bits to find out what DX9 features a system supported. That would seem to indicate that DX9 wasn't a uniform platform, no? And so while that might mean DX10 has an advantage, it would seem to make that argument invalid about past DirectX releases, yes?
Re:Way to go Falling Leaf... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm a programmer. I've recently been working on releasing a couple of my programs as open source, so I've had to take a good look at the various licenses, and see which one is closest to my ideals. Just about anything but the BSD license (and arguably even that, though that would almost be splitting hairs) is indistinguishable from DRM, save for one exception: most open-source licenses attempt to achieve maximal collective benefit (rights), while DRM seeks nothing more than to maximize the benefit (profit) of the creators. That is, DRM and source licenses both prevent you from doing things with the code/media that you would otherwise be able to do; if you think differently, you surely have given up the term "DRM" in favor of "consumer enablement" (which it actually looks like you have, from your post).
The CDDL, the license closest to my ideals, is based on a single restriction: that if you modify the open code, you have to keep the CDDL for your changes, keeping the work open; so long as this rule is followed, you can use the code in any way, in any project. This is an arbitrary restriction on the ability of other people to use my code. However, I justify this restriction with the reasoning that I want as many people as possible to be able to make use of my code (and thus any advances to it). I'm sacrificing the ability of individuals to use my code in an unrestricted manner for the calculated benefit of the whole programming community.
While the GPL does this as well, it does something else that I consider uselessly arbitrary (that is, it limits the freedom of users without contributing significantly to the common good) and, for that reason, particularly obnoxious. Anyone who's read the GPL knows what I'm referring to: the requirement that any project which so much as uses GPL code must itself be GPL in its entirety. This is a political rather than practical requirement: the GPL serves to promote free software, and will restrict the freedom of users to attempt to increase the amount of free code available in total. I'd imagine the reasoning is that if all software were free and open, the world would be a better place; but I can't really agree with the sentiment or the means used to achieve it. The LGPL is better, but not as close as CDDL to my ideals (if you want more info on the topic, I wrote a several-page justification of my choice of license on my blog).
Re:Why not OpenGL? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/032907_alexs
Alex St John I actually attribute my reasons for being successful there to listening carefully to the game developers. My strategy was very simple--I go to them and ask, "What kind of crack would you get addicted to?" They'd tell me, and I'd go back to Microsoft and say, "If we make this crack, those developers will buy it." Very simple. Direct X was essentially the crack they asked me to make. That's the way you hook somebody--ask them what they'll pay money for, then go make it.
Fair enough.
What's remarkable is the other quotes :
Alex St John: You'll never hear this from anybody else because they probably don't know. The original codename for Direct X was "the Manhattan Project," because strategically it was an effort to displace Japanese game consoles with PCs and ultimately the Xbox. We called it "The Manhattan Project" because that was the codename for the program developing the nuclear bomb. We had a glowing radiation logo for the prototype for Direct X, and of course as soon as that got out and the press covered it, it caused a scandal. Microsoft PR said, "You have got to change that. You cannot be using a radiation symbol and calling this thing 'The Manhattan Project'." So we renamed it Direct X but we said, "Everybody loves the radiation symbol, so what we'll do is add legs to it to make it an 'X'." There are probably 3 people in the entire world that know how that came about. Microsoft was very funny when the Xbox launch, they said, "Oh, well, some artist made the green thing, and we thought it was cool," and I just said, "Oh stop, that was the color scheme for the Direct X logo from the very beginning."
Clearly not a man afraid of saying the wrong thing in an interview.
Here's what he said about Vista for gaming.
Alex St John I don't think Microsoft did anything to help the PC as a gaming platform with Vista, and that's a tremendous frustration because I take it very personally. If I would've been there, I would have made much more aggressive efforts to make sure Vista stayed out of the way of games. What you see with Microsoft is, without people at Microsoft who realize that the operating system does not add value to gaming, it gets in the way, they think they can add more value by adding in more shit that only gets in the way of making a good game. Unfortunately, Vista does that. Microsoft added more shit that impedes game development. It's certainly possible to make great games in Vista, it's just more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be. I think Vista is a missed opportunity for Microsoft to have done a better job in supporting PC gaming.
Ouch. And about Microsoft's culture
Alex St John I came in to do my presentation, and I got about three slides into it before I was interrupted by one of the executives saying, "This is all great stuff, you have a perfect plan. Developers who are reasonable should all support it, but what do you do if none of this works." "What do you mean?" "What if in spite of your best efforts, your best arguments, you best relationships, you can't get them to support them. How do you force the industry to support Microsoft anyway?" "Force them? Well, I don't know." "Come back when you have a plan that answers that question."
That perplexed me for a long time. I'm thinking, "What the hell does he mean, force them? I can't hold a gun to their head, so how do I put all these companies in a position where, regardless of what they see is in their best interest, they have to adopt your technology?" That experience had a major impact on my thinking. I realized that a major part of my job was to figure out how to use technology control to create economic force, or leverage, such that money and business flowed in Microsoft's direction, and people had to go [to them]. That, ultimately, is when I became a "Microsoft guy," when I got that concept.