Windows 10 Won't Run Certain Games With Securom or SafeDisc

[Scow2]

Windows 10 is a gift that just keeps on giving, isn't it? I know it's a not really an issue when you can simply use a no-cd crack. But still, the flaws of this OS keep getting revealed almost every day.

Since when is protecting your computer from malicious software (Even if it's disguised as DRM) an OS "Flaw"? The flaw is in the games, not the OS.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Windows 10 is a gift that just keeps on giving, isn't it? I know it's a not really an issue when you can simply use a no-cd crack. But still, the flaws of this OS keep getting revealed almost every day.

Since when is protecting your computer from malicious software (Even if it's disguised as DRM) an OS "Flaw"? The flaw is in the games, not the OS.

It's the idea of having being told it won't work so they can say SEE. Honestly I'm shocked those old games still work minus the DRM. I will admit there are things I question about Windows 10, but it's not a failure of a OS like people claim it is.

 

[Lightknight]

Whether it's too dangerous or not for the consumer should be up to the consumer. That's the frustrating part about where things are heading. We are slowly losing control of our own systems in the same patronizing way a parent coddles a child.

I get them warning the consumer and saying it's potentially malicious. But to prevent overriding it altogether? Is this really happening? You can't just run the program as administrator and that be that? *sigh*

I'm glad Windows 10 is doing well and is so much better than Win8. I just hope we (consumers) eventually start getting control of our system back.

 

[Barbas]

Well, would you look at that. Securom, the gift that's still f***ing giving.

 

[RealRT]

No, do tell me more why I shouldn't even consider upgrading from 7.

Because an OS that refuses to let malware (which is what these versions of SecuROM and SafeDisc clearly are, by their own admission) run is objectively an improvement over one that doesn't?

And the only downside is not being able to access games I paid for. On a gaming PC.

 

[suitepee7]

I came in here expecting to be annoyed that it won't run some games, but while this is short-term annoying in some ways, if it leads to less retarded DRM being used then yeah, I'm all for it. Still not getting Win10 for a while though, but it's encouraging to hear a few good things.

 

[Loonyyy]

"Booo DRM is cancer, ban evil DRM!!" "Hey guys, Microsoft refuses to support dangerous loophole ridden rootkit DRM" "BOOOOO Microsoft is cancer, give us back our DRM!!!" Never change internet.

People aren't saying they want DRM. They're saying that since they were saddled with DRM (And a large chunk of people have always been unhappy about that), they'd like to at least be able to play the damn games they paid for, by running the things they want on their system.

And it's not like Windows hasn't jumped in bed with Securom before (As the article points out, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and Bioshock 2 comes to mind).

But hey, if there'd never been any DRM to begin with we wouldn't be in this mess, so I guess the folk you're belittling had it right all along.

 

[Nazulu]

It's sounds neat and all they can block some of these shitty DRM types, but will it stop new incarnations in the future? How will we know new problems won't just be created?

Also, I believe there should be an option to shut this block system on and off, because convenience and control should be the future for the millionth time.

 

[Fanghawk]

Whether it's too dangerous or not for the consumer should be up to the consumer. That's the frustrating part about where things are heading. We are slowly losing control of our own systems in the same patronizing way a parent coddles a child.

The thing is, we've tried that approach and it's not working. All it's created <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122819-Researcher-Maps-Internet-Using-Illegal-Botnet-Study>is an internet packed with security holes that's an absolute nightmare for security specialists to address on a wide scale. While I agree consumers should have rights and control over their systems, the average consumer usually isn't tech-savvy enough to keep up with it.

The average person will usually choose a fun, short-term convenience over a safe, long-term payoff. It's like saying consumers can choose whether to be vaccinated, or smoke cigarettes in public places, or even eat fatty foods whenever they want. It makes sense in principle, but in reality becomes nasty without checks in place. You need systems in place that balance personal control with overall safety, however patronizing it might sound.

Getting back to this fix, it's not perfect, but it shows designers are trying to find ways to make this stuff happen in the background. And there are still workarounds for those who really want to play the games anyway. It's annoying, but in the long run will hopefully prove to be a good thing.

 

[major_chaos]

People aren't saying they want DRM. They're saying that since they were saddled with DRM (And a large chunk of people have always been unhappy about that), they'd like to at least be able to play the damn games they paid for, by running the things they want on their system.

Which would require MS to open a security blackhole on an OS where one of the primary goals seems to be improving security. I would rather need a small workaround to play a few games (games, which given their age, may have required workarounds to get running on a 64bit OS anyway) than allow potentially subverted crapware to have full system access.

 

[Damian Porter]

I love how people are praising Microsoft for this when they are guilty of shitty DRM practices, too. Like Games for Windows.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

No, do tell me more why I shouldn't even consider upgrading from 7.

Because an OS that refuses to let malware (which is what these versions of SecuROM and SafeDisc clearly are, by their own admission) run is objectively an improvement over one that doesn't?

And the only downside is not being able to access games I paid for. On a gaming PC.

You would have been denied access to those games anyway, once the publisher decided to stop supporting them and shut down the authentication servers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

M$ has supported its share of DRM, but that doesn't really make them in the wrong here. (and specifically here)
Securom and Safedick Safedisk were corporate malware, period.

So for once, I don't blame M$ but rather the asshole companies that included that shitty DRM in their products in the first place. (and they don't give a shit either; they aren't making money from those titles anymore)

Best thing to, as always, is deny companies money that force that shit onto the market.
Don't buy their games; no matter how good they are otherwise.

What? That's not fair to the developers that make good games?
It's not their fault corporate forced them to duct tape malware onto their product?

Well tough shit, because it's even less fair for the paying customer. We're the ones who have to cope with it well after the publisher and their developers have moved on; well after the DRM breaks due to being outdated, or when the servers go down.

The silver lining is that thanks to systems like GoG and Steam, those kinds of DRM systems largely fell out of favor.
(now we just need to keep Always Online from becoming an industry standard)

 

[RealRT]

No, do tell me more why I shouldn't even consider upgrading from 7.

Because an OS that refuses to let malware (which is what these versions of SecuROM and SafeDisc clearly are, by their own admission) run is objectively an improvement over one that doesn't?

And the only downside is not being able to access games I paid for. On a gaming PC.

You would have been denied access to those games anyway, once the publisher decided to stop supporting them and shut down the authentication servers.

Remind me again since when does running GTA3 demand an autentification via a server?

 

[devotedsniper]

Can't say I disagree with Microsoft here, Securom is terrible and may as well be a virus for all the trouble it causes even for legitimate owners of games.

Also speaking as a developer myself you can't expect us to keep supporting software which is well and truly outdated (do you know how friggin hard it is to support legacy software??? In my case IE8 and 9, anything even remotely modern and it has issues).

 

[Lightknight]

Whether it's too dangerous or not for the consumer should be up to the consumer. That's the frustrating part about where things are heading. We are slowly losing control of our own systems in the same patronizing way a parent coddles a child.

The thing is, we've tried that approach and it's not working. All it's created <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122819-Researcher-Maps-Internet-Using-Illegal-Botnet-Study>is an internet packed with security holes that's an absolute nightmare for security specialists to address on a wide scale. While I agree consumers should have rights and control over their systems, the average consumer usually isn't tech-savvy enough to keep up with it.

The average person will usually choose a fun, short-term convenience over a safe, long-term payoff. It's like saying consumers can choose whether to be vaccinated, or smoke cigarettes in public places, or even eat fatty foods whenever they want. It makes sense in principle, but in reality becomes nasty without checks in place. You need systems in place that balance personal control with overall safety, however patronizing it might sound.

Getting back to this fix, it's not perfect, but it shows designers are trying to find ways to make this stuff happen in the background. And there are still workarounds for those who really want to play the games anyway. It's annoying, but in the long run will hopefully prove to be a good thing.

And so big brother gets to decide what we can or can't do.

Maybe they should also start distinguishing between what literature we can read and what sites we can go to.

Look, as long as we can run executables, then there is no greater security threat. The job of the OS is to manage resource allocation and to enable file access. Not to prevent file access without allowing the option to side step it.

Now, I'm OK with them making it something that only a person with technical experience can side step by finding the security toggle and changing it. But to prevent it from being performed by anyone altogether? That's forced incompatibility and controlling. That's how Microsoft has introduced this in the past and I hope they do this going forward.

 

[Strazdas]

Good. Securom and SafeDisc are software that would be killed in court had it been any other industry but videogames, where apparently customers are walking wallets with no rights (it took us 4 years in court to get basic return rights and even then compliance does not even fit minimal standards by law). Those programs should not be allowed to run.

Outside of that you'll either have to turn to a (still illegal) no-CD crack

Its not. Here in Europeant Union at least. You are entitled to be able to play the game you have purchased, and that includes circumventing broken parts of it. DRM is by definition a broken part of the game (its designed to obstruct the ability to play).