Virtual platform not allowed? WHY???

[Rhinox]

My problem is following:

 

I installed LO:FC2, started some mission and wanted to activate it as usual. To my surprise, following message showed on the screen:

----------------------------

Flaming Cliffs 2 - Error

An attempt to use a virtual PC is detected. Please close all PC emulators and try again.

If the problem recurs, press "Error report" and send the report to product technical support.

----------------------------

 

Well, I can not close PC emulator, because I'm trying to run LO in emulator. I installed LO in virtual guest of VMware Workstation (guest system WindowsXP, host system is linux). But why can't I activate it? I have a legal & valid license of VMware, and I also bought 2 licenses of LO (download version, and platinum). So why can I not use one of them to run LockOn2.x in VMware-guest?

 

I checked license.txt file in LO home folder, but I do not see anything illegal in what I am trying to do. More exactly, I did not find anything about running LockOn in virtual environment there. If it is not explicitely prohibited, it is allowed...

 

BTW, do *not* tell me LO can not technically run in VMWare-guest, because I know it can (and I bet you know it too)! The only problem is some check-routine in that f***ing StarForce, which finds somewhere something about vmware and does not allow LO to start...

Edited July 27, 2010 by Rhinox

[EtherealN]

First off: check your language please. I know you may be frustrated (Debian FTW here), but it's always easier to get assistance if you use a cordial tone. ;)

 

Now, as to your specific problem: indeed the protection system does not like emulators. The reason for this is that emulators would completely defeat it. The system requirements state Windows XP or newer, and running another OS in emulation is not the same as running it as your actual OS. This is implicit in the very nature of stating an OS as a system requirement, in my opinion and as an industry standard. I invite you to please find me a developer that officially supports running a game under an guest OS. ;)

 

Basically, as the system requirements state, use Windows XP or newer as your operating system to use the software.

 

The reason why the protection works in this manner is that it is a driver-less version of StarForce Frontline Proactive. There was the option of using a driver version to help "defend" against hardware emulation and such things to circumvent the protection, but I am sure you know what most people (and I myself) feel about Ring0 vulnerabilities.

 

So, unfortunately, all I can say myself is that the system requirements stand as stated, and they state that the OS that is supported is Windows XP or newer. Not emulated or guesting, but your actual OS. That is "explicit" in the system requirements.

[Rhinox]

First off: I do not see any problem with my language, maybe except that f-word used for StarForce (which I starred-out), especially if I consider myself being (let me say it politely) "incorrectly and/or insufficiently informed" by ED.

 

Now, to the problem: no offence, but from what you wrote it is clear to me, you are not expert in this area (emulators). Just to bring a little light on the subject:

 

1. VMWare is not system emulator. It is a virtualization software, but what it creates is "virtual machine", or virtual computer, but definitely not system! The system, which you install afterwards, is in NO WAY changed! The same installation CD is used, the very same installation procedure...

 

2. Virtual computer can not defeat your protection system more, than any other computer. As I wrote, it is not virtual system, it is just virtual hardware. Of course, I could create more virtual computers and try to install & run LockOn on many of them, but:

a) I would need different activation code for each of them (virtual hardware has random-generated serials for disks/eth, etc)

b) I doubt there is some computer which could run 5-6 instances of LockOn in parallel.

 

3. I do not have contacts on software developers so I can not find those supporting guest-computers (again, it is NOT guest-OS!), but I could send you a list of games, which run without a problem. Some of them even with various software-protection.

 

4. I'm using WindowsXP, without any modification, installed with original unmodified installation CD. With this, your requirement for OS is fulfilled. Period. Your license says nothing about running LO on virtual hardware being prohibited, so I expect ED helps me to fix this problem.

_________________

Just under the line: You know, what drives me mad? Not this problem, but the fact, that as with all software-protection systems, the paying customer has been once again punished for his stupidity of being paying customer. I could make LO run in VMware, and I will make it run if you do not help me to fix this problem. But I wanted to stay on legal side. But as we all know, being honest does not pay-off these days...

[Nate--IRL--]

Why not Dual-Boot?

 

Nate

[winz]

2. Virtual computer can not defeat your protection system more, than any other computer. As I wrote, it is not virtual system, it is just virtual hardware. Of course, I could create more virtual computers and try to install & run LockOn on many of them, but:

Wrong. You can hide emulated drives by runing virtualization software. This I think is the main reason virtualization SW is not allowed.

 

but I could send you a list of games, which run without a problem. Some of them even with various software-protection.

there is a big difference in 'runs without problem' and officialy supports.

 

4. I'm using WindowsXP, without any modification, installed with original unmodified installation CD. With this, your requirement for OS is fulfilled.

Requirements for OS yes, but not for hardware, as virtualized hardware is not supported.

Edited July 27, 2010 by winz

[Rhinox]

Wrong. You can hide emulated drives by runing virtualization software. This I think is the main reason virtualization SW is not allowed.

You can "hide" drives, even if they are not emulated. No matter, if some hardware is real, or virtual. Apart from that, whats the sense of doing it?

there is a big difference in 'runs without problem' and officialy supports

Well, ED does not explicitelly say it supports seagate hard-drives, yet surprisingly, LO runs on it! And they do not say LO supports my mouse and keyboard, and guess what? LO can use it without a problem!

Requirements for OS yes, but not for hardware, as virtualized hardware is not supported.

Any link on official document? And btw, there is a difference between "not supported", and "not allowed to run on"...

__________________________________________

 

Edit: here are official hardware/software requirements for LO:FC2

 

Minimal system requirements: Windows XP, Vista, 7; CPU P4 2 GHz; RAM 2 Gb; Video nVidia/ATI 256 Mb RAM, DirectX9; 6 Gb of free space on HDD; Sound card; Copy protected, requires internet activation.

 

Recommended system requirements: Windows XP, Vista, 7; CPU Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2; RAM 3 Gb; Video 512 Mb RAM (ATI Radeon HD4850 or nVidia GF8800), DirectX9; 6 GB of free space on HDD; Sound card; Copy protected, requires internet activation; Joystick.

 

My virtual computer fulfills minimal system requirements, and with the exception of graphic card even recommended system requirements (iirc virtual graphics adapter in vmware has only 256MB of memory).

Edited July 28, 2010 by Rhinox

[Nate--IRL--]

The way I see it, is this. If DCS or FC2 were to be activated on the VM, what is to stop this VM being distributed with an activated DCS/FC2? Anybody who has the VM can therefore run the activated DCS/FC2. It totally negates the Copy protection.

 

It seems to me to be very obvious why VMs are unsupported.

 

On another Note, I'm very curious to know how the performance is in a VM for other games/software? Is the 3d performance transparent? Or is there a performance penalty using a VM?

 

Nate

[Rhinox]

The way I see it, is this. If DCS or FC2 were to be activated on the VM, what is to stop this VM being distributed with an activated DCS/FC2? Anybody who has the VM can therefore run the activated DCS/FC2. It totally negates the Copy protection.

 

It seems to me to be very obvious why VMs are unsupported.

I have been using VMw for a few years (6 or 7?), but of course I'm just user, not expert. But I think, each VMw installation generages unique identifier-prefixes for hardware groups. That way, if you move VM-guest from one computer to other, those identifiers (i.e. mac, or hard-drive serial) change. Software, relying on hardware ID check will complain and need to be activated again. On the other side, it is possible to change ID for almost every real hardware (disk serial, mac, bios, grapics, etc) so you could try to fool hw-check this way...

 

On another Note, I'm very curious to know how the performance is in a VM for other games/software? Is the 3d performance transparent? Or is there a performance penalty using a VM?

I'm going further in this investigation with LO 1.02 (at least until this issue is solved: either ED helps me, or I will "fix" it otherwise) and I can tell you there *is* performance penalty, as with every emulation. Especially in 3d-gaming, it is quite severe. My 3dMark06 score in vm-guest is about 50-60% of those native to my computer. I'd say, 3d-performance I get in vm-guest now is about the same, as when running LO natively on 2-3 years old computer.

 

It is quite much, but I want to use it only for running game-server. For that application, it is sufficient. With low details and everything unnecessary turned off, I get 20-80fps on those demo-tracks. I do not need more...

 

BTW, if VMw Inc changes a few things, it would be very difficult for software to detect if it is running in vm-guest or native. Right now it is quite easy, as those guests use hardware-IDs like "vmware-bios" or "vmware-graphics" etc. I also tried to test Sun's (now Oracle) virtualbox, but its 3d-performance sucks hard so I gave it up right after testing with 3dmark...

Edited July 28, 2010 by Rhinox

[noorm]

Copying a virtual machine from one computer to another doesn't automatically change the mac address. You need to change it manually to prevent the 2 virtual computers from having the same address.

 

So yes, copying a virtual machine with lock on installed and activated would defeat the purpose of the copy protection.

[EtherealN]

Rhinox, as far as terminology goes I do apologize for speaking to you in my second language. I could speak to you in my first language and get things closer to right, but I doubt you'd understand much of what I say if I do that. ;)

 

That said, yes, I've indeed not used VMware myself, since I've never needed it. For gaming on Linux I've usually been just fine with either WINE or Cedega, or just booted into a windows partition.

 

Anyhow, I think your main problem is the notion that "not expressly forbidden is implicitly allowed". That's just not the case for everything, and the listing of an OS in the system requirements is not the same as saying it's supported when running as a "guest machine". That is quite obviously (in my opinion at least) a very specialized case and I'd trust it to work just as much as I'd trust a WINE install to run a given software (as in, might work, often does work, but if it doesn't I just boot over). Virtual Machines are not machines, and the OSes they run are not the system OS, even if it may act as if it was. Obviously this is a rare enough habit that I've actually never seen anyone with this problem before (and I've looked for a year and a half), although other proplems related to WMware are known and listed on the official wiki.

 

On language - yes. If you need to cross out letters in a word, everyone will know which word it was anyhow and you might as well type it out, and it'll be considered as if you typed it out. Not a big deal, but something to keep in mind. :)

[Rhinox]

...Anyhow, I think your main problem is the notion that "not expressly forbidden is implicitly allowed". That's just not the case for everything, and the listing of an OS in the system requirements is not the same as saying it's supported when running as a "guest machine".:)

First: "what is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed" is one of basic principles, which are followed by majority of legal systems. Second: no, you are wrong. My main problem is I checked hw/sw requirements & license, and based on the fact I fulfilled all what is required, I decided to buy a product. Yet this product does not work! Naturally, I feel myself being cheated. Do not you think a customer has a right to know that some way of using a product is intentionally blocked? I mean in advance of course, not just when the customer finds it himself and starts complaining...

 

Virtual Machines are not machines, and the OSes they run are not the system OS, even if it may act as if it was.

It is your opinion, and it is incorrect opinion...

 

Obviously this is a rare enough habit that I've actually never seen anyone with this problem before (and I've looked for a year and a half), although other proplems related to WMware are known and listed on the official wiki.:)

Well, someone has to be the first, has not? But do not tell me ED did not count with this possibility. How would they otherwise come to decision to block it? Nevermind, it is a perfectly legitimate decision they made. But ED decided not to inform potential customers about it. Instead of that, they have set up this kind of "trap". The best, what I can say about it is: a respectable company should not behave this way!

 

Based on the above, I do not feel myself being obliged to follow the licence under which this product is distributed. Apparently, ED will not help me to solve this problem, but fortunatelly, there are "other ways". If this is what ED wants, ok...

[winz]

First: "what is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed" is one of basic principles, which are followed by majority of legal systems.

What has legal system to do with this?

What is not stated as supported, is not supported and without guaranty, that's the basic principle all around the industry.

[Rhinox]

What has legal system to do with this?

What is not stated as supported, is not supported and without guaranty, that's the basic principle all around the industry.

No offence man, but I think you'd better distinguish between "supported" and "allowed" (or "unsupported" and "blocked"). Who complained about "not being supported"? Check my question, I did not. I ask if it is allowed. That's quite a difference. I do not need support from ED concerning this, but I do not need bricks thrown under my knees either...

 

But I have good reason to say, it is exactly what ED did. I checked licence and while it clearly names a few activities which are forbidden (copying, modifying, reverse-engineering, etc, it is quite long list) and ED did a few measures to prevent it, running LO on virtual hardware is not mentioned there. Yet it is intentionally prevented, despite of the fact, that LO *can* run on virtual hardware...

 

I asked if virtual hardware is allowed or not, and I got an answer: it is not allowed. OK, but quite naturally the second question is: when it is not allowed, why is it not mentioned in licence.txt, or hardware requirements, or web-page, or *anywhere* so that potential customer could find it? And THAT is the right question...

[EtherealN]

Actually, the license agreement you signed explicitly mentions that you purchase as-is, and what I said was that in cases such as this I would personally consider it a very "special" platform and not expect it to be mentioned in an EULA or other document. As has already been mentioned, ED has good reason for this choise.

 

The alternative would be something like Ubisoft's always-online, or a StarForce version with root access. Both of those alternatives would likely be extremely impopular with a huge amount of people, and my personal analysis is that ED basically had to make a call and you are in the unfortunate position of being one of the few affected.

 

As for why it is not mentioned, I don't know. Could be an honest oversight. Could be the fact that WMware is extremely prone to chew up these installs in the first place wherefore the expected problem was people using WMware (but not running the program through them, but rather "just haveing it" and using it for other unrelated stuff) - not people using it to play the simulators. Hindsight is 20-20 of course, though as I said: the expected problems did reflect actual problems. You are in an extreme minority simply through running WMware, and an even smaller one (as mentioned: the first I've heard of) that has tried to run it through WMware.

 

While it may be frustrating my suggestion would be to dualboot. Since I assume you have a windows license anyhow, why not just create a tiny partition and install it there? A quick resize and it'll be done, and give you performance benefits too.

 

Final note as an edit:

Legal systems do indeed generally work on the premise that what's not expressly forbidden is permitted. An EULA isn't part of law, though - it is a license agreement. Generally speaking a license would state what you are allowed to do, since you are only licensing (as opposed to purchasing), although it is common to augment this through also giving examples (often prefaced by language indicating that it may not be complete) of things that are not allowed - simply because many people think like you about the details of the license texts. :)

Edited July 29, 2010 by EtherealN

[Rhinox]

Actually, the license agreement you signed explicitly mentions that you purchase as-is,

Yes, but license also says: "...Program will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials...". It is not like only me, as a customer, has obligations, and the company can send me whatever crap, not bearing any responsibility at all...

 

As for why it is not mentioned, I don't know. Could be an honest oversight.

Oh c'mon, man! We both know, it is not like that. ED spent a lot of time taking care of LO *will not* be allowed to run in VMw. How's that they suddenly forgot all about it when writing license? :-)

 

..You are in an extreme minority simply through running WMware, and an even smaller one (as mentioned: the first I've heard of) that has tried to run it through WMware.

First of all, hardware-virtualisation is one of top 10 terms in IT nowadays. It is nothing new, nothing exotic or rare. Actually, it started many years ago, with ms-dos and its "ram-disk" (which is a kind of hardware emulation). And second, that's what I think why there is nothing about running LO on virtual hardware in licence.txt: ED simply did not want to give anyone hint to try it. But it was just a question of time, when someone comes with such an idea...

 

While it may be frustrating my suggestion would be to dualboot. Since I assume you have a windows license anyhow, why not just create a tiny partition and install it there? A quick resize and it'll be done, and give you performance benefits too.

Yeah, dual-boot is nice feature. Yet I can not afford to interrupt all services running on my multi-purpose server every time when I reboot into windows to run LO... :-|

 

Final note as an edit:

Legal systems do indeed generally work on the premise that what's not expressly forbidden is permitted. An EULA isn't part of law, though - it is a license agreement.

"...THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT (“LICENCE”) IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT..."

And as such, it must obey laws. It is not part of law, but must exist within a legal system...

 

Anyway, I already solved this problem, and can assure you, LO is running on VMw, and even better than I expected...

[159th_Viper]

...Anyway, I already solved this problem, and can assure you, LO is running on VMw, and even better than I expected...

 

So what you're saying is that you've circumvented the DRM.

 

:huh:

[Rhinox]

So what you're saying is that you've circumvented the DRM.

Why should I? License.txt does not say running LO on VMware is forbidden... :-P

[Panzertard]

I would take a guess:

- They didnt state it in the EULA early on.

- Later they discovered that Virtual Machines presents several problems, a) aiding in reverse engineering, b) cause unforseen support issues.

And hence they put a programatic block there.

 

Simple as that. ;)

[Rhinox]

Oh yes, and while they had enough time to include some check-routine blocking LO on VMw, they did not have enough time to put 2 lines of text into eula... :-)))

[159th_Viper]

Why should I? License.txt does not say running LO on VMware is forbidden...

 

And yet you're quite happy to rely on your unenumerated rights all day every day, eh? Trust me, your argument of 'well if it does not say so, it's OK' borders on the ridiculous!

 

You have been told it's not OK to do so and yet you blatantly persist. Seriously, just do the right thing here - It's not Rocket-Science :music_whistling:

[Rhinox]

What I personally find ridiculous are customers, who let themselves cut like sheep, and instead of protesting they even thank for that. But I'm not that kind of man, as you might notice...

 

"...blatantly..." - never heard this word, but I like it. I will use it one day... say "...software company blatantly cheated me with incorrect and incomplete eula"... :-)

Edited July 30, 2010 by Rhinox

[Moa]

FYI, a VMWare guest virtual machine running Windows requires re-activation if copied to a new machine. Windows virtual machines cannot be copied willy-nilly (Linux VM can be - another win for Linux ease of use :)).

[Rhinox]

FYI, a VMWare guest virtual machine running Windows requires re-activation if copied to a new machine. Windows virtual machines cannot be copied willy-nilly (Linux VM can be - another win for Linux ease of use :)).

That is what I said: if you copy vmware-guest to other machine, any software relying on "footprint" of the hardware must be re-activated (be it windows itself, or LockOn). Using VMw does not help to circumvent copy-protection, neither is it intended for it...

[159th_Viper]

... say "...software company blatantly cheated me with incorrect and incomplete eula"...

 

And we're back to your unenumerated rights.......Said rights create a recriprocal obligation to third parties to respect the rights. In other words, it's not all Black and White: Just because (in your opinion) it's not expressly written in the Licence Agreement is no argument.....;)

[Rhinox]

Just because (in your opinion) it's not expressly written in the Licence Agreement is no argument.....;)

Damn it IS argument! No one can expect me buing software like a cat in a bag, full of surprises, of which I get infor just AFTER buying it.

 

"...THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT (“LICENCE”) IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT..." - that's what is inside of eula. And if it is a legal document, it *must* respect valid legal system, in the country where software company wants to make business. I do not know how's that in your country, but I bet it is very similar: what is not explicitely forbidden, is allowed. Otherwise, how would you know you are doing something ilegal? You would have no chance to find it out...