Vista games cracked for XP

By Tom Bramwell Published 26 June, 2007

Hacker groups taunt MS.

Shadowrun and Halo 2 - the first champions of Windows Vista gaming - have already been cracked by warez and hacking groups, with patches enabling both to function on Windows XP flying around the Internet's darker regions at the time of writing.

Both games have been released as Vista exclusives in recent weeks, introducing an Xbox Live-style service to PC gamers.

The news that the games will run on XP won't come as too much surprise to close observers after Falling Leaf Systems boldly claimed in May that it planned to offer compatibility software for both games "within a few months".

At the time, CEO Brian Thomason wrote: "First [Microsoft] claim that it was impossible to implement DirectX 10 compatibility atop Windows XP, and now they also want us to believe that they couldn’t successfully launch two DirectX 9 based titles on XP either. We plan to expose both theories as patently false."

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (108) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • JHuxley #1 5 years ago

    HA! Not that I support piracy, but it's nice to prove that Microsoft were lying on that one.

  • kissthestick #2 5 years ago

    good

  • AcidSnake #3 5 years ago

    Hehehe...I like that gesture...
    I'm not for pirating mind you...But it does show that MS is just pushing a new and so far useless OS...

    EDIT: Basically what JHuxley said then....Damn my slow fingers...
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 10:32

  • Thamuhacha #4 5 years ago

    Is this piracy? I suppose technically it might be.

    But it's really just making something work on an earlier OS isn't it?

    Does it work with legal copies of the game and legal copies XP?
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 10:33

  • Talha #5 5 years ago

    It's not exactly piracy if you wish to run one of your purchased games on another (less memory hungry) OS!

    Besides, they deserve a lot worse. For all the false promises of Vista, coupled with artificial restriction of DX10 and the steep price - one would think that Vista itself is in line for cracking.

    Not that I support that sort of thing or anything! ;-)

  • bauhaus #6 5 years ago

    glol

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #7 5 years ago

    "Is this piracy? I suppose technically it might be."

    It reminds me of the DMCA/DeCSS-decryption stuff...

    /rings lawyer

  • Wayne #8 5 years ago

    I believe the downloads on the internet contain the full game, ready to run on XP. So yes, this is indeed piracy.

  • zuljin #9 5 years ago

    Even if its just a file you run on your own copy of the game, it may not be piracy, but its still illegal. You're modifying code you don't own the rights to.

  • TheDifficult3rdAlbum #10 5 years ago

    "Is this piracy? I suppose technically it might be."

    I don't think it's piracy. It's using a legal copy of Halo 2 on a legal copy of XP. If anything, this would encourage more sales of the legal software because it has increased the number of users who can play these games by a massive number because now XP users can play them.

    For example, downloading warez copies of DS games off the internet and then playing them on the DS, that's piracy. This is not.

    Its embarrassing for MS for sure, but only because it highlights their heavy handed approach to manipulating people into upgrading to an OS they don't want or need.

  • skillian #11 5 years ago

    I don't think it's piracy. It's using a legal copy of Halo 2 on a legal copy of XP. If anything, this would encourage more sales of the legal software because it has increased the number of users who can play these games by a massive number because now XP users can play them.

    Much like the argument that downloading MP3s will encourage people to buy more CDs. It sounds nice, but it's illegal plain and simple.

    Use your own morals to decide if it's right for you, but no point pretending MS want you to do this. If they did, they'd have have done it themselves.

  • WJF #12 5 years ago

    What Zuljin said. You're still modifying the code, hence you're breaking the EULA you accepted when installing.

    Still, I think this calls for a 'Muhaha'

    Muhaha

  • Euronymous #13 5 years ago

    " Talha
    26-Jun-07 10:32:27

    Besides, they deserve a lot worse. For all the false promises of Vista, coupled with artificial restriction of DX10 and the steep price - one would think that Vista itself is in line for cracking."

    Already done and dusted. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 10:52

  • ZeroAX #14 5 years ago

    ffs it's not piracy it's a patch and even if you modify code what's really illigal is being bitched into buying vista.

  • zuljin #15 5 years ago

    @ZeroAX
    "ffs it's not piracy it's a patch and even if you modify code what's really illigal is being bitched into buying vista."

    Riiight. Just like Ferrari are forcing you to buy a car for that cupholder you want.

    You know the requirements before you buy the game. You decide whether it is worth upgrading to Vista for. This "patch" as you so put it, was not made by MS, hence made by someone with no authority.

    But as WJF said, Muhaha on them for lying.

  • Poorandugly #16 5 years ago

    Bring the Man down, I say!

  • Talha #17 5 years ago

    @Euronymous": Psst...something to do with freezing the countdown clock right???? ;-)

    Just a thought, lads. Just a thought.

    By the way, can someone tell me whether DiRT on PC has Starforce protection?

  • JHuxley #18 5 years ago

    "If anything, this would encourage more sales of the legal software because it has increased the number of users who can play these games by a massive number because now XP users can play them."

    MS couldn't care less how many copies of Halo 2 & Shadowrun they sell, they're just using them as a makeweight to sell more copies of Vista. The sooner this turgid practice is exposed the better.

    Did Nintendo restrict sales of Twilight Princess to the Wii so they could shift more consoles? No. Admittedly they held back the GC version to coincide with the Wii launch, but they still released it. For some reason Microsoft think that it's OK to lie to consumers and tell them a piece of software isn't compatible with their computer when it clearly is.

    I'd like to see them try and squirm their way out of this one...no doubt they'll come out with some bullshit statement about how the hackers have manipulated the original code and the game is in fact still incompatible with XP.

  • JediMasterMalik #19 5 years ago

    I too would like to know if they work online without Vista, a bit pointless if not.

  • aldo_14 #20 5 years ago

    What Zuljin said. You're still modifying the code, hence you're breaking the EULA you accepted when installing.

    Albeit quite a lot of EULAs contain clauses that are effectively illegal or unenforcable, so it's muddy ground with regards to that.

  • afghan_jones #21 5 years ago

    do these idiots not have jobs?

    faffing around to get Shadowrun and Halo 2 running on XP is hardly a worthy cause. a 360 costs less than £200. bunch of timewasting hackers. bet they think they are soooo clever. Well hope you enjoy playing Halo 2 on XP, what a thrill that will be.

    time wasting twats.

  • homerramone #22 5 years ago

    Never saw that coming.
    And of course theres no way this is going to create a situation where players runnining this on a PC will cheat.
    And theres also definatley no way this will potentially open up the doors of console viruses...
    Definatley not.

  • Talha #23 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones: its not about wasting time, it is about enabling people to use their XP systems for games which have been artificially disabled from playing on XP. In fact they are making a point about the sheer folly in MS tagging some games as Vista-only. Why buy an expensive new OS just to play a game, unless it offers something of real value?

  • Talha #24 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones: its not about wasting time, it is about enabling people to use their XP systems for games which have been artificially disabled from playing on XP. In fact they are making a point about the sheer folly in MS tagging some games as Vista-only. Why buy an expensive new OS just to play a game, unless it offers something of real value?

  • zuljin #25 5 years ago

    @aldo_14
    "Albeit quite a lot of EULAs contain clauses that are effectively illegal or unenforcable, so it's muddy ground with regards to that."

    I think the courts would beg to differ with you on clickwrap EULAs. I don't actually know of any recent shrinkwrap EULAs.

    http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap

  • SeesThroughAll #26 5 years ago

    Vista FTL

  • korky #27 5 years ago

    MS lying about Vista, DX 9/10, "technical compatibility reasons" and all the other BS is shameful but (sadly) to be expected. What sometimes get's lost in these discussions is of course the impact on the developers. Those poor guys at FASA have produced a labour of love over this past 3 years or so and the frustration / pain it must cause them to see their baby flounder in the snake pit of corporate lying and marketing greed is saddening. Spare a thought for those poor b@5t@rd5 - they'll probably be looking for work in a few months :(

  • Les #28 5 years ago

    “You know the requirements before you buy the game. You decide whether it is worth upgrading to Vista for. This "patch" as you so put it, was not made by MS, hence made by someone with no authority.”

    Might be a little more complex than this. Yes, you are not entitled to modify code by the license agreement but that in itself does not make it illegal. I think users could make a fair case that MS is crippling their software for no good reason and if MS would take legal action against these kind of patches a judge might decide that in this case MS can’t make an appeal on the license agreement as that would mean a worse breach of the rights of consumers.

    Personally, I’m against piracy but I’d have no problems with using patches like this. IMO the makers and users of the patch have the moral right on their side.

  • zuljin #29 5 years ago

    @Les
    No. The patch is still illegal use. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as happy as anyone else here that MS has been caught out lying, but it is still wrong. The right thing to do would be to submit this "patch" as evidence to a case that MS is unlawfully restricting software, as opposed to just releasing this to the public.

    But at the end of the day, it is their own software and they really can do what they like with it... Restricting it to a more recent version of their own operating system is, I agree, morally wrong. But theres nothing to stop them doing it.

  • AndyboyH #30 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    obviously you didn't read the wiki page you linked to:

    "The signing away of one's legal rights can normally only be done by a properly signed paper contract, or under some circumstances, orally if supported by witnesses or recordings, or, in even more restricted use, via electronic signatures issued by the local government, as a person charged with violating a license agreement otherwise can merely claim not knowing who opened the box or clicked the agreement box in the install software, and it is not possible for the licenser to provide proof of who is the purported licencee, nor has the person accused any obligation to provide such proof. In addition, legal rights can only be signed away if applicable law permits it. So even a properly signed paper contract may not be enough to abrogate copy owners rights, unless there are special legal provisions admitting it."

    If you sign my EULA, stating you'll become my slave, that's invalid - you can't sign yourself into an illegal act for example.

  • Gulag #31 5 years ago

    Of course this is piracy, as defined by the likes of Microsoft. Another way of thinking of it might be as Digital Freedom Fighting, the mirror to Digital Rights Management.

    Think about it. Who's rights are MS 'managing'? Yours? Their right to make money? How about your right not to be blatantly lied to?

    These hackers have ripped the restrictive wrapper off a couple of products that MS wanted to use to dupe you into buying into their latest upgrade-or-die cycle. Bully for them; I'm sick to death of companies who want me to pay for the privilege of being told how to use my property. Offer an OS that serves the user, not the manufacturer.

    DRM = The Emperors New Clothes. This group are calling it like the rest of us should see it.

  • JHuxley #32 5 years ago

    "The right thing to do would be to submit this "patch" as evidence to a case that MS is unlawfully restricting software, as opposed to just releasing this to the public."

    That would be the morally correct way to go about this, but do you think any group of hackers could seriously afford to go head-to-head with MS in the courts? That would be financial suicide (and maybe land you in jail); the only logical solution is to release it to the public and let the publicity (such as this) do the work.

  • Gurgeh #33 5 years ago

    AFAIK both Halo 2 and Shadowrun are NOT directX 10 games - Halo 2 is DirectX 9c. It would therefore be relatively easy to get them to run on Windows XP. What MS appears to have done is to make the games check for DirectX 10, rather than use DirectX 10 features.

  • zuljin #34 5 years ago

    @AndyBoyH
    Don't miss out the part just above what you quoted:
    "Thus, computer programs are automatically placed under copyright, which grants the owner of a copy standardized rights to use the computer material."

    Usage != adding in patches.

    And ofcourse the part afterwards:
    "Few cases have considered the validity of clickwrap licenses. However, in the cases that have challenged their validity, the terms of the contract have ultimately been upheld."

    Am I reading this wrong?

    EDIT: JHuxley - No I realise its suicide, but things like this don't hit the mainstream public anyway. Good they have the publicity to show MS were lying, but that would have arisen even without releasing this modification.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 12:24

  • LFace #35 5 years ago

    Technically Im not even sure this can be classed as a "crack" or "patch". Its a loader. You run a loader program which launches the game exe so it doesnt physically modify it. In my books I wouldnt call that a patch.

  • afghan_jones #36 5 years ago

    The thing is, Halo 2 and shadowrun are not games which are free to the general public. nor does anyone have a god-given right to play them.

    Microsoft own the rights, licensing, or whatever, so it is up to them how they choose to distribute them. If they decide to sell their product to Vista users only, it is up to them, whatever the reasons behind the decision. If Microsoft choose to sell their products in a certain way it is up to them. If you want to play 'games for windows' you need vista. If you dont want vista you dont get to play. whats the problem here?

    These hackers arent freedom fighters or some sort of noble resistance. They are timewasting idiots trying to prove a childish point. Grow up and live in the real world. Are Microsoft going t oturn round and think, "oh no, these hackers have revealed our evil scheme, quick lets close the business and just kill ourselves."

    Microsoft dont give a fuck about this outside of whichever tiny department has to look into it. And guess what, bar a few game geeks, the vast majority of the world wont give a shit either.

  • SeesThroughAll #37 5 years ago

    So, all the loader does is mimic the Vista environment for the game to run in. Does this fall in the same category as, let's say, Wine, for example?

  • Moz #38 5 years ago

    If this is just a loader then it is not illegal. If all your doing is making the program think your running vista without changing the program then there is nothing wrong with this.

    How ever if it does change the exe file then it is illegal.

  • zuljin #39 5 years ago

    Darn it people... Even if a loader its still illegal. You may not be changing gamecode, but you'd be emulating Vista.

  • SeesThroughAll #40 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones: You're right, most people aren't going to care about this hack. But then again, most people don't care about Vista either ;)

  • JHuxley #41 5 years ago

    "If Microsoft choose to sell their products in a certain way it is up to them."

    That may very well be the case, but does that mean we should just sit back and let them do whatever they want? Why should we be forced to upgrade to Vista under false pretense?

    Imagine if Windows XP were a car. And you wanted a new tyre for your car. Only the manufacturer tells you that you have to buy a new car to fit the tyre, even though you know the tyre will fit your car and they're just lying to make more money out of you. Is that fair?

  • ZeroAX #42 5 years ago

    man this place is full of corporate hores. the companys don't care about MY rights why should i care about them? and bill gates is a thief himself. if it was a smaller company or one that actually respects it's consumers i would say no to piracy of it's products but MS sucks and really the only bad part would be people losing their jobs but somehow i believe it's better i support smaller companies.

    and about OS i can get vista for free legally cause my university made an agreement with microsoft and all students can get vista office ect for free but i think i'll pass.
    XP and open office FTW

  • SeesThroughAll #43 5 years ago

    \awaits MS fanboy response to "Gates is a thief" by referring to charity: "See, he's a saint!"

  • afghan_jones #44 5 years ago

    @JHuxley

    Thats not the same thing at all. A Tyre is an essential part of a car and without tyres a car wouldnt work very well.

    Its more like you bought a car, but wanted some funky chrome rims for it. The car company then said no, you cant buy the rims, you have to buy completely new wheels too.

    its then up to you how much you want the rims. But your car still works fine without them.

    In the same way, you have to decide how much you want to play these games. If you decide Vista is too high a price, you dont get to play, but your PC will still work.

    Do you understand the distinction?

  • Gulag #45 5 years ago

    @ afghan_jones

    Talk about being resigned to your fate.

    Well, good luck with that; some of us will continue to hold out for a 'real world' where we still have a say in what goes on, consumer rights are still worth something and creativity isn't held in thrall to profits.

    No-one should make much of this whole situation, it is what it is, and no bigger than that, but if you're smart you'll recognise when a company is testing the waters to see what they can get away with, and you call it what it is. A cheap, wrong-headed, counter-productive sham.

    Of course it's all legal and above board, MS aren't thick, but that doesn't make it right. Arguing the letter of the law is a side show, the bigger picture is their intent going forward. If this is profitable for them, they'll try it on a larger scale. Then it won't be a couple of 'game geeks' that suffer, but those adults who accept being treated like children.

  • JHuxley #46 5 years ago

    "Do you understand the distinction?"

    Not really, because my analogy replaced Windows XP with a car. You've replaced Windows XP with the wheels. See?

    /runs before he becomes involved in an argument with someone impervious to logic

  • space_ace #47 5 years ago

    vista games lol

  • afghan_jones #48 5 years ago

    @Gulag,

    If you want to ride the train, you have to buy the ticket. The ticket is having Vista. If you feel you dislike Vista more than you want these games then dont get it and dont play them. Thats the end of it.

    This is just as illegal as any other emulator. Stop making out that Microsoft are an evil corporation trampling on peoples 'apparently god-given' right to play whatever games they like for free, on whatever platform they like. They are a business, trying to seel their products and part of their business model to shift Vista is to sweeten the deal with a couple of games. Big deal.

    This is not the start of a massive conspiracy or plot to take over the world. Its life in the real world where you have to pay for things if you want them.




    @JHuxley

    I changed your metaphor because it was wrong. You cant use a car as an analogy for XP and then use the tyres as Halo 2 and shadowrun. Because a car doesnt work anymore without tyres but XP works just fine without Halo 2. Comprende?
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 13:06

  • skillian #49 5 years ago

    man this place is full of corporate hores. the companys don't care about MY rights why should i care about them?

    I think very few people (apart from afghan_jones) actually have a problem with what the hackers have done. We're just pointing out that it's not legal, however much some people think it should be.

    When it comes to copyright and DRM I just do what feels morally right to me - screw what the law happens to be. However many people have a problem with that way of thinking and don't like to admit they support breaking the law.

  • zuljin #50 5 years ago

    @Gulag + ZeroAX
    "man this place is full of corporate hores."

    Not quite. Like I've said before, I think it is good that MS were caught out on this one. I guess personally, the reason I'm standing up is because I'm a programmer, and I get frustrated with people that buy a game, and therefore think they own the right to do anything with whats on the disc.

    MS sells Shadowrun on the condition you run it on Vista. If you have a problem with that, I'd say try to get them charged with monopolising the industry again. But stealing software is always going to affect the guys at the bottom of the corporation first.

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    "Much like the argument that downloading MP3s will encourage people to buy more CDs. It sounds nice, but it's illegal plain and simple. "

    Plus its also total bollox, in addition to being illegal.

  • SeesThroughAll #52 5 years ago

    I don't think MS was caught on anything with this. It was pretty obvious from day one that there was no technological reason whatsoever that those games should require Vista. The fact that they got hacked certainly is a clear confirmation to the consumers, but in the end has no effect whatsoever on things.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 13:11

  • Schiraman #53 5 years ago

    I really can't understand why there are people posting that patching a game to make it run on XP is illegal and/or immoral. Perhaps it is illegal, but it clearly shouldn't be. What on Earth is immoral about modifying a game you've bought to make it run on a different system?

  • Gulag #54 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    Wait, I thought the train was Vista?! Is the ticket inspector MS? Where's the first stop, Live Marketplace or Games for Windows?

    If this is a conspiracy train does that make me Stephen Segal in Under Siege 2? Kewl!!1!

    (If you respond with an airplane metaphor I win a bet.)

  • skillian #55 5 years ago

    "Much like the argument that downloading MP3s will encourage people to buy more CDs. It sounds nice, but it's illegal plain and simple. "

    Plus its also total bollox, in addition to being illegal.

    Says you. It's not a fact either way, which is why I called it an argument.

  • afghan_jones #56 5 years ago

    @Gulag,

    dont point the finger at me mate, it was JHuxley who started the metaphor merry-go round.


    I could do you an airplane metaphor if you want, piece of piss. You're in economy class (XP) but want to watch the in-flight movie (Which is Caddyshack, incidentally). The movies are only showing in business class (Vista). You dont want to pay for business class plus the air hostess in business class is an incompetent bitch. If you dont pay for and put up with Business Class (Vista) then you dont get to watch Caddyshack (Halo 2). But the airline are incharge of how they choose to show the film and so they get to pick whether its shown in economy or business class. theres no technical reason not to show it in economy but its their choice as the company.

    That do it for you?

  • skillian #57 5 years ago

    If these metaphors were tortured any further they'd give Graem Bauer a run for his money.

  • kangarootoo #58 5 years ago

    You guys fail at metaphors. Surely the principle point of a metaphor is to clarify a subject? ;)

  • afghan_jones #59 5 years ago

    The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we would all pay good money to watch Caddyshack on a plane, Vista or no Vista.

  • kangarootoo #60 5 years ago

    @skillian

    "Says you. It's not a fact either way, which is why I called it an argument."

    I dispute whether you can freely suggest its not a fact.

    Historically, as mp3 downloading has become more prevalent CD sales have fallen. Now I'm sure its not as cut and dry as first it appears, but its certainly not "anyone's idea".

    You show me a single piece of actual evidence (i.e. not conjecture or supposition) that backs up the idea that easier mp3 piracy encourages CD sales and I'd be delighted, as always, to learn something new.

  • Gulag #61 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    Nearly, just one question: Who's 'the incompetent bitch'?

  • afghan_jones #62 5 years ago

    @Gulag

    the incompetent bitch is to represent Vistas apparent rubbishness which started the whole issue in the first place.

    The air hostess in economy (XP) is a bit over the hill, but does her job well enough and you still probably would given half a chance you sly dog. The air hostess in business class (Vista) seems a bit crap at her job, looks reasonably fit but is strange and unfamiliar. You suspect she might be into 'weird shit' but you cant really tell for sure.

    The pilot is your computer's CPU. He's shagged both air hostesses and couldnt give two fucks if you watch Caddyshack or not.

  • JHuxley #63 5 years ago

    "I changed your metaphor because it was wrong"

    OK, change the part in question to some seat covers if that suits you, whatever. You still missed the point. The manufacturer (MS) is lying to you by saying that you need to buy a new car in order to get the part you want. It's the word 'lying' you should focus on. They're trying to sell you that car under false pretense...are you going to let them get away with that?

    Well, apparently you are. Along with your overpriced train ticket and torture of a airplane journey with an (admittedly good) movie you've seen 1000 times already ;)

  • Gulag #64 5 years ago

    "You suspect she might be into 'weird shit' but you cant really tell for sure."

    Vista = Bondage/S&M. That seems about right.

    I'm done here, it's been emotional.

  • afghan_jones #65 5 years ago

    @JHuxley

    They are lying if they say I 'need' a new car to have the seat covers but its really just supply and demand cause if I want I can tell them to piss off and drive home in my normal car just like you can tell microsoft to piss off and carry on running XP. I just dont get seat covers, and you dont get to play Halo 2. (which to be honest, is an old game which most of us have already played so who cares)


    @gulag

    Yeah, Its run its course. Let it die now with dignity....
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 13:51

  • skillian #66 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo: I'm talking about on an individual level, rather than the industry as a whole. I know many people now pirate instead of buying CDs, but some people have bought more (downloads and CDs) as a result of exposure to new music.

  • ruckus #67 5 years ago

    IIRC One of the periods in which the RIAA claimed a downturn in profits due to illegal downloading was shown to be false - that they had failed to take onboard a drastic reduction in output in their figures. So release less = fall in profits (or atleast a huge contributing factor).

    As for Vista games cracked (misleading but anyways...) I don't care - looks like the convicted monopolist is still Homer: "I haven't learned a thing..."

  • zuljin #68 5 years ago

    @skillian
    "I know many people now pirate instead of buying CDs..."

    Thats quite anecdotal. Ask the average consumer on the street what peer-to-peer / WinMX / Kazaa is and they'll probably look at you blankly. CDs are still different from games however, in that when you pirate a game, the devs lose out. When you pirate a CD, the publishing label loses out. Artists make most of their money from concerts.

    "Much like the argument that downloading MP3s will encourage people to buy more CDs."
    This was debatable in the olden days without iTunes. Now that you can download single songs easily / cheaply and also legally online, why is this even an argument for anything?

  • kangarootoo #69 5 years ago

    @skillian

    "I'm talking about on an individual level, rather than the industry as a whole"

    I'm not actually sure of what that really means. "The industry" is not some entity, it just serves a bunch of individuals all buying (or not as the case may be) CDs. There is no point at which the individual stop and the industry begins (much like the individual and the state, but that was a different thread).

    Unless by "individual", you actually mean "personal experience". In which case I would say that was a wholly unreliable source. Anecdotal evidence is widely regarded as being very subjective and therefore unreliable, and not without reason.

  • kangarootoo #70 5 years ago

    @ruckus

    I'm sure that we can all find examples that appear to suggest that claims of a drop in sales were inaccurate at a given time.

    It is a far leap from there to assert that mp3 downloads NOT impact sales at any time. It is an even bigger leap to then suggest purely on the same evidence that they actually ENCOURAGE sales.

  • skillian #71 5 years ago

    OK, this isn't really the place for that discussion. For me at least, the issue of downloading music is about much more than how it affects the record companies' bottom line.

    The only point I was making originally is that regardless of the moral, financial etc. arguments against or in favour of music piracy, it's still an illegal process. Much like rewriting code to make a game play on a system it wasn't designed for.

    OK, so maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but hell, it's better than some of the others in this thread :p

    edit @ kangarootoo: I mean individual as in: some (not most) people buy more music because they can download MP3s. As this is true for myself, I know this isn't unreliable. I also know it is not indicative of music downloading as a whole.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 14:18

  • zuljin #72 5 years ago

    @skillian
    "The only point I was making originally is that regardless of the moral, financial etc. arguments against or in favour of music piracy, it's still an illegal process."

    Damn woman! You were on my side?

  • Bill_Gates_Bitch #73 5 years ago

    These guys are nothing more than criminals trying to justify their crimes. I hope they like prison food.

  • kangarootoo #74 5 years ago

    @skillian

    Oh hang on a second. Are we talking about legal mp3 download here? Thats a whole different kettle of fish. I thought you were saying ease of mp3 piracy encourages CD sales.

    If you are saying ease of legal mp3 purchase and downloads encourages music sales overall (which to be honest isn't what was originally said) then I would probably agree with you.

  • kangarootoo #75 5 years ago

    @Bill_Gates_Bitch

    What crimes are those exactly?

  • Les #76 5 years ago

    What’s clouding this argument is that most people don’t have a clear grasp of law. To a layman two situations might appear similar while in (legal) reality they’re completely different.

    This has nothing to do with piracy and the argument shouldn’t be confused with it. Current situation is that if you own a license of XP and you own a copy of the game, you can’t play it because MS says so with the only purpose of making people buy their new product. So people create a patch/loader that will probably violate either the license agreement of XP and/or the license agreement with the game. But that doesn’t necessarily make it illegal: A breach of contract is not always illegal. A judge will look at the merits of both sides and determine whether or not enforcing a contract obligation is appropriate or not.

    There is no such thing as a universal right to play a game but if you have two legal pieces of software but they won’t work together, just because the monopolist software maker doesn’t want them to… I’d love to see whether that would hold in court.

    “CDs are still different from games however, in that when you pirate a game, the devs lose out. When you pirate a CD, the publishing label loses out. Artists make most of their money from concerts.”

    Bullshit. Beginning artists make a lot of money with their record label contract. If CD sales drop due to piracy, future contracts will be worth less.

  • skillian #77 5 years ago

    Oh hang on a second. Are we talking about legal mp3 download here? Thats a whole different kettle of fish. I thought you were saying ease of mp3 piracy encourages CD sales.

    Heh, no I'm not. You had me right first time. :)

    Legal downloads can't encourage music sales, they are music sales.
    Edited by 2 at 26/06/07 @ 14:54

  • zuljin #78 5 years ago

    @Les
    Do you think Madonna still tours because she wants to? This is exactly why the movie/games industry is absolutely shitting themselves. A downloaded movie/game means NO revenue whatsoever.

    I'm not saying it makes no difference for music, of course it does, and the consumer will be the one paying the price for all those downloading illegally. But an artist whose label goes bust will still be getting money in the kitty.

    EDIT: Breach of contract, as you put it, IS illegal. The question is, how much is fair use, and which terms of the contract are in fact ludicrous?
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 14:56

  • skillian #79 5 years ago

    I long for the days when I can buy games directly from the publisher and music directly from the artist.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 14:57

  • zuljin #80 5 years ago

    @skillian
    Tell me you meant "when I can buy games directly from the" developer?

  • skillian #81 5 years ago

    LOL. Oops, talk about foot in mouth.

    Yes, I did.

  • Les #82 5 years ago

    "EDIT: Breach of contract, as you put it, IS illegal."

    No it isn't per se.

  • zuljin #83 5 years ago

    @Les
    Please give me one instance of breach of contract where no damages could be sought?

  • Barkotron #84 5 years ago

    "Historically, as mp3 downloading has become more prevalent CD sales have fallen. "

    That's just flat out not true though. (Well, actually, okay, CD sales might have fallen, but legal downloads have been taking up the slack recently. Even then CD sales were rising last time I saw the figures posted anywhere.)

    Unit sales were going down before downloading became prevalent, and have been rising again over the last few years. No-one has ever made a convincing case that downloading has affected CD sales in any concrete way, no matter how much the RIAA and BPI might bleat about downloads.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 15:16

  • Les #85 5 years ago

    @ zuljin

    Whether something is legal or illegal is ultimately up to a judge to decide. In general breaching a contract is equal to breaching the law (as the law states people should keep to their agreements) and therefore illegal. However there can be cases in which it would be unreasonable of one party to keep the other party to fulfill the agreement. Law is never as simple as adding 1 and 1 together. There can always be mitigating circumstances. So the equation “breach of contract = illegal” isn’t true.

  • Les #86 5 years ago

    "Unit sales were going down before downloading became prevalent, and have been rising again over the last few years. No-one has ever made a convincing case that downloading has affected CD sales in any concrete way, no matter how much the RIAA and BPI might bleat about downloads."

    That doesn't make pirating music any less illegal of course.

  • kangarootoo #87 5 years ago

    @Les

    "Bullshit. Beginning artists make a lot of money with their record label contract. If CD sales drop due to piracy, future contracts will be worth less."

    +1


    @zuljin

    I think breach of contract may be a breach of civil law rather than of criminal law. Not sure that means its not illegal though. Would be interested to hear you expand Les?

  • zuljin #88 5 years ago

    @Les
    I hear you... But I guess I had this article in mind tho. If these guys come up with "mitigating circumstances" for what they did then they deserve a medal.

  • kangarootoo #89 5 years ago

    @Les

    "Whether something is legal or illegal is ultimately up to a judge to decide"

    Thats an interesting point. I shall remember that one for future snappy comeback delivery :)

  • Darren #90 5 years ago

    I have both Windows XP and Vista installed on my dual-booting PC and absolutely refuse to run any games under the latter operating system as performance and drivers just aren't as good as they are with XP. No doubt in two years time, Vista, like XP, will be a viable gaming operating system but right now it... well... sucks basically (IMO!) and I refuse to buy any games that are Vista-only. Halo 2 and Shadowrun are Vista-only to drive sales of Microsoft's latest o/s and for no other reason. I mean one game is a three year Xbox game and the other runs on the 360, neither systems supporting DirectX 10 so why do they require it on the PC?!?

  • FunkyRenegade #91 5 years ago

    gg
    I want halo 2 on pc :)

  • Barkotron #92 5 years ago

    @Les
    "That doesn't make pirating music any less illegal of course."

    True. It's just worth pointing out that the idea that "increase in illegal downloads is responsible for falling music sales" is factually incorrect.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/07 @ 17:00

  • MaxiSleep #93 5 years ago

    For all the m$oft apologists it should be noted that there are very serious competition issues here. A monopolist (microsoft) would be preventing interoperability of products if it goes after people for breaching licenses. Just because it owns the rights on all the products does not give it the right to prevent interoperability - in fact it shows just how strong a monopoly it is.

    If you think breaching copyright is bad trust me, breaching competition law is a hell of a lot worse.

    And if anyone from the EU competition commission is reading - go on. you know you want to :)



  • JP #94 5 years ago

    Gamers, if you don't like Microsoft's tactics regarding Vista exclusives, put your money where your mouth is and use Linux and support games that offer Linux versions where possible. There are some good ones that do and many more that run perfectly in Wine.

    Ubuntu in particular is a great distro and packs all the positive features that XP/Vista has, plus much more, and none of the negative. It's Free-as-in-Speech as well as zero cost. The more people become invested in a piece of free software, the more value it has to everyone. *That's* why MS is nervous about competition, and that's why they made DX10 exclusive to the OS - there are so few other selling points, they figured they could snare hardcore gamers who already spend hundreds on their rigs each year.

    Remember, the biggest single weapon in Microsoft's arsenal is convincing people they have no other options. Which is totally false - we do have other options, and some of us happily use them. In general just support the products that echo the sort of ideology you want to see more of in the world.

  • afghan_jones #95 5 years ago

    @MaxiSleep

    How is this a competition issue when both XP and Vista are MS platforms and therefore not really in competition with each other anyway?

  • MaxiSleep #96 5 years ago

    "@MaxiSleep

    How is this a competition issue when both XP and Vista are MS platforms and therefore not really in competition with each other anyway?
    ignore poster"

    The point is that Microsoft have dominance in the desktop o/s space. If this is a defined market (cant see why not) then using your power to dictate contract terms can be seen to be an abuse of dominance. Just because something is legal at face value for an ordinary company in a competitive marketplace does not mean that a monopolist can get away with the same thing. (worked in telecoms and it was a huge issue for the big operators)

    Forcing your games division to support a particular o/s when there is no technical reason to do so could be seen as very naughty indeed. (Is evidence of being a price discriminating monopolist if nothing else) Furthermore what will microsoft do when (not if) a dx10 wrapper is released for opengl on linux. Do they ban wrappers on xp and not on linux? Or do they ban interoperability of linux with dx10 games? There is a real hornets nest here, and Microsoft have a history of trying to block interoperability as far as the EU commission is concerned.

    BTW Microsoft were idiots not to make vista 64bit only, if they did they would not be in this position since 64bit code would not work on 99% of xp installations.

  • Les #97 5 years ago

    "I think breach of contract may be a breach of civil law rather than of criminal law. Not sure that means its not illegal though. Would be interested to hear you expand Les?"

    Illegal just means 'against the law' and that can be civil, public, criminal or international.

    Within law you've got multiple hierarchies. Constitution on top (bar some international treaties although that can differ from country to country) but also within civil law you've got a sort of hierarchy. The rule that people should keep to their contractual agreements is hierarchically below the principle of good faith and fair dealings. There can be situations where it's against good faith and fair dealings to keep someone to a contractual obligation and then, even though the contract itself is valid, the other party can breach it without having to pay damages. Of course these are exceptional cases but you just can't generally say that breaking an agreement is illegal.

  • skillian #98 5 years ago

    Funny enough, there are many cases of record deals being examples of those unreasonable contracts. Quite a few artists have broken their contracts and been exonerated by a court.

  • Les #99 5 years ago

    "BTW Microsoft were idiots not to make vista 64bit only, if they did they would not be in this position since 64bit code would not work on 99% of xp installations."

    The problem with MS is that they don't count on their products selling themselves (as far as the software goes at least don't think this holds for e.g. the 360) but try to construct all kinds of ways in which people are practically forced to buy them. Making Vista 64bit only would make it much more viable for companies/consumers to jump to Linux or OS X as their legacy stuff wouldn't work on Vista anyway. What it all boils down to is that even MS itself has no confidence in the quality of their products.

  • aine #100 5 years ago

    The problem with MS is that they don't count on their products selling themselves (as far as the software goes at least don't think this holds for e.g. the 360) but try to construct all kinds of ways in which people are practically forced to buy them.

    it definitely holds for the 360. just look at all the exclusives they've been buying up recently.

  • ph101 #101 5 years ago

    wow the last 6 posts (apart from yellow truck) were like the most cogent I have ever seen on EG. I agree MS are using there monopoly and they should be punished/stopped. This hack is a nice start but is there any legal recourse.

  • immateriaux #102 5 years ago

    This isn't really surprising news, I doubt anybody bar the most blinkered Microsoft fanboy believed Halo2, in particular, could be a Vista game only. Unfortunately, I doubt the general non-game-geek public will really appreciate the fact that Microsoft are lying c*nts and thus this news will just wash away ... in two or three years, everybody will be forcibly removed from XP and thus burning up twice the resources they need to just to support the bloated canard that is Vista.

  • MaxiSleep #103 5 years ago

    quitefrankly
    27-Jun-07 06:50:06

    "I have doubts that DX10 games will work on XP with the same graphical quality"

    It will be interesting when the new all singing all dancing version of OpenGL gets released and someone hacks an emulator together for dx10. I would suspect that if you have a really top end rig that you would be able to get reasonable results (I.E a 8800 producing 8600 like frame rates). ATM I am really not interested at all in upgrading to vista with the ridiculous pricing and slower performance. But I probably will get a new box once the Penryn parts are out from intel and at that stage I will probably have little choice. :(

    But it would be ironic if I have to install linux to play windows games in the meantime. :)

  • kangarootoo #104 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    The competition comes from the fact that MS have spent a load of cash on a new OS and they won't make that money back if no-one buys it. Making new products is how you maintain your cashflow. Its why companies keep making new toothbrushes when the basic design has worked just fine for decades.

    I believe people qre quite correct when they suggest this current restriction is simply about selling units. MS are using DX10 and Vista restrictions in order to sell versions of their new OS. Morally that sucks ass, but legally they are probably just fine.

    Can't exactly blame them though to be honest. Its not like they are the first or last company to machinate in order to maximise returns or get a new product installed in the market. None of us should be surprised a big corp would use such tactics.

  • kangarootoo #105 5 years ago

    @quitefrankly

    "I have doubts that DX10 games will work on XP with the same graphical quality. Especially considering MS are behind DX."

    I'm really not sure technical restrictions are behind any of this. I'm sure a coder could confirm or deny this, but as I understand things DX and your GFX are the key components in getting the results of posh new shaders onto your screen. The rest of OS has little involvement in the process. DX is just a bunch of handy tools that allow a coder to tell your posh DX10 enabled GFX card what to do.

    And as for MS being behind both products, and therefore "they will know if it can be done, if anyone knows" (which I take your post to imply), I refer to my previous post about how this reads to me as purely a mechanic for building installed base and getting a return on an investment.

  • afghan_jones #106 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm not sure its morally wrong for MS to do this. Its possibly deceitful to suggest that there is a technical rather than business reason for not putting Halo 2 on XP but morally I think its ok.

    Is it any different to most retailers offering 'free gifts' with certain products or bundling items together? Thats how I see it. Like if you wanted the promotional item that came free with a tv, you would have to buy the tv to get it. You might like your current tv just fine but to get the promotional item you have to buy the new tv. It's then up to the consumer to decide if they think the cost (buying the new TV) is worth the reward (the promotional item) but they dont have some sort of right to get the promotional item without buying the tv.

    Damn I love a good metaphor/analogy (I forget which it is)

  • Les #107 5 years ago

    "Its possibly deceitful to suggest that there is a technical rather than business reason for not putting Halo 2 on XP but morally I think its ok."

    Deceit is morally OK?! ;)

  • jienn #108 5 years ago

    Can't help to compare war on piracy and war on Iraq, but as it was terrorism started both problem it really make sense to start a world wide hunt for anyone pirating and modifying game code!

    What, they didn't read disclaimer?