Vista games cracked for XP News

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

good

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...

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?

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! ;-)

glol

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

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

/rings lawyer

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

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.

"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.

Buuuuuut how can you play this online without Games for Windows Live?

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.

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

" 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. ;)

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.

@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.

Bring the Man down, I say!

@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?

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@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?

@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?

@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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap

Vista FTL

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 :(

“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.

@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.

@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.

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.

"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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

@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 ;)

"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?

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

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

It was just a matter of time.

@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?

@ 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.

"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

vista games lol

@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?