[Multiplatform] Bioshock. Available on Wii 12/5/2010

Guys, I suggest being very wary of this game's DRM. At the very least, I advise being aware of what's going on when it installs.

I've been really looking forward to this game for a long time now, I'm a massive fan of the "Shock" series, but because of this I refuse to buy the game.

Bioshock (BOTH retail and demo versions) installs Securom on your machine without telling you. This puts potentially intrusive and harmful software on your machine. The Bioshock installer also prevents you from installing the game more than a certain number of times. Securom can be quite difficult to remove, but it can be done with some effort.

Because of this shameful breach of trust, I personally advise people to avoid buying or installing the PC version of Bioshock until this issue has been resolved. I suggest finding out about it for yourselves, but here are some starting points:

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums...d.php?t=605340
http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=5805
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41921
http://digg.com/pc_games/Backlash_ag...shock_mounting
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8703

For uninstalling securom, I had to do a load of searching, but I suggest starting here:

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?threadid=203200
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...les-hard-drive

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

I fucking love the fear mongering going on. A company tried to protect it's intellectual property, albeit with some extremely poorly thought out DRM, it pops a false positive on RootkitRevealer, and everyone who thinks they know what they're talking about starts screaming bloody murder. This isn't Malware, alright? Jesus.

Yes, the PC install limit sucks, but there's not a lot we can do about it. (Yet, at least. I don't think there's been a work around yet.)

So, you think it's acceptable if companies install software on your computer without telling you? Or that they'll limit the amount you can use a game you bought legitimately? If you ask me, it's pretty alarming, and absolutely justifies the sort of response it's getting. Your attitude is exactly the reason why companies like 2K Games think they can do this sort of thing.

There's simply no way they can justify putting this kind of DRM in with the game; if I'd pirated the software, I wouldn't have to put up with any of it, and would arguably be far better off. The very fact that Securom is included with the demo tells you how much they've thought this through.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

I never said the DRM was well implemented. It is, however, extremely alarmist and flat out incorrect to state that it's a rootkit, and to panic over something that's not harmful in intent.

...etc

Whether you're referring to me or not, I'll make things clear: I'm not panicking and I'm not stating that Securom is a rootkit. However, I am extremely annoyed that no information was given that Securom was being installed, or what it would do to my computer. Also, had I bought the game, there would have been no prior warning that there is a limitation on the amount I could install the software. I don't particularly care that they'll allow me to install it 5 rather than 2 times.

I haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet, but from what I've found so far, Securom prevents you from using Bioshock with certain programs, and potentially introduces security vulnerabilities. The fact that such software was installed without my knowledge or permission is what makes this unacceptable, no matter how little harm it causes.

While you didn't outright state it, and whether you meant it or not, you certainly implied that people should be ok with Securom's installation, and saying that I should have thought otherwise is nonsense. Your final comment was simply ridiculous; I think people can decide for themselves whether this makes me "look like an imbecile" or not.

Thinking about it, perhaps 2K's decision to include Securom with Bioshock was not "malicious", nor is the software itself, but this makes it no less alarming and no less cause for concern. It would probably be better described as selfish and short-sighted, which still doesn't paint a better picture. My points still stand, and I definitely won't be buying this game in its current state.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Fair enough, that we agree that while the intent of Securom isn't to be harmful, the way it's been implemented is still ultimately harmful to the user (however small or great this harm might turn out to be) and just isn't acceptable.

I think this is extremely alarming, even if you might not, and definitely enough to prevent me from buying the game and actively warn others about it. Fortunately I didn't pay for the game, but I downloaded the demo, and it's plain fact that at no point does it inform the user of software being installed other than the game itself. I've been over the EULA and Readme, and I can confirm that there is no mention of Securom, and no mention of a limitation on the number of times you can install the game. I can't personally confirm whether this is also true on the full version, but from what I can find on forums it's the same case.

For anyone curious, here's a link to a post on the 2K Games forums with a lawyer's take on it: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6615

Also, an interesting anecdote: on Friday (and again yesterday), in response to concerns about the DRM software, a 2K Games employee stated that "Securom is not on the demo at all", which is obviously incorrect. This was information passed on directly from 2K Games technical staff, so either they were lying or genuinely misinformed. Either way, you can understand why a lot of people would be upset at this.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

If that's the EULA, which for the moment I will assume it is, is from that linked thread.

...etc

ok, I don't think you've understood this as I have, in fact I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, so I'll try and clarify:

The issue with the EULA is that it makes no mention of preventing the user from using the software a certain number of times. If the licensor prevents the end user from using the software for any reasons other than those stated in the EULA, then they're in violation of the agreement and you ought to be able to return your copy.

Saying that they've covered all their bases by mentioning "...and the materials contained therein and related thereto" is moot as far as I'm concerned. I don't think anyone's arguing over the legality of the software installing Securom without letting the user know, in fact I'm not even sure about the legality of that aspect myself.

The issue is that it's unreasonable and unacceptable for companies to think that they can do whatever they want on peoples' computers without telling them, from a moral and practical standpoint. I don't care how little or how much harm it does, or reasons they might have for doing it. It makes me angry, and it makes a lot of other people angry from what I've heard. This is why I'm trying to inform as many people as possible, and why I refuse to buy this game.

Also, sorry to tell you, but yes - the Steam version has also been confirmed to have Securom on it. Otherwise I would have bought it off Steam! I know it makes no sense, but none of it does really.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well all right, if that's the reason - but why would you expect me to know that? I don't know the first thing about cracking.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

Well, the issue as I've seen it is that a lot of people are saying that securom is being installed against the terms of the EULA, and that seems to be a moot complaint simply from the way the EULA is worded. It would be possible for 2k to form an argument from how it's written.

...etc

I dunno, I haven't found people complaining specifically about the legality of the stealthy Securom installation and the EULA, but even so... it's perfectly reasonable to be upset about it, and people need to be warned about it. The fact of the matter is that, at no point in the Bioshock installation does it say anything about Securom, DRM software, limited installations etc. and that's what matters.

If I was to say to someone "I warn you, anything could happen" and then stab them, it doesn't make it any less reasonable for them to be upset about it. The vagueness of the EULA might or might not cover their backs in a courtroom, I don't know, but it certainly doesn't excuse their actions, and it's ridiculous to say that people can't complain "because they were covered by their vague wording". You might be right if I was talking purely in legal terms, but I don't see how that's an issue unless someone's planning to take 2K games to court.

What I'm saying is that if they were going to install additional software on my machine, especially software of Securom's debatable nature, they should let me know so at least I have a choice. The fact that I even have to defend this point astonishes me. That there are people out there who are so jaded that they're willing to accept this so easily is saddening. At least allow others to be properly informed about what's going on and what their choices are, and that's the most important issue.

Another point I'd like to make is that I still have yet to see evidence that DRM software "improves sales" or "protects products" as they claim to. From what I've seen, pirates will pirate it if they want to, and legitimate users either lose out because of faulty DRM, or have to turn to piracy to use the product. In what way does this help anyone except the DRM software developers?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Grawl

Just tell me what's faulty about the DRM that BioShock uses, then?

I'll be patient, and tell you you're missing the point. Please read my other posts.

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

So the root of the whole problem is "They weren't specific enough." It would have saved this thread a lot of headache if you said that first.

From now on, let's have every publisher explain exactly how they plan on protecting their software to the smallest detail. Then everyone'll be happy, right?

There's no need to be facetious. I'm dismayed that anyone could be so opposed to such a reasonable point as "I don't want my computer messed with". What's wrong with you people?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?