Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!husc6!husc4!hadeishi From: hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Copy protection: boycott it! Message-ID: <2488@husc6.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 10:53:25 EDT Article-I.D.: husc6.2488 Posted: Wed Jul 8 10:53:25 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 06:27:15 EDT References: <4826@sgi.SGI.COM> <4238@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@husc6.UUCP Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 57 Keywords: piracy, copy protection, bungled burglary Summary: Cool it, folks In article <1636@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> hsgj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) writes: >BULL SH-T, to be exceedingly polite. I owned a C-64 for several years. >Loading Electronic Arts games on that machine, particularly "Archon" >took forever, made annoying clicking noises with the disk drive, and >ruined the disk alignment by banging the disk head around. Approximate >load time was 4 minutes. I viewed (but did not take) a pirated version >of Archon that had KwikLoad installed. This version, which of course >was the same game, took only 20 seconds (!!!) to load, did not make >annoying sounds on the disk, and did not ruin the drive. There goes your >argument that copy protection is unobtrusive and harmless. This "debate" has gone too far. Let's keep the flame level down. I hope you folks realize that it is possible for two reasonable and thoughtful people to hold opposite points of view on this issue. I owned a C-64, and, yes, Archon, way back in my kiddie days, and, unlike you, I was perfectly satisfied with the 4 minute load time because Archon was such a great game (for its time). At the time most games had poor design and were little more than shoot-em-ups with OK graphics and poor sound. There were exceptions, like Epyx games and Infocom games (though Infocom games were excrutiatingly slow on the old unaccelerated 1541's). As far as ruining the drive, those old 1541s would die if you breathed on them too hard (the new ones seem to be OK.) My bro' and I loved Electronic Arts then (as a user) and I still love them (as an employee for the time being). So it is clear that perceptions differ on this issue. Of course, if you judge a product by its load time alone, I can understand your feelings regarding EA. >To get back to the Amiga realm, I bought Adventure Constrution Set when I >first got my machine. The *Worst* port in the history of porting, this >game looks just like the C-64 version. Yes 320 by 200 with dismal tinny >muzak and scrub graphics. And I paid $35 for this trash? Ahh but the >copy protection is the best part. The stupid game won't go on my RAM: >or my Hard disk. Ohh, but I thought copy protection from EA was unobtrusive? I didn't say unobtrusive, I said tolerable. I should apologize for ACS; the reason it is such a problematic port is that it was originally written in FORTH on the C-64 and it would have taken a few years to port it if totally rewritten, and the guy who ported it didn't want to spend the next few years of his life porting ACS to the Amiga. So they ported FORTH first, and then tinkered with the code to get it to run. Unfortunately, this meant the graphics and limitations of ACS came along from the C-64 to the Amiga version (originally the ACS port was supposed to be a simple exercise in porting, just to fill out the initial Amiga software library; it turned out to be more of a problem than they expected, so it was released later along with "real" products, so it might have been confused with a "real" product when it was really supposed to be a port to go with some of the other 8-bit ports.) >I don't buy any more EA software. I'm truly sorry to hear that. I hope in future you reconsider, given a careful study of what's available for the machine. -Mitsu