Talk:StarForce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Some changes for better fitness

If somebody fined a grammar mistake plz correct my english.

Added in Protection strategies section: Till the 4.0 version StarForce has been blocked the use of SCSI optical ......

Added in StarForce family of products section: StarForce Frontline 4.0/4.5/4.7 description

--Oh really? 1. Where's the proof? 2. We would like verifiable content on SF please. 3. All I see Sopinsci doing (that's the guy who made the previous comment here) is making edits to primarily one article. And that article is StarForce. I haven't looked at every single edit he's made, but somebody find out what exactly is he up to.crazyviolinist 02:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm removing Sopinsci's previous edits he made about the "Some changes" section. I don't see proof about his claims at all on the Internet. If someone finds proof in the future, they are welcome to put the info back in, and I will apologize for the edits I made, but at this time, the info should be considered non-factual. Oh and Sopinsci, if you have a problem with this article, say its not neutral and tag it rather than vandalize the article. crazyviolinist 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the less than helpful edit summary. The summary should have read "removed all Sopinsci unsubstantiated claims. crazyviolinist 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to give credit to Crazyviolinist for removing the blatent lies part about the "6 time PIO mode" thing, I suspect this is either someone at starforce or Derek Smart himself, I got into a discussion with Derek about this myth on the now defunct SF forums, he made one post, I corrected him several times, he made a second, I corrected EVERYTHING he posted in that thread, the rest of the thread consisted of pictures of coke vending machines, suffice to say he had nothing more to argue back with, but I have noticed he still tries to use this arguement on forums across the net, unfortunatly because he's made a handful of poor quality games and beaten up a coke machine people seem to think he knows what he's talking about, maybe if he spent more time on his games instead of trying to support SF then his games wouldnt stink so badly.... 85.178.197.70 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Most people here do not want the whole clear situation on StarForce to be displayed in the article. They think people shouldn't know about new StarForce versions and it benefits. Also they think the fact that StarForce drivers pass "Designed for Windows XP" Test has no right to be mentioned here. The fact that later SF version has much better perfomance and compatibility and have pretty new architecture is also not for the free encyclopedia. Why you rob people of thier rights to know that StarForce Technologies first of all other digital right managment companies has developed and released copy protection sheme with backup copy capability? They complaint me that i'm vandal and haven't gave facts for my article changes. Much easier to fined negative material using search engine than to fined that, for instance, offical game forum "LMA manager 2007" which protected by SF 4.0, do not contains a single SF problem in troubleshooting section for a months. Sure, such materials could not be fined using "starforce" in search string.And for all StarForce haters and bushers i want to say - your article is pretty out of date. There is no new facts, only the old ones. Interesting what will be here in a year? The 2004 news or broken links? I will change only "News coverage" section in the article, to bring more facts and independent vision.

We're on to you, you do realize. You have only been adding "official press releases" and new StarForce products which are unconfirmed. I searched for the new StarForce versions, and nothing came up except for the StarForce website and various unconfirmed forums. Even Microsoft's website says nothing about the "Designed for Windows XP" test for StarForce, in fact, several forums say otherwise. Granted, this is original research and won't appear in the article, but so are your additions. I gave you your vandal warning for a reason: you have a tendency to go and badmouth StarForce's competitors, as well as consistently violate Wikipedia's policies such as no original research in the articles. At this time I'm reverting your edits and giving you another chance to work with us on the article, but if I find that you do this again, I will have no choice but to report you based on your edit history. crazyviolinist 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hm... May be you are right with "offical press-releases", but CosmicD’s Quadrant blog's article... Independent point of view on StarForce protection and all this hysteria. Whats wrong with it?

You said that you fined info on new SF's versions on "various unconfirmed forums" and right away you said that "several forums say otherwise" about Designed for Windows XP Logo for SF, so you have the list of trusted forums and untrusted ones? How do you choose sources of information for the article? This is the PROOF of Windows XP sertifited logo:

http://testedproducts.windowsmarketplace.com/item.aspx?idItem=5582bc87-93c6-481c-d0c4-2484b1a50911

Could we now add this fact to the article?

This discussion is a tangled mess. Please sign your posts! Fehrgo 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"I gave you your vandal warning for a reason: you have a tendency to go and badmouth StarForce's competitors"

Oh dear! Please point me where i'v did it? Seems that if the article will continue to represent StarForce in bad light, SF's competitors will feal better lol.

TrackMania United - the very popular game has been protected with StarForce 4,5. Link to the forum:

http://www.tm-forum.com/index.php

LMA Manager 2007 - famous football manager simulator has been protected with StarForce 4.0. Link to the forum:

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=547

If you want to know what people think about wiki projekt this is the "quote":

'"'wikipedia even speak about rumors, no prove...give me a link of Symantec, Trend Micro, Network Associate, ... that give the vulnerability and a virus/malware that exploit it..."

So base on last quote i want to ask - why this article is in "Digital rights management | Rootkits | Malware" category? Especialy if now we know that SF's driver succesfully passed the XP certifited program.

I will repeat what I said earlier: This is original research. I also found forums relating to the above, but I did not include them per official policies on original research. If, for example, CNET confirmed your claims, of course you would be welcome to place this information in, WITH the appropriate link. Forums are much like Wikipedia, only with lots and lots of original research. This is obviously not a soapbox, let alone a forum

As for your edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sopinsci. Based on this, I tracked every one of your edits. Granted, you were initially correct on the ring 0 and ring 3 access. I retract my previous comment, your info seems correct on these articles--for now. What I cannot accept is you continuously making NPOV and original research edits to StarForce. Continued violation of this policy is considered vandalism.

As for the blog: read the article on Wikipedia:Verifiability. A blog does not count as a verifiable source. I understand your concern, but both of us need to play by the rules. NO forums, whether positive or negative. I don't choose the articles on this site, all of us do by popular consensus. The Windows Marketplace site is also not trustworthy: It hasn't been updated for several years, and they did not conduct the test. According to StarForce Corporation, a company called VeriTest did. Incidentally, no such documents of StarForce passing the test have been found other than on StarForce's website.

I'm afraid that this may turn into an edit war soon-if it turns out that way, I may request an administrator to protect this article. If you continue to disagree with my points, you may contact an administrator to settle this dispute. And please sign your posts with four tildes. crazyviolinist 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after I posted the above, I found an article regarding the "Designed for Windows XP" test. I will add it tomorrow at the latest, so I can think of a way to add it without violating NPOV. crazyviolinist 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok. Thanks for understanding me in some ways. Why i'v made some edits to this article is because i understand the word ENCYCLOPEDIA, as something which honestly says not only what was in the past, but also whats going on now. My main criticizm for this article is that it is pretty out of date, аnd many facts are differ from what the subject is now. Also some materials are based on myths form internet which were replicated by people without knowlage what is StarForce in fact, its architecture and how it works. Such myths have tendency to grow up like a storm, especialy over the internet.

Copy Protection subject is very delicated. Users do not like it because CPs bring them some inconveniences like disk insertion every time they want to play. Also, and may be this is the main thing, CPs bring users to BUY games. We know that computer piracy is crowng up and advance at the moment even in low_piracy_level contries like Western Europe and US. Such pirate groups, based on dishonest user's opinions, could start and carry out almost all PR campain in the internet they like, skilfully interpret imperfection of something and stir up phobias. I'm afraid that Wiki's StarForce article became a part of such campain without Wiki's knowledge of it. And those who read the article became a victums of lie and ignorance. I can cite the "Alcohol 120%" article as an example. This piece of software has all bugs and vulnerabilities that describes in StarForce article, but there is no even one word about it! The Deamon tools software, which is in fact use the same engine as Alcohol 120% and developing by one company, has not article at Wikipedia. Here are some links to offical support forums of this programs:

→ "DuplexSoftware forum": Duplex Software is the same company as one which developing Alcohol and DT. They just use this name as a cover of thier beta testing of buggy SPTD driver for future DT Pro program.

→ "Deamon Tools offical bug report forum"

→ "Deamon Tools offical support forum"

I should start the article on DT, but my english skill is far from perfect to do so.

I know that they start to blame me for calling them pirates and illegal users. Many of us are honest gamers, who buy only licensed games and support game industry, but please don't be naive thinking that all users are. Almost all friends of mine support piracy, and using p2p networks for new releases. When StarForce's employee posted link to an illegal download source of Galactic Civilizations 2, he want to show to everybody that several thousand users downloading this game at the same moment!!! Nothing more, nothing less. But they casted it in a false colour, like StarForce support piracy and revenge StarDock for non using of CP. Don't you understand that it is rubbish! And if you understand it, why do you left this nonsense in the article?

At the same time i agree that StarForce has imperfections and bugs, as every other PC's software. In 2003 i'v bought my first copy protected game, it has been using StarForce and due to it game refused to work. Right that moment i'v became interested in drms and especialy StarForce. Sopinsci 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm only someone who watches this article. I don't pretend that I'm an expert on StarForce, I only watch out for vandalism and possible violation of NPOV, as well as potentially false information. To address your concern about the StarForce employee, the incident should be covered under StarForce's creator, Protection Technologies. However, no such page exists, and is redirected to StarForce itself. I didn't insert this factoid in, and I will not move it until someone gathers enough information to create a page on Protection Technologies.

The story itself is also a good example of the bullying tactics StarForce is using. I don't think the original intent was to say that the company supported piracy, that would be tantamount to self-cannibalization. The fact that Protection Technologies also had to apologize for their actions also implies something else entirely. As such, it stays, but I will seriously take into consideration your concerns.

For your primary concern: I'm pretty sure this is as up to date as anyone can make it before sounding like an ad campaign for either side. We already had problems in the past where people had tried to make it blatantly pro-StarForce. At the same time, StarForce haters quickly realized that this was not the place to slam StarForce. One person even tried to say that on December 4th, 2006, Protection Technologies had filed for bankruptcy and lost all their creditors. There's a reason why we haven't updated the products section: the Wikipedia community simply doesn't have a way to confirm that there is a StarForce 4.0. If there is solid proof that there is, then I owe you an apology for the revert that I made a month ago. Until then, the article stays as is, of course pending consideration of items I already listed.

By the way, there is already an article on Daemon Tools. I think you just spelled it wrong when searching for it. crazyviolinist 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems that we start to understand each other like US & USSR in the end of 80th =).

So why not to add to the article a few words about SF's drivers which passed XP tests? Guees that people hardly check unnamed link in Reference section. Sopinsci 08:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I thought I did. It's somewhere in the middle of the article, when Protection Technologies released the removal tool. I could put it in the external links, but that might be redundant. Already in the time you and I last conversed, somebody blanked out part of the article. I didn't revert it, someone else did, but as you can see, we're not very tolerant of StarForce haters. I don't know how people aren't checking the link, they should be, but I think the link itself is enough to convince them that I based the sentence in fact rather than fiction. crazyviolinist 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Compatibility

I know several people with Windows Vista, and it seems that any game that uses StarForce will not work on Vista, many times crashing the computer.
Maybe someone could research this a little bit more, it might just be coincidence, but it makes sense what with all of the security software silently running with Vista,
and StarForce is sometimes recognized as malware. --Dr. Van Nostrand 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, reputation section needs update; recently I've noticed a number of SF protected titles with good ol' (ordinary) crack thrown out before, or at the time of official release. D.I.R.T. the Origin of the Species and Night Watch are verified to be such titles… Lovelight 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • SF works on Vista pretty good. Do not forget that there is no offical release of Vista for end users yet, so we can be sure that they use some beta versions of Vista. Moreover StarForce passed Vista Compatibility tests. Also we have to remember that protection on some old titles (like splinter cell 3) do not support Vista. SF's drivers need to be updated from SF's offical web site.
  • If you have game with version till 3.04.062 you can't run it on Vista unless publisher reprotect game with fresh protection version
  • Starting version 3.04.062 you could turn on support of 32bit vista simply update protection driver from starforce web site
  • If you have game with version till 3.05.000 you have to forget about 64bit OS unless publisher make a patch
  • All SF versions starting 4.x fully support Windows Vista 32/64, but it could be some problems if you have version till 4.00.013. In that case simply update protection driver
  • Starting 4.00.013 everything works fine

Another problem with StarForce and vista is that according to their site it is certified for vista. (implicating whql certified) However, on update of the starforce drivers using their driver update tool to get the latest (and working) version under 64bit vista a message comes up stating that it is in fact NOT certified or signed for Vista. It can't be certified for 32bit and not certified for 64bit, this is a new requirement from Microsoft. This is shady to say the least and makes it seem as though they are hiding something. Maybe that they cannot be certified because it is malware, but thats just an opinion. Either way, it should be stated on wikipedia since they have the false claim plastered on the front page of their site.

http://www.star-force.com/protection.phtml?c=83&id=1036

And about cracks:

    • Origin of the Species:

release date - 6 september 2006

crack date 7 december 2006

    • Night Watch

release date - 26 june 2006

crack date - 12 january 2007


Source - nforce.nl

Sopinsci 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally haven't heard anything, but if you three have anything to add to the article, feel free to do so, be sure its a reputable site though. Since now there are reports of Starforce 4.0, and fixes of various problems including Vista, feel free to add it in as well. crazyviolinist 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Added information on 4.0 and x64 support. Could not edit Reference section, because after pressing "Edit" i see only the following:

==References==

So may be i do not undertsand something or have no rights. Thats why link to 4.0 description is pleaced in StarForce family of products section. Removed the statement that "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-user" replacing it with specific info on how to turn on x64 support for various protection versions. Hope its not a vandalism.... Sopinsci 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Try placing the reference Wiki markups. I'll try to correct it right now, and reword the article if there are any grammar markups. I don't think this should be vandalism, nor is it violating NPOV or Verifiabilty guidelines. crazyviolinist 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sopinsci, I reworded your edits and changed where they were for flow issues. Also, I removed your update patches since it's a little bit too much information. Protection Technologies, it seems, eventually fixed StarForce's problems with Vista. The patch info seems to only add clutter to the article. crazyviolinist 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, but the phrase "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-users, that could for example enable 64-bit or Vista support.[2] For this, it requires the developers to create patches — as their license permits — specific for the game or application." - is not true, because StarForce offers Vista and x64 support simply via updating protection drivers from offical web site. Sopinsci 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This statement is backed up by this article on the official website. In your last revision you even stated yourself that if "you have game with version till 3.04.062 you can't run it on Vista unless publisher reprotect game with fresh protection version and release a patch". If you have any sources that show this is not the case, and that older games can be upgraded with a third-party patch, feel free to update the text. Just make sure you remain neutral, and state your sources. Mfb52 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In the article there is also statement that: "StarForce x64 support is automatically included in the version 3.5 of StarForce." I just want to ask your advise on how to reflect the real case that till 3.5 there is need for publisher/developer patch, and for later version just enough to update drivers. Because now, if im for instance read this article for the first time, i will only understand that all SF version need to be patched by publisher to work with 64bit and Vista and there is no drivers update utility. But it is! Sopinsci 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What it comes down to is that is that older versions of StarForce require a developer/publisher patch. I updated the article a bit to be more clear, and changed the first version to introduce x64 support into 3.5 (not 3.7, where'd that come from?). I'm not sure what you meant by "just enough to update drivers"? Shouldn't version 3.5+ just work out of the box with x64 systems? Anyway, perhaps a bigger problem here is that current games may not work on future systems either... Mfb52 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "just enough to update drivers" - means that to switch on x64 or Vista support you simply need to download a little update tool and run it on your system. Here is the link - http://www.star-force.com/protection/users/. Now it seems that in "Family of products" section of the article is similar to truth with the exception of 4,5 and 4,7 versions. Sopinsci 10:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we get people trying to make unsourced statements; I suggest being on the lookout in the meanwhile. crazyviolinist 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements without sources or citations

Some statements in the article has no any proof, sources or citation. Next to statements about RELOADED research or PCGamer's "Game of the year" feature there is - "citation needed". My question is why not to remove this statements from the article untill any proof of thise hypothesis will appear? I'v made some search through the internet and fail to fined anything on it. This is the NFO for RELOADED "tools". There is 2 link on public discussions of this tools. I can't fined there any info that StarForce slowdowns games like statement mentions. Meanwhile such statements are very serious and MUST have proof!

Also user Yamla permanently edit the part of "Product" section wich talks about software updates for end users to enable x64 and Vista support. Here is the detailed information about this from offical source. So the statement that "StarForce does not provide software updates for end-users" is not right for modern SF version like 4.0. Quotation from above link - "Versions later than 3.05 need StarForce driver update".

Guess that admins could establish order in the article. Thank you. Sopinsci 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Basing on Wikipedia:Citing sources i'v removed RELOADED information from the article. My position described in my previous post - no citation - no proof. Get proof, and feel free to back such information in the article. Also i'v removed the "Game of the year" issue due to exactly the same cause. Sopinsci 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Reloaded information. According to the link I followed, it is valid that RELOADED reverse engineered Starforce. But because the links past that have no citations, the fact that the game runs 15% slower, you were correct in removing that info. PC Gamer is a print magazine source. If someone can find the issue, links are not necessary in that case. I'm adding back in the RELOADED info simply because it has the sources. crazyviolinist 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe a link to the information about the removal tool stuff should be posted? http://www.glop.org/files/rld-sfrt.rar ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.131.206 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 March 2007

No, a link to the site is already present. Wikipedia is not a link repository for software, and we already have links to removal tools in the article. One is enough. crazyviolinist 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to ask everybody, especialy crazyviolinist what will we do with the fact that Reloaded reverse 3.x version of starforce, but not 4.x. May be let me add that RELOADED completely reverse engineered only 3.x version? Sopinsci 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I added the clarification for the 3.0 version already. crazyviolinist 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks crazyviolinist. Today i'v carried the following from the very start of the article to the Controversy section.

It is considered by many to be malware, due to it frequently resulting in degradation of IDE speed, resulting in a number of CD or DVD drives failing completely.[1] I belive that this information has to be present in the article, but it is not for description of the product but mostly approach for Controversy section. There is no any proof of drives fail due to SF, so we could consider that all this "boycott" source is good payed PR action. Why not? Sopinsci 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No proof? Unlikely, proof might not be a word to use. Maybe something like reports, but I'm not sure its a PR action. I can take a look later. crazyviolinist 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No proof = No independent testing. Independing testing = public test cases, public test bench configuration, public test results, etc Sopinsci 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I could argue with that definition, simply with how information today carries some bias. Proof means testing, you're right, after reports are followed, someone investigates them, comes up with a conclusion, then concludes finally whether the claims are "proven" or not. However, back to the point.

The point here is that the statement, while yes, you're right that the site is not an independent source, the site itself documents the problem by citing Greg Vederman's (editor of U.S. PC Gamer) complaint with StarForce. That is what the statement is currently pointing towards. Perhaps you're right that the site itself is a PR action, but I doubt it since they do provide a neutral voice within the gaming world to support their claim. I'll try to locate which issue Vederman said this column so I can back up all this reasoning, but in the meanwhile, the statement stays. crazyviolinist 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making article better and more objective

Ok here we go. First of all SF 4,7 is out and there is a lot of references on it over the internet. We need it to add to article.

Second one - Protection strategies section contains totally wrong information. First of all - there is no ANY HARDWARE SIGNATURES on SF protected disks. Everybody, who emulate SF knows it. Just read, for instance, Deamon tools forum. So the statement shouls be changed to:

StarForce is believed to operate by measuring the physical angle between the first and last written sector on the CD. There is no any hardware signature on StarForce protected disks. The main thing is replicated disk geomerty which identical to the gold master and is currently difficult to reproduce when burning a duplicate CD.


Then the statement on blockoing non IDE drives, while IDE one present in system. Its gone starting SF4.0. Just search internet or ask on every copying forums. There is one bug in 4,7 version which use on Brain LARA Internation Criket 2007 by Codemasters - the thing is if you have RAID massive mounted on intel 965/775 there is wrong emulator detection occures. So people use to check disk via external USB drive, while inrenal IDE still operates.


If this is not a vandalism could i make such changes? Sopinsci 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


    • Citation from text - "StarForce has a reputation[citation needed] of being extremely difficult to reverse engineer, though all[citation needed] StarForce protected games have been cracked or have other methods in order to run copies. However, the crack is usually released a couple of days after the official release of the game.". I modified this statement and add source link for evidence.

Also i removed one of starforce boycott site link from the article. As i belive that one is pretty enough, as we have only one link to the offical site of oppositing party. Also i have to point that on the http://www.boycottstarforce.net/ there is a link to THIS wiki article, thit means that article is edited to suit the boycott community. They article and make a show of it on thier site.


Also i'll plan to sort article on 2 part - first is about SF 3.xx, second - SF 4.xx. As all controversies and described problems are urgent only for 3.x version. Even http://www.boycottstarforce.net/ site mentioned that there is no information on bad influence of 4.x verion. Sopinsci 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Attempts

    • Somebody from the usa's ip adress trying to change the article which is the most objective and reflect today StarForce situation. They simply revert to a previous article condition with out any persuasive comment. I'm insist that my version is much more describes up to date StarForce situation, because all my changes goes together with citation and information sources. I have to ask admins to suppress vandalism attempts. Sopinsci 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. I've been off Wikipedia for a while studying for my AP tests. Check the IP's talk page--if he has a history of vandalism, go ahead and report him to the admins. crazyviolinist 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Damn, but User from 217.154.84.2 vindalized tha article once more. I'v read the help, but didnt understand how to report this fact to admins. On the user's talk page, i'v left the warning, and my warning is not the first! Could somebody help me to report this user as a vandal to admins. Thank you!

Article reverted to previous state. Sopinsci 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft tests + certification programm

1. Once company get such status it must be mentioned in the article. If you asl me for proof i'll answer - no one may display programm logo on it site be concern of MS permisson. Same thing with passed Vista compatibility tests. I do not think that SF is too stupid to show this logos without real business.

2. SCSI optical drive issue. So personally o know at least 6 games protected by 4.0-4.7 version. In Russia all games past half a year protected by 4.5/4.7. You could simply make a google serch for this new version. Never met any mention on described SCSI problem.

Too many editions are due to my curved hands. Exuse me. Sopinsci 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar edition / explanation: SplinterCell

In the section on v.3, this: Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory held - 400+ days. is in the initial paragraph: I'm editing the copy of the article & not quite sure what it means... that SC:CT held on for 400+ days [i.e. without being cracked]? Will happily edit language then place back into article _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Thank you MonstaPro for correction. Sure it held without being cracked. Placed it back in article properly. Sopinsci 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What needs adding

I've just been through the article making it more readable, but without making too many changes to its meaning. Having pored through the whole thing, here's a couple of additions I'd like to suggest: --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarForce 4.0 reputation

Someone has obviously added "3.0" to the whole reputation section, raising the very large question of what later versions are like. Even Boycott StarForce don't seem to know if 4.0 has any negative effects! This article desperately needs something on this. --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The StarForce rebellion

Not a NPOV title, but that doesn't really matter on a talk page. :-p Anyone who's been on the gaming web for more than a couple of years will remember that criticism of StarForce peaked around 2006 and has leaked away since then - but the article doesn't recognise this. It cites a load of sources from '06, but doesn't make the connection that this was when SF was under the spotlight. We should re-structure it into something roughly chronological: e.g. "the 2006 blitz" and "everything since then". --Tom Edwards 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It was me who added 3.0 into the article, because me as you and as others haven't heard anything bad about 4.0/5.0 versions. They protected a lot of games by 4.0 and there is nothing bad over the internet. So belive that we have to seperate 3.x and 4.x versions in that case. I'v heard a lot about new structure in 4.x and i guess that MS sertification means that this new version is much stable and quality.

BTW Great work Tom on changing the article, now its reading much easier and newcomer will understand the issue clearly. Concerning rebellion - it wasn't rebellion, it was dirty but clever PR campaign, which caused tonns of user complaints. Sure SF made certain resume and has been improved. Sopinsci 09:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/weasel

I think this is the most non-weasel weaseled article I've seen. I changed a few minor things around. Can someone point out specific weasel issues that I'm not seeing? Lostinlodos 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You know this article has been started by StarForce haters. Now when firm made a good job improving its product (i mean SF 4.0/4.7) there is a kined of medley here. Between SF 3.0 problems/rumores/4.0 advantages. Did you notice that all bad words are one year old and beyond? It is because StarForce now is the most compatible and along with this most reliable copy protection on the world.Sopinsci 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And how would you know that? Nikos 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

This article is full of lies. Many of the citations do not support the statement they are being used to support. For instance the suggestion that a game was not cracked links to an NFO file for a crack for that game. This article is unobjective and not critical enough of StarForce; it reads like an advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.77.137.255 (talk • contribs).

(moved from top of page) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The only link to an NFO file accompanies Splinter Cell, which was cracked and is described as such. Do you have any other examples? --Tom Edwards 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The user is talking about this page, which is used as citation here. --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Missed that. Looks like it needs to be removed: SF wasn't broken, but then it didn't need to be... --Tom Edwards 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ubisoft

Does anyone else find it strange that the article fails to mention that it no longer uses starforce. Ubisoft was one of their largest customers. 67.173.249.150 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. See StarForce##Clients. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mention of Emulators

Certain programs can spoof this angle by intercepting communications between the CD drive and the protected application, effectively disabling the protection.

Dear Tom Edwards! What for do we need to mention on emulator programs here? We telling ppl on certain protection and not the way to bypass it. If they want to they'll fined how to do it. Please advise. Sopinsci 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are to make any comment on StarForce's effectiveness at all, we must cover both sides of the coin. So long as these types of things aren't named I see no harm in acknowledging their existence. --Tom Edwards 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By not mentioning that it is possible to bypass and/or remove the protection (crack), the reader will assume that this might be a 100% safe protection, which is not true. Also, information about "Splinter Cell Chaos Theory" should stay in the article since it is enlightening as to how hard it actually was and how long it took to remove the protection. Nikos 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sopinsci

The user Sopinsci seems to be posting on a lot of various forums concerning copy protected games, where he/she actively defends StarForce against accusation and points other users to StarForce customer support, and also advocates StarForce's superiority over other copy prevention software. On some forums, this user only has a single post where he bumps in to defend or advocate StarForce. Some examples:

If this user is working for StarForce Technologies, he/she should not be allowed to edit this Wikipedia article, where the only changes he/she made are lessening the critique on StarForce (like removing a part that states that StarForce can be circumvented and other changes; see history). Nikos 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm here if any.Sopinsci 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems strange that someone who claims to have become interested in copy protection in 2003 would spend the last year editing only this article, showing no interest in other copy protection schemes since the day he registered. Is there enough evidence to request an IP check, to see if he edits from StarForce headquarters? 65.241.160.10 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. I first found Sopinsci back in December making the edits. I accused him of such (see the earlier topic) and eventually I dropped my accusations. I haven't edited the article for a very long time, but I just returned because it came up on my watchlist that people were editing the article once again on a regular basis and on a heated level. While I assumed good faith in Sopinsci for quite a while, realize that overall the article has changed from a encyclopedic viewpoint to one biased towards StarForce after I stopped editing in April (something like that). Calm down people, we don't want an edit war over this. However, now that it has come up that some of Sopinsci's behavior starts to look suspicious, then I suggest that we do a IP check. If he is indeed working for Protection Technologies/StarForce Technologies, then I take the blame for not realizing this earlier. If he isn't, then we need to calm down and work together on this. crazyviolinist 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I compared the recent edit to my last edit I made back in March. Given how the article has differed quite a lot (the article has shifted towards pro-Starforce), I believe we should do an IP check. crazyviolinist 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad cruft

This article is rapidly becoming an advertisement for StarForce. The vast majority of the references on the page are primary sources, i.e., links to the software developer's website. Such references should be avoided in favor of reputable, verifiable secondary sources, such as mainstream media websites, etc. I'll be coming back here soon to start culling the parts of the article that read more like an advertisement than anything else. --DachannienTalkContrib 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan of the ref subheading shows that the only section to reference the SF homepage is the one that describes the different versions. Every other reference is from a third-party, and predominantly hostile ones at that.
What I would like to know is why there's been a resurgence of interest in this article lately? At least three people including Dachannien have started editing it in just the last few days! --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My interest was pretty much randomly determined, as I visited the article as a reader rather than an editor. I reviewed some of the recent edits and came to the conclusion that there have been a lot of POV-motivated edits in recent weeks/months that may have WP:COI connotations to them. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting piracy groups with releases

I'm trying to find a precedent on Wikipedia for this, since it doesn't seem justifiable to me. See this help request. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Damage to hardware" claim in lead

Since the claim made by Cory Doctorow that StarForce caused hardware damage in one version is apparently contentious, I wanted to have a discussion of that statement here before restoring it. User:Xihr stated in the edit comments that it is a POV claim when included in the summary. My response is that the most notable thing about StarForce is the controversy that grew around it when the hardware problems (whether permanent or temporary) were being reported, and thus a brief mention of those problems in the summary is merited. The controversy did in fact exist, and it's not POV merely to mention it.

I'd say it's far more notable than the self-aggrandizing claim of Microsoft or Intel certifications, which carry questionable importance in the first place and may have been included to establish a claim of endorsement where none was intended by either Microsoft or Intel. I'll submit this for a third opinion if necessary. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the controversy exists or that the claim was made. It's not POV to mention that claim in the article -- and, indeed, it already is, in the Controversy section -- but it seems to me quite problematic to mention specific (uncorroborated) claim in the lede of the article, and indeed in the first sentence of saying what StarForce is. Xihr (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we agree, then, that the certifications should be pushed down into the body of the article based on the same principle? --DachannienTalkContrib 03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Xihr (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They should both be in the intro, because they are between them the most notable piece of information in the article. Perhaps not the first sentence, but they are definitely top-priority information. --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News coverage (moved from external links)

In keeping with WP:EL, these links should be incorporated into the article and cited as references. I have cut and pasted the list of news articles so that editors may refer to them as needed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of StarForce drivers

StarForce always has granted a free SDK solution to remove driver along with app uninstalling. And this information is exist in StarForce manual. StarForce driver can not be removed by game uninstalling because it installs on the first run of the protected program and can't be handle by Installer program. Russinovich told about it but his citation has been removed from the article.

The link to the offical removal utility always been exist on the offical SF webpage. And now it also displays on the FRONT PAGE of SF website. Nobody never has hided that onlinesecurity-on is the StarForce recource. It has been made for other StarForce product called Safe'n'Sec. If they wanted to hide the fact of belonging of onlinesecurity to SF they would have managed to do it. =) So the haters used that to make another round of anti-StarForce hysteria.

Starting the SF 4.0 there is a driver auto removal service. You may check it by your self. Go right to Services and fined the string "<Product name> Drivers Auto Removal". In my case the service located here - C:\WINDOWS\system32\pr2amlab.exe. It works as I'v described in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopinsci (talk • contribs)

The addition of new, relevant information is fine; that does not mean you can remove valid critical information as well. If you're claiming that StarForce never attempted to sockpuppet, there is still no explanation as to why the drivers were placed on another website in the first place; nor why that website refers to StarForce/Protection Technology in the third-person. Are you editing against WP:COI? Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, relevant information without reliable cited sources isn't fine. Sopinsci's additions look like original research to me. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Ham Pastrami's citation "in order to deflect negative attention away from the main site" seem to me as POV. Haw can you know what for they placed the utility on another website? Let us leave here only facts - utility exist on another site but has link from coroporate site - this information will be quite enough. Also modern StarForce has nothing share with removing method is described on cimmunity website. It concerns only SF v.3 (and now we have 5.5 already). So i'v edited the text for better fitness.
Sure Dachannien, I know the StarForce protection from the deep have been working on it almost 7 years. I'v opened my IP on the "history" page, as i have nothing to hide. And please note - there were no POVs from me only the real facts of StarForce program features and behaviour. Sopinsci (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dachannien wrote: "Better way to remove POV; also, none of the cited sources specify that these methods are limited to version 3.0, so mentioning 3.0 is original research". There was a forum on Boycott StarForce website which points that described method of StarForce removal doesn't fit the modern SF versions. The forum has been gone, but I based my corrections on the fact that StarForce now has totally new architecture and only 1 single driver instead of 3 one mentioned in the manual method. Nobody may make a reserch concerning new SF protection and I just wish the article to be truthful, nothing more. Sopinsci (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; WP:COI is pretty clear that as a StarForce employee you should not be making content edits to this article. Nearly all of your information is coming from a primary source, i.e. StarForce/Protection Technology, which does not represent a neutral POV. I'm glad that you disclosed your affiliation which makes it clear what your interest is, but providing disclosure does not change the fact that you have a conflict of interest, especially when your edit history shows that you have not been editing neutrally, but only to advance StarForce's position. Also note that this is an encyclopedia, not a press release; what new versions of StarForce do won't change the fact that old versions did something else. This article covers the subject of StarForce as it has been documented in the media and secondary sources; not what the current feature set of StarForce is according to Protection Technology. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
When i take an encyclopedia book I'm awaiting of right, inspected opinions, adjectives and definitions. Otherwise that book can't be called encyclopedia. Copy protection is very controversial and closed area and its very complicated process to get proved and inspected information through it. Almost everybody worldwide hate copy protections and they are constantly blacken the subject. How can we avoid POVs in this case? Where facts and where fiction? What should we do with sources without citation? For instance - "The user changes the ACL to point at any arbitrarily chosen executable, which is executed with full system privileges on next reboot. This can be verified with the security tool "srvcheck2", which detects such potentially insecure driver configurations.[citation needed]". Have you checked that tool by your self? It shows nothing concerning StarForce but is mentioned in the article. I know that most of materials over the Internet about StarForce are myths. But when such myths penetrate the Wikipedia article its not normal for such respected source. Potential customers read it! In this case Wiki becomes the very good and effective PR tool for damaging competitors' business. I'v already wrote here and want to repeat once more - 90% of the article information is outdated. But this fact isn't interesting for community. The main thing that StarForce known as the universe evil. May be you have noticed that I didn't remove bad things about StarForce from the article. But when I add descriptions of new features and products they are removed almost immediately. I believe that if person search for something that he interested in, he should know everything and not only rumors and community vision. Sopinsci (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If, as you say, everybody across the world does in fact hate copy protection (StarForce in particular), then that is exactly what the encyclopedia article should get across. This is not POV, this is consensus. POV is when a party with a minority view (see WP:UNDUE) or a clear conflict of interest are editing against consensus in order to push their own agenda. Also, as I stated previously, an encyclopedia isn't about documenting current features of software. It is about documenting issues that are relevant from a scholarly viewpoint. The information regarding StarForce's negative press is not "outdated", the information comprises a history of the company's actions, and is entirely relevant to its current perceptions among consumers. As for unverified claims that negatively impact StarForce, the proper action is to A) attempt to find reasonable sourcing and add it, or B) if no sources are available, tag or remove the offending statements. Trying to counter them by adding first-party POV and COI is obviously not conducive to the neutrality of the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see the Wikipedia policy on verifiability - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone reading can verify the claims themselves by following the link and running the program. Are we going to withhold this useful and critical piece of information just because nobody with the correct reputation has pressed the correct series of buttons on their keyboard to fulfil some people's interpretation of Wiki rules? Or are we going to live in the real world? This kind of blind rulebook-following is incredibly frustrating to me, as you can probably tell. --Tom Edwards (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's like saying that an article on how to build a nuclear reactor could be verified by following the article's instructions and seeing if it works when you're done. In other words, that's not a source. This article has already been given tremendous amounts of leeway with regards to the use of self-published sources, not-very-reliable sources, etc., from both sides of the "StarForce is good/bad" argument. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What critical piece of information are you referring to? Tom, wiki policies exist for a reason, and that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. If you have a problem with policy, go discuss the policies on their talk pages, don't try to reinvent or ignore them here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)