SEV: What am I REALY getting for my money?

[Draxis]

From what I know of networking (which is not that much, did not do well in the subject at university) most networking protocols are designed to prevent *accidental* imperfections, but there are a lot of possible variations of a single block (say 256Kb) that would all pass the same validation hash. Assuming every single block of a torrent had an associated MD5, to sabotage the theft, you only need to send a differnt block but the block would hash out the same MD5. When the entire file was finished, it would almost certainly fail any check on it, but that is still a few hundred megs that has to be redownloaded, and would only take 1 dodgy block to break again.

[Fyron]

I don't think that will really work out too well in practice though... BT uses SHA1 hashing, not MD5. While an attack vector has been found for SHA1, it is not yet computationally feasible to create faked pieces of data that would let you disrupt a BT transfer. You can bet that as soon as viable methods for creating collisions in the SHA1 algorithm are found, the BT protocol will just switch to a newer algorithm that is not yet possible to break.

[Sivran]

I don't think Draxis knows too much about hashing. Collisions (ie, two differing blocks of data that produce the same hash) are so supremely rare that a big deal was made of it in the crypto community when someone managed to find a way to make MD5 collide. The method was impractical, of course, and IIRC, only a few bytes could be changed. This was with a small dataset. Creating collisions out of larger chunks would be infinitely more difficult.

Now, out of OT mode...


If SE5 would only be sold on Steam, I would not buy it. In fact, I'm going to wait for the first reports from the community-- if SE5 has any crap in it, I won't buy it. If it's not portable as SE4 is, I will think twice but it's not a game breaker.

[Draxis]

Your right Sivran, I'm out of touch, I used to play around with that stuff a lot though I never looked at the SHA1 but after a little reading it has me interested. Hate having to go to a job all day, I cant play with numbers!

[frightlever]

SE4 (and earlier) was probably pirated massively long before the deluxe(!) version. I seem to recall a Q&A with Aaron where he said as much.

Copy protection definitely stops games getting into the hands of casual pirates. I'm a bit more sceptical whether it actually encourages sales. I think people willing to pay will pay and those who can't, or won't, won't pay no matter what. I don't buy the idea of a pirate furiously exhausting his options for ripping off a game and then as a final resort reluctantly trudging to the game store with a bunch of grubby bank notes in his hands and a tear in his eye.

The Boycott Starforce (never had a problem with Starforce) proved that harsh copy-protection discouraged people from buying games. Stardock had a top-selling game (at Walmart!) with no copy protection.

I would say it's a cert that come what may SE5 will have copy protection, either through Steam or through a CD-in-drive disk checker. I couldn't tell you where my SE4 disk is (bought for about a $80.00 off a specialist import shop in the UK! Best value for money ever.) so I'll miss just starting up a game whenever I want but I suppose that's progress.

Getting back to the original reason behind the thread though - I'm still not convinced that these real time land battles and wotnot are going to do the released game any favours. As a straight 2D turn based war game SE4 fit into a comfortable, if no longer mainstream, sterotype. A reviewer seeing a lacklustre attempt at a RTS is going to tear it a new one in the review.

Look at the RTS battles in Space Rangers - pretty much universally put down by reviewers (though forgiven because of the strength of that game as a whole) and from what I've seen the SR RTS battles look a lot better than the SE5 ones. If they played like Warhammer 40K Dawn Of War then fair enough...