CMBN licensing issues for 2.12

[Elvis]

Elvis, Norton has been having problems with Combat Mission games since at least CMBN. Have you guys ever tried contacting them to verify the legitimacy of your products?

Yes, an encouraged players to contact them as well.

Edit:

Here is our Knowledgebase article on Norton (yes, it has it's own article):

http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=227

Norton Internet Security

Article
Out of 200 anti-virus and security engines tested against, NIS is the only software which mistakenly flags the Module.exe file within the Modules folder of your game installation as "suspicious". There is no reason for it, so we classify this as a bug in NIS.

This can happen during the installation process (you will see a MoveFail error), or after the installation is complete. When you launch the game, you will not be able to access any Module scenarios (they will be greyed out).

The solution is to move the Module.exe file from the NIS Quarantine area back into the game folder. You will also want to instruct Norton to 'ignore', 'allow' or 'unblock' (however Norton terms it) so that it does not attempt to quarantine the module executable file again.


Please also consider reporting this false positive to Norton. It will take a minute and allow Norton to adjust their whitelists and remove the false positive for other people. You can report a false positive to Norton here: https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/

[Elvis]

A "variation" of a patch becomes the next patch in line. Patch 2.12 becomes 2.13, etc. Why is this such a problem for your company?

You guys need to get your shit together here, and put out a new patch, under a new number, that fixes the problem.

It is not the next patch in the line. If it were it would be called 2.13 and an announcement of the changes made to the game would have been announced. But there are no changes to the game in this new build. Regarding shit being together by naming the patch correctly...that particular shit is together.

[RyanE]

So how did it change...I thought you said it was a different file.  Isn't that how version control works?

[RyanE]

So here is the quote from you...

"Then, in the last day or two, I received word that a variation of the 2.12 patch had been uploaded by us in the last couple of weeks and this patch was causing the problem. I have no idea of why a new one was put up and it didn't occur to me to even ask.  "

A variation means a new version number.  Should be 2.12a.  Does anyone realize or care about how much extra work it causes by doing something like this.  Even the lowest level person in any SW company I have worked for manages version control like the family jewels.  You guys are big enough and you have multiple programmers and support people that you have to be very careful.

If its your DRM company doing it to you, get your supplier under control.  How many people out there might have the borked patch and not used it.  You must track downloads, I assume.  Whats going to happen over the next year is people will be reinstalling and patching with archived patches and you'll be getting help requests and pissed off customers.  At a minimum, someone from BFC should put a notice up about it.

[Elvis]

RyanE, it appears to  just be a new installer for the patch. As I have said before....absolutely nothing game related or DRM related. If it were they would want all players to have it. If there was anything game related that was changed you would have heard about and what the changes are. Players are always clambering for new patches and game fixes. If BFC releases one they announce it. They don't hide it in an existing patch that the majority of players will never download because they've had it since it was first released. I'm not sure why people are interested in painting this as something that it isn't.  It looks to be a new installer that was buggy. Unfortunate and inconvenient but nothing more than that.

[RyanE]

Every company I have worked at or in would have incremented the version number for exactly the reason we are talking about...including an installer.  There is a school of hard knocks out there, and this is one of them.

I am more concerned that no one at BFC really recognizes this.  I hear BFC people running around all the time talking about what a small company they are and time is so important.  Its basic stuff like this that kills a small SW company.  The fact the support was never told a new file was going up and/or no one even thought to ask about any changes is kind of mind blowing.

It starts to explain a lot of the little quality issues sneaking through in releases.

[DennisS]

RyanE, it appears to  just be a new installer for the patch. As I have said before....absolutely nothing game related or DRM related. If it were they would want all players to have it. If there was anything game related that was changed you would have heard about and what the changes are. Players are always clambering for new patches and game fixes. If BFC releases one they announce it. They don't hide it in an existing patch that the majority of players will never download because they've had it since it was first released. I'm not sure why people are interested in painting this as something that it isn't.  It looks to be a new installer that was buggy. Unfortunate and inconvenient but nothing more than that.

It isn't at all about the gameplay, this "variation" of patch 2.12. "Absolutely nothing game related.."

But...it broke the effing game. That MAKES it game related.

You now have two version 2.12's out there. The ONLY way to fix this is to create 2.13, or 2.20, or version 3, or WHATEVER, and do it immediately. And advertise it heavily. And apologize for your f*ck up.

[Elvis]

No. The only way to fix it is to attach an installer that functions properly. A 2.13 patch would cause people who have had 2.12 with a proper installer to be compelled to install 2.13.....something that they don't need and will get nothing out of.

I agree that when a proper installer is release and announcement saying something like "anyone who downloaded patch 2.12 after xxxviii date should re download the patch"

[RyanE]

That is why you have 2.12a...I have worked for or with software companies for almost 30 years.  You are not going to tell me that proper procedure is to change anything that goes out publicly and not at least add a letter...small or large companies.

Is there anyone beside a BFC employee who thinks this is the way to go about it?

[Nefaro]

It's all DRM concerns that we really shouldn't be bothered with, in the end.  But we are.

Hopefully the decision makers at Battlefront eventually come around to something better or much improved over the current one.  It's a sad state of affairs when even the current iteration of StarForce online-activation DRM has a more flexible system, although none of this kind goes over well with customers. 

Being doubtful of whether your game will work once you patch, reinstall it, or after changing your computer hardware isn't a good thing.  No matter how much a rare few surprisingly try to defend the reasoning behind such draconian system. 

Having to contact BF and wait for it to be allowed is just an extra hassle that customers shouldn't be put through.  I suppose their paranoia is ramped up enough that they feel justified in occasionally inconveniencing their customers with problems.  It comes across as rude, to me.

I expect to have such a hassle at some point, with any BF game I buy.  It has curbed my purchasing habits with BF, and this kind of DRM, especially since there are so many interesting games coming out these days and not enough time to play them.

[RyanE]

The point isn't just the DRM.  Its just plain sloppy customer service from a company that isn't just a small start up any more.  They should know better.

[RyanE]

No. The only way to fix it is to attach an installer that functions properly. A 2.13 patch would cause people who have had 2.12 with a proper installer to be compelled to install 2.13.....something that they don't need and will get nothing out of.

I agree that when a proper installer is release and announcement saying something like "anyone who downloaded patch 2.12 after xxxviii date should re download the patch"

Let's look at this a little closer...so by not incrementing a patch number, you will now have a portion of your base using a different configuration of your software but having the same version.  How would you ever track down another issue in that patch.  It would create a lot more debugging work.  The installer is part of the package delivered to the customer.  Any SW product manager will tell you it is close to a mortal sin to do something like that.  It can really punish support staff.

[Con]

I feel sorry for Elvis here...truly no good deed goes unpunished

Con

[RyanE]

This would have ended a while ago if he didn't come in and state the the process BFC uses had no issues.  The fact I stumbled around all weekend trying to play the game and lost a couple activations seems to not concern him or anyone at BFC.  I would move on quickly with my activations given back and admission that they will be a little more careful with my time.  Four activations for $60 at the lowest level means I probably lost $30 this weekend.

btw, no one finds a little odd all this discussion is happening here and not on BFC's forum, where I would expect BFC to want to communicate issues like this.

[Elvis]

No. The only way to fix it is to attach an installer that functions properly. A 2.13 patch would cause people who have had 2.12 with a proper installer to be compelled to install 2.13.....something that they don't need and will get nothing out of.

I agree that when a proper installer is release and announcement saying something like "anyone who downloaded patch 2.12 after xxxviii date should re download the patch"

Let's look at this a little closer...so by not incrementing a patch number, you will now have a portion of your base using a different configuration of your software but having the same version.  How would you ever track down another issue in that patch.  It would create a lot more debugging work.  The installer is part of the package delivered to the customer.  Any SW product manager will tell you it is close to a mortal sin to do something like that.  It can really punish support staff.

The patch number references the engine build. Regardless of how that build is applied to your game. Period. As far as the customer base is concerned,  as much (probably more.....trust me as someone who deals with this kind of stuff every day) confusion would be caused if a 2.12a patch were released.  Cries of "wait, a new patch was released and x, you and Z weren't fixed?" And "i don't understand,  do I need 2.12a or not?"etc.......

I have no idea of what software companies you have worked with or dealt with but the bottom line is that this is the system BFC has been using for 15 years. If they used a different system that would not have changed the problem that you have experienced in any way. I have offered to set up a Dropbox for anyone who would like to have a copy of my patch with the previous installer.  I know that may sound like "sloppy customer service" but I'm only trying to help.

If you want to argue how they should conduct their build naming, start a thread on their forum. The people that make those calls may respond.  All of them have very long histories working with other companies for game development.  Perhaps they can give you more insight into the process.  I just thought I would chime in and give the 411.....but as Con points out............