I found something quite funny - Copy Protection Related.

[Xtreme2damax]

Well I was trying to make a backup of my copy of Halo 2 with DPM and everytime extracting the DPM failed.

Completely unaware I went and checked Copybase.org only to find out Halo 2 doesn't need DPM since it's protected by measly Safedisc 2.9.

Does anyone else find anything weird with this? As big of Anti-Piracy as Microsoft is I would of though they would of used a stronger copy protection, but safedisc 2.9?

Why not Safedisc 3.xx or 4.xx or Securom?

Knowing how big Microsoft is on WGA I would of at least expected a stronger copy protection for their baby Halo 2.

[Jito463]

Microsoft uses Safedisc (or a variation of it) because - if I recall correctly - they created the technology originally, then sold it off to Macrovision. They probably retained the right to use it themselves in the deal, so why pay for another copy protection?

Besides, while Halo 2 was only recently released on the PC, it's now several years old (released Nov. 2004). Their "baby" is now Halo 3, which is still XBox360 only.

[evlncrn8]

they use SmartE usually , same crap, diff name and yep, perhaps it was wrapped with that version of safedisc, then sat in a warehouse somewhere for > 6 months....

[Xtreme2damax]

I just found it a bit funny, not trying to stir up a commotion.

I honestly didn't know Microsoft developed Safedisc.

Why 2.9 though and not Safedisc 3.xx or 4.xx which is stronger than the 1.xx or 2.xx versions of Safedisc?

Yeah Halo 3 may be Microsofts new Halo game, but I honestly didn't think they would go that easy on the copy protection. I at least thought they might of used Safedisc 3.xx or 4.xx.

How long should it take to backup a copy of Halo 2? I've had it dumping in Alcohol 52% FE for about 5 hours now and it still isn't finished backing up.

[evlncrn8]

microsoft didnt 'develop' safedisc, they developed SmartE which is close to safedisc...

older version of safedisc used is probably because the game was in 'storage' for a while.. probably made when the xbox one etc was out then 'stored' for a while, then released... some publishers do 'sit' on the games for a while before their release.. for various reasons..

alcohol should be able to do it though...

[Terramex]

I don't have Halo 2, but i don't think the entry at Copybase is correct.
From what i've read the game has to be activated and has a simple DVD check.

[Benni]

Halo 2 for PC has been sold since 2007. The entry in our database is from 2004.

It seems as if the entry was for the XBox version of the game.

[Jito463]

SmartE, that's the one I was thinking of. I couldn't recall the name, and only recalled some connection to Safedisc. Apparently - in regards to SafeDisc at least - I had some bad info.

[evlncrn8]

well.. not 'bad' info.. just maybe a bit muddled up
from what i can see SmartE is based upon (but is 'not') SafeDisc.. hope that clears it up

[bismax]

Relating to one internet page which cannot be told due to the board rules Halo 2 only has that online verification thing.

[Xtreme2damax]

Should a backup of the disc be taking 5 + hours though? The disc is fine but backing it up takes forever.

It starts spitting out read errors near the end at about 88% - 89% which is akin to what Safedisc protected games do when a backup nears completion.

I never had a problem with backing it up before, for some reason my DVD Drive doesn't seem to like the newest version of Alcohol.

Also on the newest Daemon Tools 4.11.2 I am getting that annoying hanging for a split second on the Windows XP loading screen just like the earlier 4.00 - 4.03 release of Daemon Tools.

This is related to the SPTD driver since uninstalling SPTD makes the problem go away.

[evlncrn8]

nah 5+ hours sounds quite excessive... shouldnt take that long i think...

as to another site reporting it only having online verification.. we have to take into account that different publishers use different protections in different countries, so a game thats safedisc protected in usa may not be safedisc protected in europe (for example)...

easiest way for muffinhead to confirm safedisc protection would be to scan the installation folder with a protection scanner...

[Xtreme2damax]

nah 5+ hours sounds quite excessive... shouldnt take that long i think...

as to another site reporting it only having online verification.. we have to take into account that different publishers use different protections in different countries, so a game thats safedisc protected in usa may not be safedisc protected in europe (for example)...

easiest way for muffinhead to confirm safedisc protection would be to scan the installation folder with a protection scanner...

Can't scan right now, I had to reformat since the RC of XP SP3 screwed up some things on my comp and kept causing certain games to freeze of mine.

I've only reinstalled XP + My Games and Programs, I haven't got around to reinstalling Vista yet.

By the way, I live in the USA. New York State to be exact.

[ß]

re: 1st post
total bullshit, so you read what a website says and report that as "halo 2 uses safedisc" before even making the image, i guess ? i mean it's not like you actually installed it and scanned the files etc and found it uses safedisc, which it doesn't, and then reported your "quite funny" findings.

halo 2 has no on disc copy protection of ANY kind. the protection it uses, which seems to be what microsoft is switching to for most of their new games is activation. (flight sim x, shadowrun etc...) and let's not call it online activation, since one can use the telephone as well, i do. but that's a moot point.

and were you a customer there's a thread that talks about the fact that halo2 and shadowrun use no on-disc copy protection ("halo 2 & shadowrun")

post may sound a bit direct (not to me of course) but it comes down to this: the whole post is erroneous because you stated, incorrectly, that a game uses a particular copy protection, based not on your own findings, but on what some website wrote about it.


just so you know, alcohol can dump the dpm of halo 2 just fine. (it's a straight line, and as stated, not needed - but just so you know)

[Xtreme2damax]

re: 1st post
total bullshit, so you read what a website says and report that as "halo 2 uses safedisc" before even making the image, i guess ? i mean it's not like you actually installed it and scanned the files etc and found it uses safedisc, which it doesn't, and then reported your "quite funny" findings.

halo 2 has no on disc copy protection of ANY kind. the protection it uses, which seems to be what microsoft is switching to for most of their new games is activation. (flight sim x, shadowrun etc...) and let's not call it online activation, since one can use the telephone as well, i do. but that's a moot point.

and were you a customer there's a thread that talks about the fact that halo2 and shadowrun use no on-disc copy protection ("halo 2 & shadowrun")

post may sound a bit direct (not to me of course) but it comes down to this: the whole post is erroneous because you stated, incorrectly, that a game uses a particular copy protection, based not on your own findings, but on what some website wrote about it.


just so you know, alcohol can dump the dpm of halo 2 just fine. (it's a straight line, and as stated, not needed - but just so you know)

For one I thought copybase was a legit website seeing as Yasu is hosted there and they host .mds files with dpm for those who can't extract it themselves.

I was unaware that Halo 2 had been in their database since 2004 before the release of the PC version. I didn't know as someone stated a few posts up that was probably for the Xbox version which I didn't think Xbox games used copy protections like Safedisc etc....

I'm not a customer of Daemon-Tools....yet seeing as daemon tools pro is going to cost me a little over $50 since I live in the USA. I can't afford to purchase a license for pro since I am in the process of getting an apartment and a job at this time. Therefore I do not have access to the customer forum where some things may be posted.

Lastly, I mentioned in my last post that I had just done a complete reformat of my system since XP SP3 screwed some things up and I have not yet got around to installing Vista again, so I am unable to perform a scan on the installation folder right now.

So I relied on copybase which I thought was a legit website for this information just as the daemon tools website.

With all due respect you seemed as if you were targeting me for no apparent reason without reading why I posted this. I see nothing wrong with this thread, neither has anyone else. You are the only one so far that had to be negative about it.