Anthony (I am a big fat liar) Valterra 11/12

[Fast Learner]

I'm not certain if I should bring this up, but since it seems to be such an issue:

The version that checks for the CD simply looks for any CD in your drive named "ETOOLS". The problem is that people (like me) who purchased the early version got a CD with no volume label at all.

If the patch works the way the eTools Trinket beta patch did (which is likely, since it was from Fluid, too), it will modify your no-CD-required copy of eTools into a look-for-a-CD copy of eTools. If you're like me with the early version, you don't have such a CD.

The temporary workaround while I was beta testing Trinket (the PocketPC eTools viewer application) was to simply burn a CD and give it a volume label of "ETOOLS". It was a totally blank CD, but it did the trick and my now-CD-requiring copy of eTools ran just fun as long as that CD was in the drive during startup.

I know this wouldn't work for all users since they won't all have access to CD burners (or friends with CD burners), but it certainly does the trick for some.

I hesitated to post this because it could be considered a form of a hack, one that might allow people with pirated copies to run the app, so if Anthony or a board mod or what have you thinks I should delete the message, I'd be happy to. It's just that it's a simple workaround for many potential patch-problem users that I didn't want to keep it to myself.

 

[Chaz]

I'm not certain if I should bring this up, but since it seems to be such an issue:
The version that checks for the CD......

Thats a good point I guess. I guess i could live with doing that.

Anthony, What we realy need more than anything else on this issue is more info. What "some people" are/arent able to use the patch as is and why? Give us something to go on. Speculation here and on the WotC boards is high. Give us some idea what exactly is up. Ok?
Thanks.

 

[EricNoah]

I'm not certain if I should bring this up, but since it seems to be such an issue:

The version that checks for the CD simply looks for any CD in your drive named "ETOOLS". The problem is that people (like me) who purchased the early version got a CD with no volume label at all.

If the patch works the way the eTools Trinket beta patch did (which is likely, since it was from Fluid, too), it will modify your no-CD-required copy of eTools into a look-for-a-CD copy of eTools. If you're like me with the early version, you don't have such a CD.

The temporary workaround while I was beta testing Trinket (the PocketPC eTools viewer application) was to simply burn a CD and give it a volume label of "ETOOLS". It was a totally blank CD, but it did the trick and my now-CD-requiring copy of eTools ran just fun as long as that CD was in the drive during startup.

I know this wouldn't work for all users since they won't all have access to CD burners (or friends with CD burners), but it certainly does the trick for some.

I hesitated to post this because it could be considered a form of a hack, one that might allow people with pirated copies to run the app, so if Anthony or a board mod or what have you thinks I should delete the message, I'd be happy to. It's just that it's a simple workaround for many potential patch-problem users that I didn't want to keep it to myself.

Hmm, if this is indeed the problem, then it is kind of a doozy for the early adopters. I wonder how it could be addressed other than a) burning a CD or b) sending in the "wrong" CD for the "right" CD.

Scott originally told us that there would be no issue with the patch not working for the two different versions... but that was a while ago, obviously.

 

[EricNoah]

I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but...

Can the copy protection look for something other than the disk name? Can it look for the presence of certain files with certain names? Can it look for file sizes, dates of creation, etc.? If so, then have it check either the volume name or the names/sizes/dates of the files on the CD. You could fake a lot of that, but if the copy protection is only looking for the disk name that could be faked too.

There, I'm Einstein, I just solved the world's problems. I'm sure there's nothing there that hasn't been thought of.

 

[Fast Learner]

It could definitely look for something else, and "real" copy protection usually does (sometimes including a special form of a hidden file designed not to copy over when someone burns a disc). A lot of times it involves storing (in the registry) the drive letter it originally installed from and only searching there (avoiding any need for a recognizable volume name).

eTools' copy protection was clearly added on at the last moment.

 

[Draco]

Yes, the "copy protection" was obviously added on because someone at WoTC (more likely, Hasbro) got paranoid and didn't realize just how stupid the idea is. Most "copy protection" is nothing more than "copy discouragement". The real copy protection with this product is that it is useless without having purchased the DnD books (and physical protection is always the most reliable). Sure, you could use e-Tools without having the game itself, but why would you?

They should just remove the "protection" and be done with it. After all, this is a document editing application not a game. You don't have to have the Office CD inserted to edit a Word document; why should you have to have the e-Tools CD inserted to edit a character?

BTW, yes I realize that the "copy protection" exists to prevent people from making copies for their friends so they do not have to purchase the product. But they could just as easily go over to their friend's home and use the program there. Given how people always play in groups, it is very likely that most groups will only purchase one copy anyway - most likely, it will be the DM. Since they meet to play, it is seldom that much more difficult to arrive a few minutes earlier or stay a few minutes later to access e-Tools. So, WoTC should just accept that and stop making the tool more difficult to use than is necessary.

 

[Henry]

Anthony,

I'm afraid I don't have much to say about the patch, but after reading the title for this thread, I am now an official member of the Anthony Valterra fan club.

 

[BadMojo]

DO NOT Its Bad Mojo!

Hey Hey! Here I am!

Oh...nevermind.

 

[Ketjak]

Re: Re: But why?

[completely off-topic]

Hey Ketjak- you might want to fix the link in your sig. I think you're giving your visitors the wrong message. I would have emailed you directly, but apparently enworld doesn't support that.

-Vic20

**= Another fine hand-crafted sig =**

Good call - I think I made my offer a little more clear. That suits better now, right?

 

[tetsujin28]

That link it pretty sweet, man...