Editor's note: I shake my head at developers and publishers who needlessly include invasive and -- ultimately -- broken copy-protection schemes with their PC games. As if installing, patching, and troubleshooting driver versions and OS compatibility problems weren't enough, they feel compelled to run me though a number of additional hoops to play. Bioshock 2 is excessively over-protected with (depending on where you purchase) up to three different DRM schemes included. When will developers finally follow in the footsteps of Good Old Games and drop this nonsense once and for all? -Rob

With recent news about Bioshock 2's Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, fans hoping to play the game on PC are in an uproar.

Interestingly enough, the sequel's copy-protection scheme isn't really much different from its predecessor's -- both include Sony's SecuROM, but Bioshock 2 will also use Games for Windows Live.

So why, then, are so many people so angry? Perhaps because 2K was bold enough to explain exactly what "using Games for Windows Live" means.

There are two different ways to utilize Microsoft's service. The first, and previously only, method is the non-Server Side Authentication (non-SSA) model. This gives the player a CD-key that can be used up to 15 times across all user accounts and all games. After 15 installations, the player must call the customer support line and ask for a new key.

If there's one thing users hate most, it's limited activations; so, Microsoft later developed the Server-Side Authentication (SSA) model.

Like the ever-popular Steam, the SSA version ties your games to your online account -- in this case, your gamertag that you use for Xbox Live and Games for Windows Live. This does sound like the best way to do things after all. Unlimited installations on as many computers as you want so long as you sign in with your existing account!

But games that use SSA are not without significant drawbacks. Unlike Steam, Microsoft only supports Live in 26 countries, which leaves players living in over a hundred other locales unable to access either all or part of a game as soon as they associate a key with their real region.

With respects Bioshock 2 specifically, an added layer of complexity exists. In addition to the non-SSA model, the game uses Sony's SecuROM -- a copy-protection scheme which received much backlash when users discovered the difficulties in uninstalling the program.

Sony has since provided a removal tool to fix that problem; however, many users are still unhappy about putting the software into their systems. Bioshock 2 uses SecuROM to check online that the game's launch is beyond the release date and that the executable is not altered.

What's receiving even more anger is the fact that the Steam version will also use SecuROM even though Steam's own DRM technology already serves these functions. Sony's copy-protection software is redundant and its presence is turning away potential customers who dislike dealing with more hassle than just Valve and the publisher.

So with all this, why do developers and publishers still choose to go with the added headache of Games for Windows Live and SecuROM?

I'm at a loss to explain why they choose to do so. After all, since SecuROM's initial use in the first Bioshock, the software is one of the most widely used and easily cracked DRM technologies available. Games for Windows Live, on the other hand, offers little more.

2K is using Microsoft's platform to power the multiplayer portion of their game. Since Bioshock 2 is also available for the Xbox 360, the developer can use a lot of the same code logic and cut down on the work required for multiplayer to function on the PC. Additionally, Games for Windows Live allows players to talk to people from their Xbox friends list and earn achievements.

Some other drawbacks still linger in the background, though. Games patched over Live need to go through Microsoft's excruciatingly slow certification process. Furthermore, more than a few Live-supported PC games are buggy enough to render them unplayable.

On top of this, the features don't match up anywhere close to the current heavyweight champion of PC gaming software -- Steam. Valve's platform has a robust set of community features: a friends list accessible both in and out of games, an easily accessible storefront with frequent sales, and a fairly decent interface. Games for Windows Live is sorely lacking in all of these features -- even Microsoft's own Live service on the Xbox 360 is way ahead. Why aren't the two Live departments talking?

If Microsoft actually addressed the current issues with Games for Windows Live, the platform would actually be a very viable space for games and provide both players and developers with a great set of features. As it stands now, the software is as tarnished as Windows Vista.