PDA

View Full Version : Securom



cheshire_monkey
1st May 2009, 15:19
Will the PC version have securom? If so I will be great upset, I'd really like to get this but I won't put that on my computer.

stoobytoons
1st May 2009, 17:49
Will the PC version have securom? If so I will be great upset, I'd really like to get this but I won't put that on my computer.

I think they tested that on lab rats, and it gave them cancer... so check with the FDA?:lol:

chip5541
1st May 2009, 18:10
Then get teh PS3 or 360 version ;)

Kai Rei
2nd May 2009, 10:19
What's securom?

chip5541
2nd May 2009, 12:41
SecuROM is a CD/DVD copy protection product, most often used for computer games running under Microsoft Windows, developed by Sony DADC. SecuROM aims to resist home media duplication devices, professional duplicators, and attempts at reverse engineering the game.

I personally have several games that use it and have not had any problems. Now Starforce on teh other hand....:(

Kai Rei
3rd May 2009, 06:52
I personally have several games that use it and have not had any problems. Now Starforce on teh other hand....:(

Thank you. Does it make installing the game any more difficult or anything?

chip5541
3rd May 2009, 07:19
My experience with it, no.

Kai Rei
3rd May 2009, 10:03
My experience with it, no.

Okay, thank's, Chip.

chip5541
3rd May 2009, 10:14
No problem. That's what I'm here for.

DestroyerX
28th May 2009, 16:35
Eidos, if you want my money, you mustn't use securom.

If you're going to use it as you said, then I won't buy it.

I didn't buy Mass Effect because of this s**t or any other game with sr.
EA stopped using it and I'll guarantee they'll get my money for Dragon Age, ME2 or other games without sr.

It's quite simple, Eidos:

No securom: more legal customers
Securom: less legal customers

think about it

Strife2k7
28th May 2009, 17:00
I think most people's concern with Securom is that it limits the number of installations you can have for a game to... 3 I believe is the default. Might not sound like much of an issue to most users, but some people, myself included, do periodic wipe/reinstalls of my operating system to keep things running smoothly. The Securom system doesn't recognize that you're reinstalling the game on the same system you had it on before, it simply counts each activation until you reach your maximum, then the game won't activate or play.

That also affects things if your game becomes corrupt and you have to reinstall it. All that being said, the only game I have that uses it is Bioshock, and I got it out of the bargain bin for $9. I tend to just avoid full-price titles that use it by grabbing the console versions.

GR1NG0_SU4V3
28th May 2009, 20:47
huh,
I can see where some PC gamers would have an issue with that,
however from a selling perspective its kinda worth it.
It only seems to be an issue with hardcore gamers and for the most part I don't see the normal consumer having many gripes with it.

I'd rather see a small dip in sales than to have an easily hacked leak or rip online on p2p networks.

DestroyerX
29th May 2009, 08:29
huh,
however from a selling perspective its kinda worth it.
It only seems to be an issue with hardcore gamers and for the most part I don't see the normal consumer having many gripes with it.

I'd rather see a small dip in sales than to have an easily hacked leak or rip online on p2p networks.

That's so wrong... Every game will be pirated and securom won't hinder it. Instead, it forces the legal customers to not buy it (me, for example)

I'm a little bit suprised of the fact that nobody's complaining. In other forums people would run amok reading securom will probably be used.

The solution is to use a simple cd-check and !CD-KEY!

Abeja
29th May 2009, 08:46
huh,
I can see where some PC gamers would have an issue with that,
however from a selling perspective its kinda worth it.
It only seems to be an issue with hardcore gamers and for the most part I don't see the normal consumer having many gripes with it.

I'd rather see a small dip in sales than to have an easily hacked leak or rip online on p2p networks.

Thats rather ridiculous. Im not a complete Scrooge, I support artist when I have money, go to the movies (saw Star Trek and Watchmen), and buy plenty of comic books. You wouldnt be angry if you spent 50 bucks on Wolverine Origins or spent 7-9 bucks at the movies? I know I would. Ill pirate whatever the hell I want. They dont mind when they take our money, why should I care when i take theirs? Take Geoff Johns for instance, I pirated Sinestro Corps War a long time ago, but it made me a fan of his for life, now im picking up his Flash and Green Lantern. The positive about pirating is it provides exposure.

Mods, you might edit this, but im just letting you know that I feel that Eidos/Rocksteady is making a stellar game, and I have already recommend the game to numerous people and discussed it on other forums. I WILL be spending money for this game,.

I know how these entertainment companies work (Bungie comes to mind), the moviemakers,game developers,musicians release pointless crap and use the power of advertising to persuade people to shell out hard earned money for something that was poorly made. Hell, i even got in trouble on these forums for suggesting to someone to pirate something instead of watching it on Youtube (dont see a difference but w/e). What will stop this game from being pirated is the DLC as well.

Keir
29th May 2009, 08:57
I haven't had time to read through every post in this thread yet because I'm up to my eyeballs but can I just remind everyone that we're posting on a forum hosted by a computer game publisher - as such any references to piracy will be dealt with extremely firmly.

In answer to the question in the OP, I have asked the charismatic souls in production and they have told me we'll be providing details 'nearer the time'. This will most likely be a month or two.

DestroyerX
29th May 2009, 10:44
In answer to the question in the OP, I have asked the charismatic souls in production and they have told me we'll be providing details 'nearer the time'. This will most likely be a month or two.

Then I'll hope the answer will be positive for us players. Oh, I'm a lifetime Batman fan, so don't disappoint us :-)

Hell, now that Street Fighter IV will be shipped with securom, I can only :mad2: and won't buy it for sure.

DestroyerX
5th Jul 2009, 15:46
So, Keir, any news about that or do I have to come back in a few weeks, hoping this game's greatness won't be stopped by using securom?

Ryuuie
5th Jul 2009, 16:23
It's not SecuROM you have to worry about. It's Games for Windows - LIVE.

GfW - LIVE will mean that you MUST be online to save your game. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Termix
5th Jul 2009, 16:42
Most Securom Games need online activation / access, nobody knows if you are able to play the games in 10 or more years, when registration/activation websites/servers are offline.
I bought a 360 especially for this game ;)

Vaad
5th Jul 2009, 19:38
So, Keir, any news about that or do I have to come back in a few weeks, hoping this game's greatness won't be stopped by using securom?

We all know your going to pirate the game so stop banging on about it.


It's not SecuROM you have to worry about. It's Games for Windows - LIVE.

GfW - LIVE will mean that you MUST be online to save your game. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Not True you make an Offline account :P

daklog
6th Jul 2009, 05:53
Just rallying for the cause against Secu-Rom

Every 6 months I reboot my system to ensure it working at maximum proficiency, Secu Rom means fail.

DestroyerX
6th Jul 2009, 08:37
We all know your going to pirate the game so stop banging on about it.

Total bull****. Maybe you do. I wouldn't make all the effort asking this question over and over again just for these silly comments.

So... how about some news?

rileslek
6th Jul 2009, 08:51
(removed)

Same thing happened with Mass Effect. Crying, whining, everything. So (removed) what? I bought it and I've had NO trouble at all.

It's not like the game will be any different. It'll be the same except for the installation. Grow up.

I have to protect myself from flaming and that (removed), so... Label this message as MY OPINION.

Ryuuie
6th Jul 2009, 11:16
Not True you make an Offline account :P

Actually, that doesn't work for all games.

Keir
6th Jul 2009, 11:59
Bear with me gents and I'll ask about this again. We'll release some info on this before release, thanks for your patience :)

Acid_Burn
6th Jul 2009, 13:50
No securom: more legal customers
Securom: less legal customers

Well, it's not like that.
I just can't understand why people do not want Securom? I have 14 games with Securom and nearly 10 with Star-Force. There are no any problems with installing or playing these games.

whiston532
6th Jul 2009, 17:48
This is why I only play console games, you just put in the disc and play.

Ryuuie
6th Jul 2009, 21:52
Well, it's not like that.
I just can't understand why people do not want Securom? I have 14 games with Securom and nearly 10 with Star-Force. There are no any problems with installing or playing these games.

Because SecuROM is technically malware. There's more to SecuROM than just stopping you from stealing from the game.

If SecuROM thinks you're going to burn a disc or a CD illegally, it WILL cause your computer to screw up intentionally be it by making the disc coast or crashing the burning program. There are many cases of SecuROM doing this for absolutely no reason and for people trying to burn legit discs.

SecuROM is just bad and it's the reason why games cost so much on PC. Most of it is the crappy DRM put in.

I know Eidos is a computer gaming company but they need to listen to people who say that SecuROM creates pirates, because it TRULY does. It either will make the person go download it illegally OR they'll just lose sales on the PC.

Henke123
7th Aug 2009, 19:22
Is both SecuROM and Games For Windows Live confirmed?

I hate them both and I will not buy this game if these are included. A CD-key will provide the same protection but less trouble for those who buy it. Games are cracked with or without SecuROM, it only causes trouble to paying customers.

I understand if some people like GFWL, but why does it have to be required to play? It should be optional.

I really hope none of these stupid programs will be included/required. The Collector's Edition looks really nice, too bad I probably won't buy it because of SecuROM and GFWL.

Rockatansky
7th Aug 2009, 19:36
In my experience with Eidos games and Securom, there is no limit to the amount of times you can install. You just have to make sure that you have enough original copies to go round all your mates who have used your disk to install with.

There are a number of options for the amount of security used and that it down to the publisher/developer to sort out. Unfortunately the paranoid publishers will use all the featues and make the experience for the end user a nightmare.

Nemesis296
7th Aug 2009, 19:46
I have never really understood what all the fuss is about. Honestly, games like Spore and Bioshock use DRM/SecuROM technology, but I have never had any problems with it. :scratch: It seems like the only people that have issues with it are those that choose to download games illegally.

I in no way condone piracy, I work for a software company, and believe me I'd be pissed if people were stealing my software and cracking it so that people could rob my company...but in a way people do have some legitimate complaints about this system. DRM indirectly punishes the people who legitimately pay for the software by limiting their ability to install the software on a certain number of machines. Granted I have never had this problem because I only have 2 computers, but people who own a free copy of the game; breaking the law mind you, are getting a pass over on this tech. I guess that's how it goes with anything that you cheat or get around.

Either way, DRM/SecuROM who cares? If people would use the software the way it is intended to be used, and not download music/movies/games illegally, no one would ever have these problems. The problem is that people are too darn cheap in this world, and aren't willing to pay $50 for a product that a company has spent YEARS making to entertain people.

Henke123
7th Aug 2009, 20:01
I'll be ok with DRM-protection when it isn't malware, when it doesn't require an internet connection or a CD/DVD and when it lets me reinstall the game as many times I want without having to call support and ask for permission.

jaywalker2309
7th Aug 2009, 20:03
We've never used these install limited settings or anything like that for our protection on our previous disc based titles.

I am a firm believer in making the game as accessible as possible to those who have legally purchased the game. There is unfortunately a serious large % of people who will never purchase a game and will happily do whatever it takes to crack and circumvent the protection system and then share with others. Properly implemented protection is NOT actually intrusive but people believe the hype and therefore think `its a victimless crime` so do it.. :( its a great shame but until these people change their entire view, which to be blunt they wont, then it will never go away.

The game does use games for windows live, however people dont seem to realise you can create an offline profile so can save fine.

Nemesis296
7th Aug 2009, 20:11
We've never used these install limited settings or anything like that for our protection on our previous disc based titles.

I am a firm believer in making the game as accessible as possible to those who have legally purchased the game. There is unfortunately a serious large % of people who will never purchase a game and will happily do whatever it takes to crack and circumvent the protection system and then share with others. Properly implemented protection is NOT actually intrusive but people believe the hype and therefore think `its a victimless crime` so do it.. :( its a great shame but until these people change their entire view, which to be blunt they wont, then it will never go away.

The game does use games for windows live, however people dont seem to realise you can create an offline profile so can save fine.

That's all I need to hear. If I can get my computer to run it smoother without dropping $200 on a new video card, I might just have to buy the PC edition in addition to the PS3 version. Joker is just too awesome to ignore :)

Termix
7th Aug 2009, 20:24
We've never used these install limited settings or anything like that for our protection on our previous disc based titles.

You got the best protection for this game it's called QUALITY :p

jaywalker2309
7th Aug 2009, 20:31
You got the best protection for this game it's called QUALITY :p

Lets hope thats true. :)

Nemesis296
7th Aug 2009, 20:43
You got the best protection for this game it's called QUALITY :p

Plus, it seems like the people at Eidos aren't going to leak the source code at all, so the likelihood that this game will be cracked seem less too. Boy, the day that no one can pirate a computer game...the Internet might asplode :lmao:

trilobytegl
11th Aug 2009, 17:18
We've never used these install limited settings or anything like that for our protection on our previous disc based titles.

I am a firm believer in making the game as accessible as possible to those who have legally purchased the game. There is unfortunately a serious large % of people who will never purchase a game and will happily do whatever it takes to crack and circumvent the protection system and then share with others. Properly implemented protection is NOT actually intrusive but people believe the hype and therefore think `its a victimless crime` so do it.. :( its a great shame but until these people change their entire view, which to be blunt they wont, then it will never go away.

The game does use games for windows live, however people dont seem to realise you can create an offline profile so can save fine.

So are you saying there will be Securom DRM with online activation, but no install/activation limits? I am trying to decide whether to get this game on Steam or buy a physical copy. If it has limited installs I will get the steam version. Holding off on the pre-order until there is an answer to this. Why are you (developers) so secretive about what DRM you are going to use? If you truly felt it does not affect sales then you would PUT IT ON THE BOX and publish it with the other "Features" of the game.

Thanks.

Henke123
12th Aug 2009, 14:56
Is there going to be a disc-check? I hate it when I need to have the disc in the drive to play.

Inzane
12th Aug 2009, 22:19
One thing to consider are those without a net connection to activate. I pick up a game while overseas, I could not play it for 8 months til I got home. Stupid Steam. there are over 200000 American troops abroad. just think about these guys. Cdkey is good, disk, check is good.

Pushtrak
12th Aug 2009, 22:45
It's not SecuROM you have to worry about. It's Games for Windows - LIVE.

GfW - LIVE will mean that you MUST be online to save your game. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Is Steam not in the same boat? I honestly don't know, don't use either.

matches81
12th Aug 2009, 23:05
So.... the game is due for PC in roughly a month. After having played the demo, I'm strongly leaning towards buying the game, Collector's Edition if possible. Sadly, buying a PC game without knowing what kind of protection it uses is out of the question, since every publisher these days seems to feel the need to burn themselves once in a while and they all pick limited activations to do that. Simple question: Will Batman: Arkham Asylum use any form of limited activations?

I'm fine with online activation btw, although I think it's unnecessary and pointless and keeps people without an internet connection readily available from playing the game, but it's something I'm willing to put up with. The one thing I'm not willing to do is buying a game that limits the number of times I can install it artificially without any reason to do so.

pha
12th Aug 2009, 23:23
The game does use games for windows live, however people dont seem to realise you can create an offline profile so can save fine.

You don't seem to realize that GFWL is utter garbage, with or without offline profiles.

Rutix
13th Aug 2009, 10:50
Point with securom and all other protection stuff is that the people who buy it legally have problems with it while the people who get it through piracy dont have it since it got cracked >.>.

jaywalker2309
13th Aug 2009, 11:03
Point with securom and all other protection stuff is that the people who buy it legally have problems with it while the people who get it through piracy dont have it since it got cracked >.>.

Simply not true.. Thats a classic assumption made by people to `justify` why they pirate a game.. Theres a world of difference between the user who NEVER intends to buy the game and the ones who bought it and have a genuine issue, but DUE to the sheer simplicity for people to get hold of pirated software thanks to the internet, they just go that way.

I've always tried to ensure our copy protection implementation is as strong as can be WITHOUT causing an impact on users, and even THEN we still get people pirating cos they simple DONT LIKE paying..

Batman is a truly top class quality game, so you can guarentee the hackers will be working their little socks off to supply a version that works for the illegal community.

Lets just hope the legit users out there realise that piracy is whats killing the industry (GRIN being most recent developer going titsup), and support the game/developers by being totally legit in their usage of the game.

Reecio
13th Aug 2009, 11:06
Is Steam not in the same boat? I honestly don't know, don't use either.

You just have to go online to activate it I think, Steam can work in offline mode.

chip5541
13th Aug 2009, 11:34
Piracy is one thing that killed the Commodore Amiga.

Cirap
13th Aug 2009, 11:46
I've never had any problem with Securom

as long as it doesn't have limited number of activations I'm fine with whatever system the use

pha
13th Aug 2009, 12:05
Simply not true.. Thats a classic assumption made by people to `justify` why they pirate a game.. Theres a world of difference between the user who NEVER intends to buy the game and the ones who bought it and have a genuine issue, but DUE to the sheer simplicity for people to get hold of pirated software thanks to the internet, they just go that way.

Don't give me that nonsense. Just because I'm uncomfortable with extreme copy protection doesn't make me a pirate.

Do you know that GFWL is only officially supported in 18 countries? I don't live in one of those, but Batman will still be sold legally in my country so even if I buy the game legally I'll have to create a fake account to be able to play it and in my book it's just not worth the trouble, and it's bloody rude to be regarded as a pirate just because of my country.

You can shove your top class quality game up yours.

chip5541
13th Aug 2009, 12:11
Calm down pha. He was not calling you a pirate.

pha
13th Aug 2009, 12:19
I know he wasn't calling me anything, but please try to understand the situation. Couldn't you at least make the Steam version GFWL independent?

Henke123
13th Aug 2009, 12:26
Why only the Steam version? GFWL does not have to be removed completely, I'm sure it has some benefits.

But the fact that you are FOCED to use it really is stupid.

chip5541
13th Aug 2009, 12:48
I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately this is a new standard for PC gaming that you will see more and more of. MS has been trying to standardize PC gaming for a while and this appears to be their solution.

More than likely ever DL versions of PC games will require GFWL.

Cirap
13th Aug 2009, 12:55
so far the only good thing about GFWL is the Achievments system, and that's not even important to me

it has improved over the years, but I'd still rather get the game with no Live support than I would with it

lostsomething
13th Aug 2009, 13:38
Honestly, I've never had any issues with Securom. The only thing that might concern me at all would be install limits.

Although I would honestly prefer Steam to GFWL.

pha
13th Aug 2009, 13:48
I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately this is a new standard for PC gaming that you will see more and more of.

Last time I checked, there were many top quality games which don't use GFWL and they still sell good. Maybe their publishers are not aware of this "new standard". :rolleyes:

It's really sad to blame Microsoft for the inability to find a reasonable, hassle free copy protection method to prevent piracy which works throughout the world.

matches81
13th Aug 2009, 14:38
About SecuROM:
Well, SecuROM is well known to have issues with several other legal applications on a user's system. That's one of the things I don't like about modern copy protection: Some of the systems try to tell the user what he can and what he can't have installed on his machine, even if it doesn't have anything to do with the game itself. I can see why they do it: No drive emulators installed on the system, for example, simply means that the copy protection doesn't have to deal with them properly. Good for them.
It's just that I disagree with the idea of telling a user that he can't have Nero (another legal piece of software) installed if he wants to play your game. Requiring a user to install several libraries etc that your piece of software needs is fine, there's no way around that, but requiring a user to abandon some functionality of his system is just not an option.

About GfWL:
Right now, there's a lot of discussion around that. One of the things I don't like is that it rarely replaces other third party online communities, but is just added on top. See Dawn of War, Empire: Total War etc etc: Steam and GfWL. Two things that provide essentially the same service to users. Why do I have to have both, exactly? Because MS is pushing GfWL? Hmm... there are enough games that do fine without giving in to MS's ideas. The other way around: Why require Steam for a game that uses GfWL anyway?
Now, Batman isn't fully affected by this, since only the Steam version will require Steam (at least AFAIK), but it still begs the question whether GfWL is really "necessary" for a current PC game. AFAIK Batman doesn't have a multiplayer mode... so... achievements aside, there is no reason to use GfWL at all. And if you really need achievements: Steam provides an equivalent.... since you're providing a Steam version of the game anyway: Why not just use Steam for all versions?


And finally:
Saying that Eidos never used limited activations isn't that useful... Take 2 / 2K never used them until Bioshock. EA never used them before Spore (I think... or was it Mass Effect?), Ubisoft only recently started using them... saying you haven't done it in the past doesn't mean you might not end up trying it.
So: Will there ever be an official statement detailing the copy protection / DRM for Batman: AA prior to release or should I just get the idea of preordering the game out of my head?

chip5541
13th Aug 2009, 14:38
True but then again the list is growing.

More info: http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-us/index.aspx

I suppose they could always go with dongles but god help you if you lose it.

Henke123
13th Aug 2009, 14:38
Is the DLC's for this game going to be released in any other way than through GFWL?

pha
13th Aug 2009, 14:51
True but then again the list is growing.

Woohooooo!!!

Seriously, am I supposed to be relieved? Can you guarantee that my country will soon (or ever) be in that list?

Why should I wait (who knows how long) for Microsoft to expand their service to my country, when there is a readily available system (Steam) which already works in the whole world, and accepts credit cards from everywhere, and provides similar "copy protection"?

Steam version of Batman: AA should not use GFWL. Please consider this.

RedHoodSecondSon
13th Aug 2009, 15:15
Simply not true.. Thats a classic assumption made by people to `justify` why they pirate a game.. Theres a world of difference between the user who NEVER intends to buy the game and the ones who bought it and have a genuine issue, but DUE to the sheer simplicity for people to get hold of pirated software thanks to the internet, they just go that way.

I've always tried to ensure our copy protection implementation is as strong as can be WITHOUT causing an impact on users, and even THEN we still get people pirating cos they simple DONT LIKE paying..

Batman is a truly top class quality game, so you can guarentee the hackers will be working their little socks off to supply a version that works for the illegal community.

Lets just hope the legit users out there realise that piracy is whats killing the industry (GRIN being most recent developer going titsup), and support the game/developers by being totally legit in their usage of the game.


just a quick question as regaurds piracy, lets say for arguements sake that someone Let's Call them Person A brought a copy of Batman legitly from the store on Pc and for some unforseen circumstance the legit copy did not work, if Person A decided to pirate said game, would the thought police be unable to cart him off to the Ministry of love? As he has already given Edios his moolah?

pha
13th Aug 2009, 15:19
Never happened to me but don't you have a right to demand another copy in those situations?

kianbung
13th Aug 2009, 15:28
...so... why are we not using Steam instead of GfWL anyway?

Henke123
13th Aug 2009, 15:38
...so... why are we not using Steam instead of GfWL anyway?Neither should be required, both could be optional.

webz14
13th Aug 2009, 15:42
wats securom????????????????

Henke123
13th Aug 2009, 15:49
wats securom????????????????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM

procrastinator
13th Aug 2009, 17:05
just a quick question as regaurds piracy, lets say for arguements sake that someone Let's Call them Person A brought a copy of Batman legitly from the store on Pc and for some unforseen circumstance the legit copy did not work, if Person A decided to pirate said game, would the thought police be unable to cart him off to the Ministry of love? As he has already given Edios his moolah?

I dont know about actually downloading the game, but in order to play the downloaded game you'd have to circumvent the copy protection systems, which is definitely illegal in America (DMCA) and questionable in the UK/EU.

lostsomething
13th Aug 2009, 18:26
About SecuROM:
Well, SecuROM is well known to have issues with several other legal applications on a user's system. That's one of the things I don't like about modern copy protection: Some of the systems try to tell the user what he can and what he can't have installed on his machine, even if it doesn't have anything to do with the game itself. I can see why they do it: No drive emulators installed on the system, for example, simply means that the copy protection doesn't have to deal with them properly. Good for them.
It's just that I disagree with the idea of telling a user that he can't have Nero (another legal piece of software) installed if he wants to play your game. Requiring a user to install several libraries etc that your piece of software needs is fine, there's no way around that, but requiring a user to abandon some functionality of his system is just not an option.

I've got Nero. Never been an issue.

y8ndel
13th Aug 2009, 18:45
thank you

matches81
14th Aug 2009, 08:36
I've got Nero. Never been an issue.
Well... it has been for me in the past. SecuROM regularly told me that I was running Daemon Tools or any other drive emulation software (including the one Nero comes with) and that it wouldn't start the game. Same can happen if you have, for example, SysInternals Process Explorer running on your system. Thanks, but that's just a bad joke?

I quote Wikipedia:

Known problems

Under Windows Vista, SecuROM will prevent the game from running if Explicit Congestion Notification is enabled in Vista's networking configuration.[3]

Disk Drive emulator and some debugging software will also cause the launch of the game to fail and a security module error to be generated.[4] In fact a reboot of the entire system was required if Process Explorer prior to version 11 was used before an attempt to run the protected software. That problem was caused by a driver that was kept in memory after Process Explorer was closed.[5]

So, while Nero and SecuROM may not have given you problems in the past, it's still a fact that SecuROM isn't exactly the most "polite" piece of software around, refusing to start the software it's protecting for several reasons that normally shouldn't be an issue.

jaywalker2309
14th Aug 2009, 11:24
Process explorer is a tool that views inside `processes` running on your machine. So its kind of understandable that a copy protection system that runs a `process` wouldnt want its exact process to be viewable or pirates would just watch it, and crack around it.

CameO73
14th Aug 2009, 11:48
I have a love-hate relationship with SecuROM. When it works, I absolutely love online activation. The need for a disc in the drive is incredibly annoying, since I play a lot of different games at a time. Playing disc-jockey is not one of my favorite activities.

But I do hate limited activations. I can see the business point of view for it, but it really gets in my way. I don't reinstall my O/S very often, but when I do I don't want to do the whole "revoke every game on your PC"-dance.

And recently I had a serious PC crash, so revoking wasn't even an option. Now I have to find some way to activate Bionic Commando: Rearmed (which -to my surprise- had limited activations). SecuROM couldn't help me ("We are not allowed to increase your additional activations"), so now it's up to my publisher (Capcom). I'm curious how this will turn out.

Maxx_Fire
14th Aug 2009, 12:58
Now I have to find some way to activate Bionic Commando: Rearmed (which -to my surprise- had limited activations). SecuROM couldn't help me ("We are not allowed to increase your additional activations"), so now it's up to my publisher (Capcom). I'm curious how this will turn out.

I realise this is off-topic but why would the publisher help you with this? The Direct2Drive version's support website shows you, with pictures, to use Securom for activations. I'd suggest getting back in touch with them.

---
Just an afterthought, are you sure you don't have the Gamersgate version? This doesn't use Securom...

*ontopic* been using Securom protected games for years without any problems other than a few scratched up discs not being read correctly by the disc check but I admit this as my fault. The alternative protections out there have given me some headaches in the past, especially as few of them have dedicated support you can contact.

For me it will be the Steam version, I love to see all my games in a big list and some of the weekend/holiday deals via Steam are brilliant! xD

Pushtrak
14th Aug 2009, 13:55
Process explorer is a tool that views inside `processes` running on your machine. So its kind of understandable that a copy protection system that runs a `process` wouldnt want its exact process to be viewable or pirates would just watch it, and crack around it.
Careful. Logic rarely works on the internet.

CameO73
14th Aug 2009, 15:20
I realise this is off-topic but why would the publisher help you with this? The Direct2Drive version's support website shows you, with pictures, to use Securom for activations. I'd suggest getting back in touch with them.

Just an afterthought, are you sure you don't have the Gamersgate version? This doesn't use Securom...

I went to the publisher on SecuROM's request. But (as you suspected) they couldn't help me. I am using the Gamersgate version, and I definitely see a SecuROM activation afterwards.

Anyway, I won't hijack this thread any further with more talk about my problems, but add one more nugget of insight into SecuROM:

If it stops you as a legitimate customer, it really sucks all the excitement out of the game. I really wanted to play Bionic Commando: Rearmed (again), but after all this crap (I'm now waiting for a reply on my 3rd e-mail), I really don't care that much anymore.

The best way would be to use value added protection, as Gabe Newell (from Valve) once said. That way you -as a customer- feel appreciated, instead of having to jump through hoops to get it to work.

matches81
18th Aug 2009, 16:31
Process explorer is a tool that views inside `processes` running on your machine. So its kind of understandable that a copy protection system that runs a `process` wouldnt want its exact process to be viewable or pirates would just watch it, and crack around it.
Of course it's understandable developers don't like people spying on their product.... but the truth is: If somebody wants to spy on a piece of software bought and running on his machine and that guy is able, he will do so... especially seeing as SecuROM ends up being cracked anyway and there are probably quite a few other tools that fulfill the exact same functionality as SysInternal's Process Explorer and aren't blocked by SecuROM.
In the end, developers have to deal with the risk that some able guys will spy on the software they've released... that's even harder to prevent than piracy.... although it doesn't get any harder than impossible.

My point was: These tools, just as drive emulators, are legal software. Of course, they can be used for illegal purposes, just almost everything else in the world. If someone does use them for illegal purposes, punish them for that. Don't punish all the users that simply use those things the way they were meant to be used. You don't just incarcerate everybody with a kitchen knife because they could use it for murder.

Inzane
18th Aug 2009, 16:57
Lets just hope the legit users out there realise that piracy is whats killing the industry (GRIN being most recent developer going titsup), and support the game/developers by being totally legit in their usage of the game.

Grin Went tits up because they where not good developers! they where just the cheapest on the block to develope titles. They ruined Ghostrecon and lost the following of millions of loyal fans, Than released a farce called Bionic Commando, AND the final straw was alpha they released called Terminator Salvation. It was fail after fail. just because they a cheap does not mean they should develope these games.As a former GhostRecon fan I am so happy they are done. maybe Redstorm will get off their butts and develope for the pc again. they went under because people refused to give them money for crappy unfinished games.or does Grin have their heads so far up their butts they can't see the quailty was never there. there is no patch in the world to fix "suck"

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 04:40
Sorry Mr. Inside Man, but no matter what PR lies you try to spin, putting SecuROM on the product cripples it (and from what others say, your system as well).

SecuROM goes with the mentality that users don't own the game, they're merely "renting" the ability to play it from you. Activation limits and online activation enforce this. Even if, as you claim, there are no activation limits, the online activation still keeps users from actually owning the game because at any point in time you can remove the game from your servers and then users cannot install / play the game anymore.

As someone who reformats about once a year, any game with an activation limit is a game I will not purchase. Since I also like to replay old games several years after it comes out, any game that requires me to rely on a company still being in business / the game still being on their servers for me to install and play it is a game I will not purchase.

I've played the demo for Batman:Arkham Asylum and loved it - I was so excited to get the game in September......until I found out that you're crippling the game. Now I will do either one of two things - either I will not buy the game at all or I will not buy it until I've found out that someone has gotten around SecuROM on B:AA and then I will buy the game legitimately and then download what is needed to get around SecuROM / pirate a copy that isn't crippled.

As for your claims that "piracy is what's killing the industry", that is a lie. The fact that most developers make garbage for games and then trying to sell them for $60 is what's killing the industry. Now we have companies crippling their product (with things like SecuROM and GfWL) shooting themselves in the foot. People got fed up with DRM with music and now all the major music stores are DRM free - eventually people will get pissed off enough over game companies crippling their products that you will be forced to remove things like SecuROM too.

Go back to the good old fashioned CD-key! It worked about as well as everything AND it didn't turn away customers.

Kettels
27th Aug 2009, 05:13
"piracy is killing the industry", in some ways this is true but putting more restrictions on people that actually buy the game isn't the way to stop it, its making it worse. Securom is just an annoyance for people who actually buy the game. But i guess after the amazing success spore had with it why not, its not like it will drastically increase the amount of people that pirate the game. I've already pre-ordered the CE but if it does have securom i might have to do what totenglocke suggested so i dont lose 1/3rd of the installations for deciding to update to windows 7.

jaywalker2309
27th Aug 2009, 09:02
This debate will never `end` or be resolved until attitudes change to piracy and the feeling its a victimless crime, or a solution is found that is mutually acceptable for all.

Unless you are directly involved with things people make assumptions, things like `they were a crap developer so no loss` really get my goat, regardless of personal opinions on the games, thats someones job gone.

I would REALLY love people who think its victimless and not a cause to get a job in the industry, slave over a title for a couple of years, market it, ship it then sit on a forum and watch people go on about stealing it and piracy.. You ALL would have a very different attitude if this was going to directly affect you personally.

I've done everything i can to ensure that all our titles are as stress free but as SECURE as can make them. I dont LIKE limited installs or things like that so i dont use them.

If people could think of a perfect solution that protects our IP/revenue but ensures consumers arent `compelled` to pirate it, then please suggest away.

CD keys are great i agree, used to love old games that had manuals with key words within it used by the game etc. However this then became the thing people just photocopied and then distributed for free, so cut the revenue stream. So yes good for consumers flawed for developer/publisher. next solution?

An-Anonymous
27th Aug 2009, 11:08
Is there any SecuROM game which has not been pirated? Do you really think this kind of petty software can stop piracy when so many people buys them? When I had to use a crack with my legally bought Mass Effect, I understood that we're the ones getting punished, not pirates.

BTW, I don't think piracy is killing PC gaming. Take X360 for example, if piracy would kill gaming, devs wouldn't make games for 360 anymore.

Henke123
27th Aug 2009, 11:11
Something like this could work.
http://www.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=1100000622

My internet bank uses a similar thing and it works very well, its not more hassle than a CD-Key and you can't post it on the internet for everyone to use.

Myrkul
27th Aug 2009, 12:28
I don't have a problems with secure-rom or GFWL. the companies have to protect thier products which they have invested years making, I don't like limited activations but as said this game will not have any.

On the side note piracy isn't something we we probably ever get rid of, while it may or may not be hurting the industry, it is hurting us the consumers as we have to pay extra to make up lost revanue for others to play for less and so making our games more expensive.

GFWL I belive was designed with the concept of standardizing and allowing cross-platform play which would be great if I could play my friends on xbox etc could be mistaken but thats what i think i was designed for, not that I'm sure how to do that?

I do have a question however, i read earlier that secure-rom may have problems with process emulators or debuging programs, while i dont have the former i am currently doing a home programming course and have debuging software on my computer as im styding Visual basic, would this cause any problems?

I got the game pre-ordered for the cool armoured suite from play. I'd love to play but need to know if i have to cancel as removing my course wouldn't be an option.

Regards Myrkul

Myrkul
27th Aug 2009, 12:55
Unless you are directly involved with things people make assumptions, things like `they were a crap developer so no loss` really get my goat, regardless of personal opinions on the games, thats someones job gone.



Yes, it is sad for people to lose thier jobs but it's also sad for the millions of poeple who invested thier hard earned cash into something they where exiceted about and found out was crap.

The last one I bought was Dead Space for the PC went out and got it, installed it then screamed and it over the horrible controls then spent 2 hours searching online for a way of fixing them before throwing the game across the room in disgust, Great waiste of £30, I will rember that for quite some time Activision.

I dont want to see anyone losing thier jobs but people hate paying thier hard earned money for poor quality games and do tend to remember when thier cash is waisted and also sad for them to see series they had grown to like to go downhill.

I Apologuise for this been a little off-topic but felt it was relavant to the point that you made.

Regards Myrkul

jaywalker2309
27th Aug 2009, 13:40
Its a chicken/Egg problem, the cost of making games aint coming down thats for certain, and development has to be paid for. The publisher/developer pays up front and needs people buying their product afterwards to make the money back so they can stay afloat to make the next game. If people pirate it then developer/publisher doesnt get money back so cant afford to make update or keep staff on etc, catch 22.. we've already paid out to make the game, without that payment there wouldnt be a game in first place.

If people bought the game without pirating at all then the theory goes that prices could drop as no need to cover costs by those that DO pay... so legal owners of software are having to subsidise the pirated versions.

Its like car insurance, in a way, its costs more as we have pay for the losses and damages paid out to un-insured drivers..

Properly implemented copy protection should be totally transparent to the consumer. As i keep saying thats what we AIM for..

Myrkul
27th Aug 2009, 13:48
Thats fair enough I do understand the problem, but will thier be any problem between secure-rom and my debuging software?

Regards Myrkul

jaywalker2309
27th Aug 2009, 13:52
Thats fair enough I do understand the problem, but will thier be any problem between secure-rom and my debuging software?

Regards Myrkul

ahh sorry missed your post..

Shouldnt interfere.. The debugging tools that cause issues are ones designed to be watching everything.. Most debugging software is ran aimed at a particular exe at the time, and the hooks from the debugging software dont touch our game.

Myrkul
27th Aug 2009, 14:01
No problems and thank you, can't wait for it to come out on pc.

Regards Myrkul

josephfelice
27th Aug 2009, 15:23
Funny how securom won't stop people from pirating the game, securom is ****. Hackers/crackers whatever they're called always beat the security put on games anyways. So, in some ways I agree that securom keeps people away from games. I have dead space, and It pisses me off personally that I need to have an internet connection to install the freaking game. :mad2:

So wait!!! Developers pay money for securom yet it doesn't even work because the security still gets broken and cracked. I don't condone piracy at all, its messed up people lose money from a game they worked hard for us to enjoy, but I don't agree with some of the securom out their that requires an internet connection.

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 15:58
"I would REALLY love people who think its victimless and not a cause to get a job in the industry, slave over a title for a couple of years, market it, ship it then sit on a forum and watch people go on about stealing it and piracy.. You ALL would have a very different attitude if this was going to directly affect you personally."

Actually, it IS a victimless crime. I'm not a pirate, but if John has no intention of buying B:AA and pirates it, you would not have gotten any money from him either way. This argument is total BS and is companies delusioning themselves into thinking that because they make a game, people are obligated to purchase it. So if I decide not to buy a crippled game and don't pirate it either (which I don't plan to pirate it), according to your argument I'm causing someone to lose their job. No, it's the idiot companies crippling their products and causing customers to NOT buy the product that is causing people to lose their jobs.

Also, if you make a good game, it doesn't matter if people pirate it, many more people will buy it because it's good and want to support the company. Look at Blizzard for example - their games have been pirated to hell and back and they STILL have more money than god!


"So yes good for consumers flawed for developer/publisher. next solution? "

I LOVED this line. You openly admit that you want to screw your customers. Fan-freaking-tastic. By saying that, you assured that I will NOT be buying a game from Eidos, ever again. I will encourage my friends to do the same.


"If people bought the game without pirating at all then the theory goes that prices could drop as no need to cover costs by those that DO pay... so legal owners of software are having to subsidise the pirated versions."

*cough*BS*cough* Game prices have barely changed in 20 years. If piracy was making the cost of making GOOD games go up, prices would've gone up. They haven't even adjusted for inflation, let alone had the mythical costs of piracy added in.

I'll explain this in very small words to make sure you get the point. Piracy of digital goods (movies, games, music) doesn't cost anyone a penny. Pirates are people who wouldn't spend the money on it to begin with, so you wouldn't receive their money even if piracy didn't exist. Also, there are countless times where someone tries a pirated song / movie / game that a friend downloaded and says "wow, this is great! I think I'll buy it" and then the company makes MORE money.

You've already seen how pissed off people have gotten by other companies who used SecuROM to screw their customers (there's a class action lawsuit against EA right now) - why would you be stupid enough to piss off your customers and risk lawsuits on top of losing sales?

Nemesis296
27th Aug 2009, 16:27
Actually, it IS a victimless crime. I'm not a pirate, but if John has no intention of buying B:AA and pirates it, you would not have gotten any money from him either way. This argument is total BS and is companies delusioning themselves into thinking that because they make a game, people are obligated to purchase it. So if I decide not to buy a crippled game and don't pirate it either (which I don't plan to pirate it), according to your argument I'm causing someone to lose their job. No, it's the idiot companies crippling their products and causing customers to NOT buy the product that is causing people to lose their jobs.

Also, if you make a good game, it doesn't matter if people pirate it, many more people will buy it because it's good and want to support the company. Look at Blizzard for example - their games have been pirated to hell and back and they STILL have more money than god!



I LOVED this line. You openly admit that you want to screw your customers. Fan-freaking-tastic. By saying that, you assured that I will NOT be buying a game from Eidos, ever again. I will encourage my friends to do the same.


*cough*BS*cough* Game prices have barely changed in 20 years. If piracy was making the cost of making GOOD games go up, prices would've gone up. They haven't even adjusted for inflation, let alone had the mythical costs of piracy added in.

I'll explain this in very small words to make sure you get the point. Piracy of digital goods (movies, games, music) doesn't cost anyone a penny. Pirates are people who wouldn't spend the money on it to begin with, so you wouldn't receive their money even if piracy didn't exist. Also, there are countless times where someone tries a pirated song / movie / game that a friend downloaded and says "wow, this is great! I think I'll buy it" and then the company makes MORE money.

You've already seen how pissed off people have gotten by other companies who used SecuROM to screw their customers (there's a class action lawsuit against EA right now) - why would you be stupid enough to piss off your customers and risk lawsuits on top of losing sales?

Where did an Eidos moderator say that line? I can't find it anywhere.

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 16:34
Where did an Eidos moderator say that line? I can't find it anywhere.

Posts #80 and #85 on this thread.

Nemesis296
27th Aug 2009, 16:52
Posts #80 and #85 on this thread.

Thanks. But I don't understand how that shows they want to screw their customers? Maybe I'm transparent here, but I don't get what all the fuss is about. I have installed games with DRM, and SecuROM and I have had NO problems whatsoever. I don't pirate software, so my hardware works fine. I don't commit illegal acts and such, so I'm not sure I understand how you're so upset about this, to the point where you aren't going to buy the game.

Besides...all things aside, you aren't actually buying the game EVER. You are actually buying the ability to use the source code in the manner that it was designed. Reverse engineering stuff is against the EULA that you agree to when you install it. As a software developer, my company may give people software, but it's licensed and registered either way. It's still the company's software regardless of who is paying for it.

Games are just a strange area of software that most people lose sight of because they are so hung up on "getting their money's worth". Buy the game, have fun with it, and don't worry about the protection that the company is putting on it to cover their own butt from the ever-growing threat of piracy. Jay is 100% right. If I found out that people were stealing my software, I would be PISSED. The safeguards put in place are there to cut down on the problem. If they were to all of a sudden rescend those safeguards after one person leaked the game, that wouldn't help the problem at all, we'd be right back where we were. It will only be a matter of time before the Internet is monitored like our phone lines, and the FBI will start charging people for pirating software. My suggestion: get over it. Honestly, either pay the money to play the game, or don't. And I don't really understand how it's screwing you over personally. I only have 1 computer that I can even RUN the damn game on, so having limited installs isn't going to affect me at all. Maybe that's just me, but that part of the argument never makes any sense to me. /end rant

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 17:00
Maybe I'm transparent here, but I don't get what all the fuss is about. I have installed games with DRM, and SecuROM and I have had NO problems whatsoever.

First off, there are many people who have issues with SecuROM (due to having Nero or some other perfectly normal software installed). Secondly, the problem with DRM is that while the game may run fine NOW, if you buy a new computer / reformat it you may end up unable to play the game (without a huge hassle) due to activation restrictions AND your ability to play the game hinges on the company still being around / still supporting the game in the future.

As much as I prefer PC gaming to consoles, at least with a console if I buy a game, as long as my console is funtional, I can always play the game, even 100 years from now. With DRM in pc games, you can buy a game, 6 months later the company goes bankrupt for whatever reason, and then you can never again install that game because their servers no longer exist.

The company may own the source code to a game, but you have the right to re-install it on your computer as many times as you want - DRM (often, but not always) prevents this. You also have the right to install the game at any point in time that you so choose and play it (if it's a single player game, obviously online only games are an exception) - DRM means that you can only install the game and play it if the company chooses to let you, even though you legally purchased the copy of the game.

If it's 20 years from now and I think "Hey, remember Batman:Akham Asylum? That really was a great game, I should dig that out and install it", I have every right to do that. By putting DRM on the game, Eidos is taking that right away from me. As such, Eidos will not be getting my money.

Nemesis296
27th Aug 2009, 17:17
First off, there are many people who have issues with SecuROM (due to having Nero or some other perfectly normal software installed). Secondly, the problem with DRM is that while the game may run fine NOW, if you buy a new computer / reformat it you may end up unable to play the game (without a huge hassle) due to activation restrictions AND your ability to play the game hinges on the company still being around / still supporting the game in the future.

As much as I prefer PC gaming to consoles, at least with a console if I buy a game, as long as my console is funtional, I can always play the game, even 100 years from now. With DRM in pc games, you can buy a game, 6 months later the company goes bankrupt for whatever reason, and then you can never again install that game because their servers no longer exist.

The company may own the source code to a game, but you have the right to re-install it on your computer as many times as you want - DRM (often, but not always) prevents this. You also have the right to install the game at any point in time that you so choose and play it (if it's a single player game, obviously online only games are an exception) - DRM means that you can only install the game and play it if the company chooses to let you, even though you legally purchased the copy of the game.

If it's 20 years from now and I think "Hey, remember Batman:Akham Asylum? That really was a great game, I should dig that out and install it", I have every right to do that. By putting DRM on the game, Eidos is taking that right away from me. As such, Eidos will not be getting my money.

Okay, well I've never heard of anyone I know having problems with it.

Why is it not the company's right to say who can play their game? It's just like with an online only game (I know you said they are the exception), but if the servers are down, you can't play. Why can't single player games be like that too? It's just like if you try and run a DOS 4.2 game on Windows Vista, it cannot be done unless you use an "illegal" emulator to run the program. If the company wouldn't support the game anymore, why can't they say "We don't want anyone to play it anymore." It honestly sounds like you think that when you pay $50 for a computer game, you are buying the right to use it however you please, which is not the case. Yes you are buying the right to install it, but at the company's terms. If you ended up running out of installs, I'm sure that if the company were still around they would allow you to install it again.

All that aside though, you still never are actually buying the game. By the way, your console isn't impervious to this either. Region locks will prevent games you own from working in different countries.

Are you really telling me because there's a chance you can't play this game in 20 years because of the company disabling your ability to install it, you aren't going to buy it and enjoy it right now? You mean you'd rather buy 2 Blu-ray movies and get less than a 1/4 of the entertainment value? Be my guest. I'll be busy being Batman though, of that I can guarantee....for many years to come. Maybe not 20, or 10, but at least long enough to get a thorough enjoyment out of the game.

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 17:34
It's just like if you try and run a DOS 4.2 game on Windows Vista, it cannot be done unless you use an "illegal" emulator to run the program.

Actually, DOSbox is totally legal. Also, you could still have an older DOS computer around. This would be like you having an older DOS computer around then Eidos sending in some guys to smash it with a baseball bat to make sure you don't play the game.


It honestly sounds like you think that when you pay $50 for a computer game, you are buying the right to use it however you please, which is not the case.

As long as you're not doing anything illegal with it, that is EXACTLY the right you do have. It wasn't until the last few years that companies started thinking that you don't actually own what you buy. It's amazing that people like you think you have no rights and that it's perfectly ok for a company to take your money and be able to say "f-you, you get nothing" at any time.


By the way, your console isn't impervious to this either. Region locks will prevent games you own from working in different countries.

Region locks are totally different. As long as you buy for the region your console is from, you can always play it.


If you ended up running out of installs, I'm sure that if the company were still around they would allow you to install it again.

Why should I have to call Eidos and say "pleeeeeeeeeeease let me use the game I paid you $60 for? Please?!" -- that's utter BS. If I want to install my game that I bought, I get to install it. By Eidos selling me the game, that's them giving me permission to install it. They don't get to control whether I install it while online or offline, or how often I'm allowed to upgrade my computer.


Are you really telling me because there's a chance you can't play this game in 20 years because of the company disabling your ability to install it, you aren't going to buy it and enjoy it right now?

There's a good chance, yes. Why? Because unless you want things to get even worse with Digital Restrictions Management, you have to boycott products that use it. EA is currently being sued by a lot of people because they put the same crap in a game that Eidos is going to put in this game. Despite what companies and the government tell you, you DO have rights.

The only way I'd consider buying this game is if I knew for sure that I had a hack that would get rid of the DRM. Even then, it's total crap that I should have to take all that extra time and effort to use a game that I PAID for. Or my other option is to go out and spend several hundred dollars more on a console to play the game on. Sadly, pirates have it better these days......

Nemesis296
27th Aug 2009, 17:41
Wow, you really have some good points. I'm giving you props for not turning this into a flame war too. :thumb: By the way, it's called Digital Rights Management.

And the EA lawsuit was over the fact that SecuROM was installed without the customer's knowledge. They had no disclaimer or a dialog saying "You will be installing this on your machine by choosing to install this product." That's what the lawsuit was over. The DRM thing was lifted, as you can now install it on unlimited machines, but you have to log into an account that is run by EA. I have Spore...and I was there where the DRM thing was originally an issue. I just never personally experienced all of that hassle :)

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 17:47
By the way, it's called Digital Rights Management.

I'm aware of the bogus name they gave it, but since DRM only exists to restrict users ability to use what they paid for, I used the term Digital Restrictions Management.

I realize that as time goes by, more and more companies will join the DRM bandwagon (sadly even Blizzard is putting DRM on Starcraft 2). I guess it's time to finally stop buying games now.

Nemesis296
27th Aug 2009, 17:57
I guess it's time to finally stop buying games now.

I think you're just taking it a little too extreme. I understand how you don't want the company telling you when you can and can't install the game, but I mean, are you saying it's not worth $50 to enjoy the game for what it's worth for a few years? Besides, in 2020, when some super awesome new computer/game console transporter phaser death ray microwaveable pizza maker mouse pad controller (:scratch:) comes out, Windows games probably won't even run :p

Choice is yours ultimately, and obviously, but I think if you choose to run away from this one, you'll be missing out on what could possibly be the greatest video game of all time. I've played the PS3 version for a few hours and it's just awesome.

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 18:01
are you saying it's not worth $50 to enjoy the game for what it's worth for a few years?

Yes, $50 for what amounts to a rental is too much. If they want to insist on making it so that you cannot own the game you pay for and are merely renting the ability to play it, then they need to charge rental prices. If I can go in to a game store and rent a game for $5, then that's what I want to see at Best Buy and other stores if they insist on this DRM crap.

Would you walk in to Blockbuster and pay $50 to rent a game? I highly doubt you would.

There's a reason I only buy a couple of games a year now - because most games out there just aren't very good. Now even the games that ARE good are getting crippleware put on them and the companies are rigging it so that they can revoke my right to use the game I paid for at any time.

Hopefully this garbage is just a phase....

lostsomething
27th Aug 2009, 20:41
Yes, $50 for what amounts to a rental is too much. If they want to insist on making it so that you cannot own the game you pay for and are merely renting the ability to play it, then they need to charge rental prices. If I can go in to a game store and rent a game for $5, then that's what I want to see at Best Buy and other stores if they insist on this DRM crap.

Would you walk in to Blockbuster and pay $50 to rent a game? I highly doubt you would.

There's a reason I only buy a couple of games a year now - because most games out there just aren't very good. Now even the games that ARE good are getting crippleware put on them and the companies are rigging it so that they can revoke my right to use the game I paid for at any time.

Hopefully this garbage is just a phase....

If Blockbuster charges you $5 for three days and we presume Eidos will still be around for another year you're getting a quite good deal.

I've never had issues with Securom and Nero not getting along together either.

matches81
27th Aug 2009, 21:23
I'm still waiting for a simple and clear statement about limited installations for B:AA... still haven't preordered the PC CE of the game, because I want to know this before I do.
I want to support this game, I like how the port was done (judging by the demo) and I'm willing to live with SecuROM, if it doesn't use the limited installation "feature". But I won't buy until I know for sure how B:AA will be protected.


I would REALLY love people who think its victimless and not a cause to get a job in the industry, slave over a title for a couple of years, market it, ship it then sit on a forum and watch people go on about stealing it and piracy.. You ALL would have a very different attitude if this was going to directly affect you personally.
Sorry to dig this "old" post up again, but:
It really pisses me off how game developers somehow still think they're so special. I played (until a few weeks ago) in a small band. We invested a lot of our time and money into our music, and finally released two demos and an album. Guess what? The album soon enough appeared on common filesharing sources. There is nothing we can do about it and it's a good way to get word of mouth out there. Other than that: We can't force people to buy our music, nor can we protect our music in a way that actually works. What can we do? At least offer the same quality product + X (in our case a CD, case, booklet with artwork etc) for the people who are willing to buy it. Of course I know that the budget for a game like B:AA exceeds ours by far... then again, there are parallels between the two and I assume you can see that, too. The scale may be different, but the basic problem remains the same.

There is currently no way to stop or even hamper piracy. Every single damn game out there is cracked and freely available and one or two weeks after release without a crack isn't really hampering, IMO. Yet, game developers continue to annoy their customers with limited installations and copy protection methods that have a chance of screwing with the system, giving false positives (had that with my last DVD drive and SecuROM) and overall are simply an annoyance. The result of this is a simple travesty: The pirated version of a game is often the better version. How, in a sensible and understandable way, is this supposed to stop piracy? You're encouraging people to get the pirated version because it's less cumbersome and the original doesn't offer anything to make up for that (most games these days don't even come with something one could honestly describe as a manual).
In the end game developers are offering a product. Pirates currently often offer the better version of your product.


If people could think of a perfect solution that protects our IP/revenue but ensures consumers arent `compelled` to pirate it, then please suggest away.
There is no such solution. Heck, there isn't even a solution to protect your IP / revenue without caring about your customers. That's still no reason to use a copy protection that doesn't work and annoys your customers, is it?

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 21:54
If Blockbuster charges you $5 for three days and we presume Eidos will still be around for another year you're getting a quite good deal.


Except Blockbuster tells you flat out and honestly "you only get to play this game for X amount of time". Companies using DRM on their games are pretending like you have the game forever but secretly have the ability to turn your game into a useless hunk of plastic at any moment they choose, without warning.

lostsomething
27th Aug 2009, 22:55
... Guess what? The album soon enough appeared on common filesharing sources. There is nothing we can do about it and it's a good way to get word of mouth out there.

Positive word of mouth is a nice thing but given the source is it going to result in more sales or more piracy? I mean the guy talking to you about how this game *totally rocks* can just as easily tell you about how you can get it *totally for free, dude!*.


The scale may be different, but the basic problem remains the same.

There are additional kinks. The pirates are happy to flood your servers,
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/04/demigod_18000_customers_100000_pirates-2/

and call you up demanding technical support.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/


There is currently no way to stop or even hamper piracy. Every single damn game out there is cracked and freely available and one or two weeks after release without a crack isn't really hampering, IMO. Yet, game developers continue to annoy their customers with limited installations and copy protection methods that have a chance of screwing with the system, giving false positives (had that with my last DVD drive and SecuROM) and overall are simply an annoyance.

There's a trend that most of the sales of a title occur within the first few weeks of its release and a theory that people will tend to go for whatever avenue is most immediately available in getting a new title. If Securom only works for a week in the eyes of developers, it's worth it. If all it does is prevent a leaked copy of the game from being cracked prior to the retail release it's probably still worth it.

It also has its use in preventing simple, casual "Hey, can I borrow that game to install it on my computer?" level piracy of the game. Disc-checks do too, of course, but I honestly prefer Securom to playing find-the-game-disc.


Except Blockbuster tells you flat out and honestly "you only get to play this game for X amount of time". Companies using DRM on their games are pretending like you have the game forever but secretly have the ability to turn your game into a useless hunk of plastic at any moment they choose, without warning.

Yeah, but it won't do you much good once you find out that your electricty's stopped working because the Big Red Button was pushed and the intense radiation blast caused the squrrils to mutate and they went at the brains of everyone at the power plant and now you can't play your game any more because zombies aren't very good at performing routine maitnance. Oh, and there are feral ghouls pounding on your front door.

I mean, in the end-of-the-world type scenarios Securom's still better than Steam where every game you've bought through or that uses the services has the potential to immediately become unplayable if something were to happen that forced Valve to shut their doors.

Totenglocke
27th Aug 2009, 23:35
I mean, in the end-of-the-world type scenarios Securom's still better than Steam where every game you've bought through or that uses the services has the potential to immediately become unplayable if something were to happen that forced Valve to shut their doors.

And you know what's better than both? Not having a company rape you with DRM for being foolish enough to pay money for their product.

BTW Eidos, I had several friends who were really excited to buy Batman: Arkham Asylum - but after I told them that SecuROM was on it, they changed their minds.

Kettels
28th Aug 2009, 01:13
There's a trend that most of the sales of a title occur within the first few weeks of its release and a theory that people will tend to go for whatever avenue is most immediately available in getting a new title. If Securom only works for a week in the eyes of developers, it's worth it. If all it does is prevent a leaked copy of the game from being cracked prior to the retail release it's probably still worth it.

if it lasts a week, and thats a big if. look at spore that was cracked 4 days before its release in North America with One Web site reporting that over 10,000 people were downloading the leak on just one public tracker. All it does is screw around legitimate buyers. Its easy to crack, better after its cracked so whats the point.

P.S i dont condone piracy, if you dont like it dont buy it. I just dont get why companies want to make it harder for people that actually buy the game.

jtr7
28th Aug 2009, 01:25
...for a few years?

That's assuming no reinstalls, no viruses, no software conflicts, no hardware crashes and burns, no corruption, little to no problems at all. Of course having the game playable for years is perfectly fine. It's the limited number of installs making it very probable people won't enjoy it for years. Also, if it ever requires connecting and registering it on the 'Net, that will limit some customers. Also, not all PC players can just buy the console versions, 'cause not all PC players own those consoles, nor can the just go out and buy a console, making the game cost even more to play.

smellyhobo
28th Aug 2009, 06:34
i didnt read all the pages in this tread, but i've had problems with the limited amount of installation before after i bought a game. the hassle of getting the game to work after a couple of reformats (keyloggers and spyare, fml) is more then some games are worth for the money. I am very glad to hear there is no limitation to the amount of installs possible with this game. This game will eat my soul. <3 you guys for makin a game this awesome.

jaywalker2309
28th Aug 2009, 08:33
Totenglocke - You truly love to twist words dont you :)

As i have said on MANY occasions i dont LIKE DRM in protection so i avoid using it.. So you are talking about DRM as being bad, notice i dont disagree with you. I hate being told i can only install X number of times if i have the disc in my hand etc. Online distribution is different as the only way to protect your title is with some form of non disc system.

The bit about being flawed was in context to the fact if a protection system didnt stop people freely distributing a title therefore the companies who paid for the product to exist wouldnt earn their rightful money.

Yes you are true there is a group of people who would never pay for the product so yes they will never go legit, but thats not the question here..

Totenglocke
28th Aug 2009, 14:46
@Inside Man

The issue is, with ANY DRM, that the customers no longer own what they purchase. Our ability to use the product we PAY for hinges on the whims of the company / the company staying in business. That is completely unacceptable. No other industry is allowed to get away with such behavior.

If you're not aware, the Federal Trade Commission is actually going to be having hearings on whether or not to ban the use of DRM since all it does is screw paying customers over. There is even a place where people can write to the FTC explaining why DRM harms consumers. Believe me, the gaming community is passing this around pretty quickly - only the incompetent think it's ok for paying customers to receive an inferior product to what pirates get.

The only way online-activations would be tolerable is if it was mandatory (and enforced by the government) that when a company stopped supporting a game on their servers or was going out of business that they HAD to remove all online-activation so that the people who bought the game could still use it.

matches81
28th Aug 2009, 16:19
Positive word of mouth is a nice thing but given the source is it going to result in more sales or more piracy? I mean the guy talking to you about how this game *totally rocks* can just as easily tell you about how you can get it *totally for free, dude!*.
Noone actually needs someone to tell them where to get a game for free. There's Google for that. Word of mouth is word of mouth. In the current reality it's a simple fact that every game is available for free and every moron knows how to get it.
Like I said: You can't force people to buy your product. Normally, someone buys a product if he thinks it's worth his money. That's a problem of personal perception, that can be shifted a bit by marketing etc, but in the end it's up the guy asking himself whether he thinks product Y is worth amount X.



There are additional kinks. The pirates are happy to flood your servers,
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/04/demigod_18000_customers_100000_pirates-2/
True. Good example. Funnily enough, the press made a bigger deal out of this than Stardock themselves. Stardock upped the servers, said they were surprised by the demand and that's that.


and call you up demanding technical support.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/
Nice example again... I see that problem, too.

Now, for both examples: How, exactly, do SecuROM and limited activations change those problems? Sorry, but SecuROM gets cracked on a regular basis, often times before the game's official release thanks to leaks somewhere (which should be one of the top priorities to fix, imo). The only ones having to struggle with it or limited activations after that are the legit customers. Why?
Btw: Fallout 3 doesn't use any kind of copy protection. Still, Bethesda seemingly never had a reason to complain about the sales of the game, which should indicate that it did fairly well, probably meaning it was one of the best selling PC games 2008.


There's a trend that most of the sales of a title occur within the first few weeks of its release and a theory that people will tend to go for whatever avenue is most immediately available in getting a new title. If Securom only works for a week in the eyes of developers, it's worth it. If all it does is prevent a leaked copy of the game from being cracked prior to the retail release it's probably still worth it.
That's one of the theories surrounding piracy I have the most problems accepting: The idea that thousands of people actually buy a game just because the crack isn't out at release, although they almost surely know it's only a matter of days, is pretty ridiculous. This idea requires people to be stupid.. really, really stupid, and that rarely is a healthy assumption to make.
The sales for games are strongest right after release because the beta testers (i.e. fans) waiting for the game are all getting their copies in that period, simple as that. That group then has their copy and the sales go back to your normal "oooh, shiny, I want!" guys walking past the game in a store etc.

Sorry if I sound a bit sour, but I've been playing computer games for more than 20 years now and ever since copy protections began causing serious issues I've been listening to developers how they need these protections to ensure sales, all while piracy is ever increasing and the idiot who bought the game is getting shafted... it's getting a bit tiresome by now, even more so with the newest trend to market DRM (limited installations / activations) as some form of copy protection, which it clearly isn't.
PC developers are crying and moaning how the PC gaming market is in decay while they themselves push people away from the original PC version of a game, because the pirated version works better and is less cumbersome and the console version of the game just works and doesn't treat the customer like a criminal.
The original PC version these days mostly is the worst version of the game you can get while it should be the best around.
If you want people to buy your product, make sure it isn't the worst alternative of them all.

procrastinator
29th Aug 2009, 08:46
Btw: Fallout 3 doesn't use any kind of copy protection. Still, Bethesda seemingly never had a reason to complain about the sales of the game, which should indicate that it did fairly well, probably meaning it was one of the best selling PC games 2008.


This is incorrect. Fallout 3 uses a version of SecuROM which is attached to the Fallout 3 launcher program. This has to be run at least once before the game will run.

It doesnt have any install checks or online checks though.

SteMot
29th Aug 2009, 20:18
So has it been confirmed as to what the DRM will entail at this point? With 17 days until US launch an official statement should really be put out by now.

jaywalker2309
1st Sep 2009, 09:09
I have stated on MANY occasions i dont like DRM, i dont use DRM in our products for disc based versions.

I wasnt belittling music piracy at all by the way, i have never illegally downloaded any music and fully support local bands where i can. We dont think we are `so special` as you state. Piracy in music is insane, as its much smaller sized files to move around so even quicker and easier to do. Big band albums will have budgets as big as game development in places too.. Anyone who has paid for something to be created rues piracy.

SteMot
1st Sep 2009, 16:33
I have stated on MANY occasions i dont like DRM, i dont use DRM in our products for disc based versions.

I wasnt belittling music piracy at all by the way, i have never illegally downloaded any music and fully support local bands where i can. We dont think we are `so special` as you state. Piracy in music is insane, as its much smaller sized files to move around so even quicker and easier to do. Big band albums will have budgets as big as game development in places too.. Anyone who has paid for something to be created rues piracy.

So hang on, is that to say that the PC retail disc version of AA asylum will not feature online activations?

Myrkul
2nd Sep 2009, 17:21
If it's 20 years from now and I think "Hey, remember Batman:Akham Asylum? That really was a great game, I should dig that out and install it", I have every right to do that. By putting DRM on the game, Eidos is taking that right away from me. As such, Eidos will not be getting my money.

Play a game in 20 years???? I have trouble playing games 5 years old becuase of in-combatabilities with new windows versions let alone 20.

Totenglocke
3rd Sep 2009, 00:49
Play a game in 20 years???? I have trouble playing games 5 years old becuase of in-combatabilities with new windows versions let alone 20.

You've obviously never heard of "virtual machines" or "compatibility mode" in Windows. I regularly play games that are around 15 years old and I'm running Windows 7 64-bit.

iceman0124
3rd Sep 2009, 02:41
DRM is a pain, and does hurt the legit population more so than the illegit.....but its still a necesarry evil. We want quality content, its gotta make money. The Mass Effect DRM was a pain when I reformatted got a new vid card and couldnt install the game, an email and 48 hours later, I could play the game.

Piracy is killing the industry, just like the yokels that ***** and moan about paying a $5 cover cause a band is playing, then ***** and moan that there arent any good local bands anymore....you cant put your all into something full time and just give it away. Entertainment is a buisness, and quality and quanity of said medium depends on how much money it makes, if you steal it....theres no dough, DRM has made an imapact, it hasnt stopped it, just like pointless viruses that do nothing but cause damge and annoyance...their are folks that have a passion for "sticking it to whatever".....Piracy is one of the main reasons for the focus on consoles, it is "harder" to get illegal copies on them, not impossible but more difficult.

Lastly, boycotting products because of measures of protecting the investment in content creation is just as bad as piracy....no money....no product ....in the end we all lose....

Totenglocke
3rd Sep 2009, 02:52
Piracy is not killing the gaming industry. The fact that more than 90% of games made are utter crap is what's killing the gaming industry. The companies that make quality products still make more money than god, even with piracy. Piracy is just a red herring so that they can rape their customers and try to claim that they have a legitimate reason for it.

Boycotting products because of measures that do nothing to prevent piracy and everything to harm people who actually PAY for the product is the only want to ensure that companies realize that without paying customers, they do not exist and do not make money. They must learn to stop screwing their customers. Only a small number of publishers use DRM, because most companies out there realize that it's not worth driving away paying customers just to make sure that it takes pirates a whole 24 hours longer to get the game cracked and on bittorrent.

The more companies use DRM, the fewer companies I (and my friends) buy from. Either they'll learn to not abuse their paying customers, or they'll go out of business (as they should for this crap). Looks like my days of buying new games are numbered...

iceman0124
3rd Sep 2009, 03:48
Why do you think most games are utter crap? An A list title is an expensive endevor, takes a long time, a lot of talented people, tons of overhead expenses.... it costs a fortune to produce, if it doesnt sell well or gets 10- 20% or so of its sales stolen....its a bust, even if its a fantastic game and folks are chomping at the bit for a second helping.

Were not talking about a couple hundred bucks here,.....when you spend a couple million to make something, a 10% cut is a huge chunk of change, that comes out of the paying customers pockets, or reduced earnings for the guys doing the dirty work....or it just doesnt get done period....say a game earns 1million total profit, but loses 10% of that mill to piracy....thats $100,000 lost that goes to salaries and utility bills, and all the sexpenses you apparently know nothing about.

Piracy isnt a red herring and your naive to think so. Just like theft and fraud, I'm not taking from a poor working stiff....I'm taking from a major cororpation full of fat cats....the fat cats wont lose thier cut, we pay more, workers earn less....thats how it works plain and simple.

Totenglocke
3rd Sep 2009, 04:17
Most games are crap for two reasons. 1) The developers just don't care or (more commonly these days) 2) they just go for shiny graphics and completely forget about game play or story.

Piracy IS a red herring because if someone had no intention of buying a product, them getting it for free from the internet doesn't cause you to lose any money. If you take a copy from Best Buy, then yes, people are losing money because it cost money to put together everything in that package, plus Best Buy paid money for it, etc. However, if it's digital, the only cost involved is the cost to transfer the bits over the connection, which is why we pay for internet to begin with. The companies that have the most successful games don't need to worry about piracy because they still sell so many copies that it's not even funny how much they make. It's the companies that don't make anything worth buying that "lose" to piracy (I use quotations because virtually no one would pay for their games even if piracy wasn't an option).

You're naive if you think that punishing your paying customers with DRM (when the pirates will crack it in a matter of days regardless) is acceptable. If you think it's ok for them to violate your rights to use the product you PAID for, then you don't deserve those rights and you get what you deserve.

I, however, know my rights and will not pay a company to violate them.

iceman0124
3rd Sep 2009, 07:11
Piracy IS a red herring because if someone had no intention of buying a product, them getting it for free from the internet doesn't cause you to lose any money. If you take a copy from Best Buy, then yes, people are losing money because it cost money to put together everything in that package, plus Best Buy paid money for it, etc. However, if it's digital, the only cost involved is the cost to transfer the bits over the connection, which is why we pay for internet to begin with.

Some very fuzzy and one sided logic there bub......"if someone had no intention of buying a product, them getting it for free from the internet doesn't cause you to lose any money"

That statement is absolutely absurd, your basically saying, I have no intention of getting a hamburger at this place, but happen to walk by it and snatch an already paid for burger off the tablle......its paid for...the store isnt losing any money.....Thats not stealing? Online thft is easy because its behind closed doors, and your not likely to get caught, its still very much stealing

These games dont makes themselves, boxing and shipping is the last stage of the process....what about the teams of developers, artists, actors, equipment costs, energy costs, food, water, legal costs, taxes, and probably several dozen other costly things I dont feel like typing up or am even aware of.... oh yeah and months to years of work....that IS the property of the publisher , and if you play it from an ILLEGAL download.....and think its fine, your more naive then I intially thought.These games, good and bad are expensive to make and dont make themselves, with every illegal download your taking food off of someones table,and out of the pockets of legit consumers, and FORCING DRM and other measures upon the public at large.

Dress it up how you like, but if you have to spend a long time justifying your actions, theres usually a reason.....

Fact, if there were no piracy, there would be no need for copy protection, but there is, I dont like DRM, but i do understand its purpose, and no its not my fault, and yes it does effect me "in a very small way" its an inconvience, when the game doesnt work you email support, you give them the SN, key , brief explanation etc....they give you a new key. Thats one of the main reasons I love steam, no keys, no mubo jumbo, I can put it on as many machines as I like as long as I dont grant acess to my account to a half a dozen people...its all good..

The content has to be made period, not paying for it and using it is stealing no materr how slice it or dice it, and thats the reason for copy protection. The internet makes it so easy that people think they are entitled to it, when they arent.

I'll admit I'm guilty of several acts of piracy, but that was a long time ago, and I felt similar to your views, then I started working for a living, getting to know folks in the buisness end, and getting myself in the buisness end and I dont do such anymore, and I wont let my kid do it either, stealing is stealing plain and simple, if its provided for free by the owners or granted liceesed, thats wonderful, if its not, its stealing.

Also note that most, especially Alist games get the DRM/disc in the drive to start and what ever means of protection dropped via patches and what not when they have run their finacial course.

Call it a red herring, just wait till something you've worked hard on and is your big ticket stripped from your grasp cause everyones using it, but only a handful are paying you for it.

Totenglocke
3rd Sep 2009, 10:42
I don't pirate games, but if you don't realize that the company isn't losing money just by someone not buying their product (totally different from stealing a copy of their product), then the corporations really got you reeled in. Their definition of "stealing" (and the one you fell for) is that any time you walk by their game in the store and don't buy it (even if you've already bought it once) that you're 'stealing" money from them. No one loses money from software piracy - they simply fail to gain money. Big difference.

Next, DRM is NOT copy protection. CD-key's and having to have a disc in the drive are copy protection - DRM exists purely to take away your rights.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that it's ok to have to email support and beg them to let you play the game you paid for and then wait a few days from them to finally let you play it. Steam is even worse because you can't even try to install anything without their permission. I can't imagine why someone would be dumb enough to use something like steam.

You call not actually owning what you pay for affecting you only "in a very small way"? What if Ford decided that you'd started your car too many times and you had to email / call them for a 'new key' so you could continue driving it? What if they decided to end support for your model and were able to push a kill switch making it impossible for your car to start? Would you think that's ok?

Your argument seems to just be "someone hurt my feelings once, now I wanna rape everyone for revenge". Boo-hoo. If you're so "adult", you'd realize that crap happens and harming random innocent people so you can feel powerful is horribly immature.

Bojan_dk
3rd Sep 2009, 11:28
I agree with Totenglocke on some points. The game is gonna get cracked either way, why piss of paing customers?

iceman0124
3rd Sep 2009, 14:43
I don't pirate games, but if you don't realize that the company isn't losing money just by someone not buying their product (totally different from stealing a copy of their product), then the corporations really got you reeled in. Their definition of "stealing" (and the one you fell for) is that any time you walk by their game in the store and don't buy it (even if you've already bought it once) that you're 'stealing" money from them. No one loses money from software piracy - they simply fail to gain money. Big difference.

Next, DRM is NOT copy protection. CD-key's and having to have a disc in the drive are copy protection - DRM exists purely to take away your rights.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that it's ok to have to email support and beg them to let you play the game you paid for and then wait a few days from them to finally let you play it. Steam is even worse because you can't even try to install anything without their permission. I can't imagine why someone would be dumb enough to use something like steam.

You call not actually owning what you pay for affecting you only "in a very small way"? What if Ford decided that you'd started your car too many times and you had to email / call them for a 'new key' so you could continue driving it? What if they decided to end support for your model and were able to push a kill switch making it impossible for your car to start? Would you think that's ok?

Your argument seems to just be "someone hurt my feelings once, now I wanna rape everyone for revenge". Boo-hoo. If you're so "adult", you'd realize that crap happens and harming random innocent people so you can feel powerful is horribly immature.

I'm taalking about piracy plain and simple, warez BS , DLing the game through a torrent and using a crack or cracked version, IE obtaining and playing or distributing the game without paying for it, and or selling cracked copies for profit at a reduced rate, it happens alot, and is a major factor in the lack of quality PC titles, and why some publishers are ignoring the PC completely. That is stealing, plain and simple, I never said not buying a game is stealing, but boycotting just because of anti theft precautions is hurting the industry as much as piracy. Bottom line, the guys making the games cant afford nor have the resources to make Alist games like BAA on their own, thats why you have big publishers like EA,Activtion,Eidos etc to pay for the content to be created, if it doesnt sell or gets pirated....its not making money....and YES, money is lost, and lots of it. Do you think Mark Hamill went in and did his lines just for old times sake, that all people in the credits did all the work in their spare time as a hobby?? A lot of TIME and MONEY goes into making these games.....your a fool to think eidos doesnt lose money from illeaglly obtained copies of their games, or from folks that get all uppity about anti theft measures and either just dont enjoy something they could have, or use it to justify illegal action.....

They have to pay for the protection, which is needed, its a necesarry evil, I dont like it but like a lot of things, I enjoy the games, so I deal with necesarry evils.

"Next, DRM is NOT copy protection. CD-key's and having to have a disc in the drive are copy protection - DRM exists purely to take away your rights."

CD keys are cracked, no cd patches and cracks are made to get around that...That is PIRACY....those methods arent enough so DRM exists to plug up those holes the best they can. They arent doing it to piss you off, they are doing it to protect thier investment....when they cant make money making great games....we wont have ANY great games, or we'll be stuck with games full of ad's and other BS.

As for taking away your rights....read the EULA, when you hit the agree button, your accepting their terms, no right violated.

"Your argument seems to just be "someone hurt my feelings once, now I wanna rape everyone for revenge". Boo-hoo. If you're so "adult", you'd realize that crap happens and harming random innocent people so you can feel powerful is horribly immature"

My argument is a rebuttle to your half truths, one sided, and horrible uniformed view, DRM isnt out to get you....by your logic as you've put it, we should leave all our cars unlocked and keys in the ignition and if someone runs off with it, "oh well, ford didnt lose any money so its all good" Crap does happen, if piracy didnt exist, counter piracy measures wouldnt exist. If you cant wrap your head around that simple fact....so be it.

As stated before, I dont like it one bit, but I cant blame the people making the products for protecting their investments, and I enjoy quality gaming....so I accept and deal with it. End of story

Neon25
3rd Sep 2009, 17:01
When it comes to the 'benefits' of DRM to the company using it...

1. Lock customers into your service (the same technique used by Microsoft with Windows).
2. Give your product an artificial life span so that the consumer has to 'buy it again' at a later date.
3. Kill second-hand sales, and force all people to buy a new game from retail, thereby increasing company profits. People who buy second-hand games are not lining the pockets of the company, and the entire software industry has fought against this for a long time, which is why they put the EULA in a box to convince you that you're only buying a 'license'.
4. Use DRM to gather marketing data.
5. Potentially force more people to buy the console versions instead.

That's just 5 off the top of my head. I will say it again, just to be crystal clear: DRM is not meant to tackle piracy, it is meant to control paying customers.

The fact that all DRM/copy protection has been bypassed by pirates in the past is proof enough that it simply does not work as an anti-piracy measure. Therefore it would be pointless investing in it for that purpose. No, the only reason to use DRM at all is to control paying customers and get them to pay more and more for the same product. This is what the music industry attempted to do - they wanted you to buy another copy for every device you played the music on, and for every person who used it.

Ray Muzyka basically told you the way the industry is going - it's all about ad revenue, micro-transations, monthly fees. That is the way to increase income - and that means locking your customer base into a service where you have full control. One you get people used to online activations, the next step is to get people to login every time they want to play a single player game, just like you have to connect to a server to play multiplayer. From there it is a short step to charging a small fee to 'pay for the servers', and offering readily available DLC. Before you know it, you will be paying monthly fees to play all of your games (single player and multiplayer), just like an MMO.

The frog analogy is spot on. Introduce small changes on a regular basis. It's worked so far, because look at where we are now. We've gone from reading a code word from a game manual to having to activate online and having a restriction on the number of times we can install a game (on different hardware). If there had not been a furore over Bioshock's activations, that would have been pushed through as well - tying the activation to your user account.

The simple fact is that the PC market is a finite, niche market, and the companies are trying to find ways of milking those existing customers for all they can get.

An interview with Tim Gerritsen (former head of Human Head Studios) indicated as much. He has inside knowledge of the industry, and according to him development costs over the past decade have increased 3 or 5 times to what they were, while the number of sales has remained pretty much static. Static. To me that means the PC gaming market has not really expanded over that period - there are not that many 'new' customers to replace those who have switched over to consoles. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that increased costs with static sales leads to lost profits.

This is the way the whole PC game industry is heading. Everyone applauds Valve and Steam, and hell I use it myself - but look what happened when they needed to shut down servers to conduct maintenance. A lot of people were suddenly locked out of their games. Couldn't get access for a few hours. In addition, you can't sell on any of the game you bought through the Steam service, because once they are registered they are tied to your account. So more people have to buy the games from the 'retailer' in order to play them - and that means more money for the publisher/developer.

The same is true of XboxLIVE, although it is less obvious.

So unfortunately I think it is too late to stop these trends. If you want to play PC games in the future, you are going to find the 'terms' ever more restrictive and binding and inconvenient for the paying customers, because they are the ones being targeted by DRM, not the pirates, and there is EVERY reason for companies to continue with that practice (as I outlined with my 5 points above).

We have all been the audience to a masterwork of sleight of hand, and fighting piracy is the grand illusion.

I don't take issue with Starforce, even though it was a tad annoying to have the CD in all the time. I don't take issue with any copy protection either- unless I am not able to play the game the way *I* want. What I mean is, that you shouldn't be prohibited from updating your hardware, as it is essential of PC gaming at all. In my opinion it infringes customer's rights, even though the bull***** about agreement with this kind of thing it is probably mentioned in EULA or something that most user skip.

I remember some big case of the game Hellgate:London which actually included some kind of tool that collects info about your computer and sends them to the producer... For what purpose? Advertising. The game had advertising system which created ads based on what sites you visit, what is your hardware etc.

DRM for PC is basically the same thing as saying a restaurant client that he has a *life-time* luncheon voucher, but only for 3 meals. After you buy 3 meals, however, you are required to call the restaurant's owner, prepare all your receipts, proof that you actually own the voucher and proof that you haven't been to any other restaurant. By that way he gives you your voucher back.

That's just absurd, that's total contradiction of what PC gaming is. You mean I CAN'T upgrade my hardware and not lose one of activations? Are you for real? I mean- I play my legally owned games even though they are 10 or more years old. And I would like to do that with Spore(which I do not own by the way). But no. I can't because after 10 years from now I will change my hardware more than three times for sure.

And what's the thing with actually taking off the protection after time? What, you don't need it now? You think that after you take it off more people will play it? OF COURSE THEY WILL, so why the hell didn't you give up on using protection in the first place?

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 17:10
Was just about to order.
Saw this.
Not buying.
Pirating.

Lesson learned (or probably not): Making rental costs you money.

BTW, hi Neon25, know who I am? ;)

Neon25
3rd Sep 2009, 17:16
It's worth noticing that there is already a fully working DirectDrive version of the game, already cracked.

That's right, that's how your DRM works. It was cracked 12 days before release.

*claps*

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 17:22
Yep, and if you look at who cracked it, some random guys on the internet, not some sophisticated warez group, just shows how good Securom is.

SteMot
3rd Sep 2009, 17:46
I do still plan on buying this on release day, but now I know Securom is involved I will be cracking it the moment one is available for the retail, which will probably before I actually receive the game.
The problem is, this game was the big one, it could have made Eidos even more money on PC. Now they have just crippled their sales. Yet the people at the top will refuse to admit it.

The Coca Cola Company
3rd Sep 2009, 18:33
Was just about to order.
Saw this.
Not buying.
Pirating.

Lesson learned (or probably not): Making rental costs you money.

BTW, hi Neon25, know who I am? ;)

Hi nforce members.. :rasp:

SpykeZ from nforce said:


well, I was so looking forward to buying it, had the money ready and everything

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88229&page=5

then WHAM, limited installs, **** them, to hell with eidos, I hope eidos and the developer both go under for this ****.

Where in this thread did you see that there are going to be limited installs? :scratch::scratch::scratch:

In fact the guy from Eidos said THAT HE HATES THIS KIND OF RESTRICTIONS, AND THAT THEY WILL NEVER USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!

So?

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 18:41
Where in this thread did you see that there are going to be limited installs? :scratch::scratch::scratch:

In fact the guy from Eidos said THAT HE HATES THIS KIND OF RESTRICTIONS, AND THAT THEY WILL NEVER USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!

So?
Well, lets see. Lets consider online activation without limited number activations. :rolleyes: What would stop me from handing out my key to everyone I know? Not that smart is it? It becomes exactly like checking the cd-key locally.Not that smart is it? :mad2:

SteMot
3rd Sep 2009, 18:42
Hi nforce members.. :rasp:

SpykeZ from nforce said:



Where in this thread did you see that there are going to be limited installs? :scratch::scratch::scratch:

In fact the guy from Eidos said THAT HE HATES THIS KIND OF RESTRICTIONS, AND THAT THEY WILL NEVER USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!

So?

I suppose it's to do with the fact that the leaked D2D version uses it, though it's not possible to tell whether or not there are install restrictions yet, just could be on-line activation. I really hope the disc version uses a disc check.

The Coca Cola Company
3rd Sep 2009, 19:01
Well, lets see. Lets consider online activation without limited number activations. :rolleyes: What would stop me from handing out my key to everyone I know? Not that smart is it? It becomes exactly like checking the cd-key locally.Not that smart is it? :mad2:

You are right, nothing. But since when is online activation SUCH a bad thing? I know, I know, when your internet connection goes down and you can't play the game you own if you haven't activated it earlier IT SUCKS! But when there's no problem with your internet connection, what's wrong with online activation? DVD checking is far more annoying since it requires from you to have the dvd in the drive all the time!!

Plus if the activation servers go down 10 years from now.. well you can always use a crack to skip the process. :D



So, let's see what jaycw2309 (he's the Head of Mastering for the game) has said so far:


We've never used these install limited settings or anything like that for our protection on our previous disc based titles.

I am a firm believer in making the game as accessible as possible to those who have legally purchased the game.



I've done everything i can to ensure that all our titles are as stress free but as SECURE as can make them. I dont LIKE limited installs or things like that so i dont use them.



Properly implemented copy protection should be totally transparent to the consumer. As i keep saying thats what we AIM for..



As i have said on MANY occasions i dont LIKE DRM in protection so i avoid using it.. So you are talking about DRM as being bad, notice i dont disagree with you. I hate being told i can only install X number of times if i have the disc in my hand etc. Online distribution is different as the only way to protect your title is with some form of non disc system.



I have stated on MANY occasions i dont like DRM, i dont use DRM in our products for disc based versions.


I think, he's on our side, no? :o



(PS I don't have an account to nforce, I know that registering requires to wait 2 days before you post, so that's why I post here. But maybe I'll eventually register... :p)

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 19:10
I don't care about activation, but do you now understand how online activation is no logical without limiting the number of activations? :mad2:

The Coca Cola Company
3rd Sep 2009, 19:22
Yes, I do. But it certainly stops some people from pirating the game.

The question is does it stop you (well, not necessarily "you". You know what I mean..) from buying the game? Will you not buy the game if it has an online activation process?

Because that was the reason you posted here. You felt that people will not buy the game, if they are only "renting" it, not actually owning it. Do you still feel the same?

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 19:46
I will not buy any game that has limited installations, no.

Rental = no buy from me.

I will indeed pirate it (regardless if it's good or not) just to spite the retard publisher that put the protection there, yes.

The Coca Cola Company
3rd Sep 2009, 20:03
I already got that.

But this game (the disc based version at least) doesn't have limited installations. No problem then, right???

LeoNatan
3rd Sep 2009, 20:43
But this game (the disc based version at least) doesn't have limited installations. No problem then, right???
Nope, will buy it in that case. :)

Myrkul
3rd Sep 2009, 22:04
You've obviously never heard of "virtual machines" or "compatibility mode" in Windows. I regularly play games that are around 15 years old and I'm running Windows 7 64-bit.

Yes I have, Compatability mode like windows is increably flawed, I have loads of games that wont work in compatability mode, And even asuming you could still run it after 20 years, what about the dvd as things decay get scratched or damaged thiers no guarantte your disk will even play in 20 years.

You regulary play games 15 years old??? Thats 1994 why would you won't to play games that are so out of date and primitive?

Though i do admit i bought a game i played as a kid and played it for ten mins before throwing it in the bin yes thier where good games at that time but compared with what new games do with features, ambient, storyline and graphics they dont compare in any fields with what is now being produced.

SteMot
3rd Sep 2009, 23:23
Yes I have, Compatability mode like windows is increably flawed, I have loads of games that wont work in compatability mode, And even asuming you could still run it after 20 years, what about the dvd as things decay get scratched or damaged thiers no guarantte your disk will even play in 20 years.

You regulary play games 15 years old??? Thats 1994 why would you won't to play games that are so out of date and primitive?

Though i do admit i bought a game i played as a kid and played it for ten mins before throwing it in the bin yes thier where good games at that time but compared with what new games do with features, ambient, storyline and graphics they dont compare in any fields with what is now being produced.

So you don't think games like Monkey Island 2 or Fate Of Atlantis had good storylines? What a ridiculous statement.

Choronzonon
3rd Sep 2009, 23:59
I was under the impression that Steam lets you download the game on multiple machines and doesn't care how many machines you download. However, your logon only lets you play one game at one time. I have the steam version of Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 on my main machine and my media room machine (the kids love it) but if I try to log on both machines, it fails on the second logon.

From a marketing perspective, multiple versions of the game spawned on multiple machines is a GOOD idea because it creates a market for what they're REALLY selling, which is the license connected to an individual logon. That's the reason so many software vendors vie to have their software shipped directly with the PC with "activation" of full features after the user has paid a fee.

Remember, they're not selling software, and they're certainly not selling DVDs and CDs. They're selling the experience of playing the game. So their business model is completely centered around getting as many people to want the experience, and pay a fee for the experience, as possible.

In any case, this entire discussion will soon be rendered meaningless since the entire software industry, gaming including, is rapidly moving to the subscription model rather than the perpetual license model. That transition takes time, however, and is not appropriate for games that don't have a long "shelf-life."

Are you really going to want to play BMAA in ten years on your 100Gigaherz machine with 100gig of memory? I strongly suspect you'll have better things to do. And if you're so inclined to play, a new license is going to cost, what?, $5. Maybe that much. So stop carping and shell out the sheckles. Life is too short to worry about BS like whether you'll able to play the same game three computers in the future.

Criminey, you'd think we are all hot to play Dig-Dig or something.

SteMot
4th Sep 2009, 00:13
I was under the impression that Steam lets you download the game on multiple machines and doesn't care how many machines you download. However, your logon only lets you play one game at one time. I have the steam version of Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 on my main machine and my media room machine (the kids love it) but if I try to log on both machines, it fails on the second logon.

From a marketing perspective, multiple versions of the game spawned on multiple machines is a GOOD idea because it creates a market for what they're REALLY selling, which is the license connected to an individual logon. That's the reason so many software vendors vie to have their software shipped directly with the PC with "activation" of full features after the user has paid a fee.

Remember, they're not selling software, and they're certainly not selling DVDs and CDs. They're selling the experience of playing the game. So their business model is completely centered around getting as many people to want the experience, and pay a fee for the experience, as possible.

In any case, this entire discussion will soon be rendered meaningless since the entire software industry, gaming including, is rapidly moving to the subscription model rather than the perpetual license model. That transition takes time, however, and is not appropriate for games that don't have a long "shelf-life."

Are you really going to want to play BMAA in ten years on your 100Gigaherz machine with 100gig of memory? I strongly suspect you'll have better things to do. And if you're so inclined to play, a new license is going to cost, what?, $5. Maybe that much. So stop carping and shell out the sheckles. Life is too short to worry about BS like whether you'll able to play the same game three computers in the future.

Criminey, you'd think we are all hot to play Dig-Dig or something.

Yet sites like Good Old Games.com are still very successful selling nothing but old games.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 03:14
The question is does it stop you (well, not necessarily "you". You know what I mean..) from buying the game? Will you not buy the game if it has an online activation process?

No, I will not buy the game if I have to beg the company for permission to install a game I paid for. I played the demo and was so eager to buy the game - until I found out about this crap. I don't pay $60 to rent a game.


You regulary play games 15 years old??? Thats 1994 why would you won't to play games that are so out of date and primitive?

You've obviously never played a decent game then. You think the only games worthwhile are ones with "ooh shiny graphics!!" There are plenty of great old games out there.


Are you really going to want to play BMAA in ten years on your 100Gigaherz machine with 100gig of memory? I strongly suspect you'll have better things to do. And if you're so inclined to play, a new license is going to cost, what?, $5. Maybe that much. So stop carping and shell out the sheckles. Life is too short to worry about BS like whether you'll able to play the same game three computers in the future.

If the game is as good as it seems to be, yes I would (granted, I'd only buy it if it didn't have drm, so it's a moot point). If a game is good, I'll play it over and over. Just like if a movie is good, I'll watch it over and over. I also read my favorite books over and over. The fact that you think it's ok for them to charge you AGAIN for more licenses years from now shows that you're completely and utterly their ***** and think that they have a right to your money. They don't.

I like the one poster above - go from planning on buying the game to pirating it just to say "screw you" for them putting DRM on to screw their paying customers.

Kettels
4th Sep 2009, 06:24
Are you really going to want to play BMAA in ten years

why not, heaps of people still play starcraft 11 years later. Just shows if you create a good game that people will continue to play it

At least with Securom it wont be cracked and released before the street date and before the people with the legit bogged down version get to enjoy iii... ohh what :eek: someone cracked it before release date, who could have predicted that. (buggy version or not)

Seriously though, i hate those people that cracked it. Now they get to play the game like 3 weeks before i get my copy :( and i dont get anything more for actually buying it.

gclhoutx
4th Sep 2009, 08:15
As long as there is a way to go online and login to clear my current active installations I'm cool with it. Sorta like the way CBT Nuggets website is run, I purchased the CCNA DVD videos with 3 license. I can go to their site and reset the active license use so I can watch the videos on another machine or if I have a new PC.

Marcus
4th Sep 2009, 09:26
why not, heaps of people still play starcraft 11 years later. Just shows if you create a good game that people will continue to play it

This.

Star Control II and Dungeon Keeper II are still worth playing. I have a special computer just for those two games. It cost me £5 :)

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 13:44
No, I will not buy the game if I have to beg the company for permission to install a game I paid for. I played the demo and was so eager to buy the game - until I found out about this crap. I don't pay $60 to rent a game.

The game will not have limited installs, you don't have to beg anyone to install it. :whistle:

LeoNatan
4th Sep 2009, 13:54
The game will not have limited installs, you don't have to beg anyone to install it. :whistle:
Either show proof or you are a bullsh`ter. :whistle:

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 13:57
I trust the Head of Mastering guy.

If it has limited installs I won't buy it either. ;)

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 14:48
The game will not have limited installs, you don't have to beg anyone to install it. :whistle:

It requires online activation, which means that I can only install the game for as long as Eidos decides to be "benevolent" enough to let me. I don't put up with that crap. Even Microsoft isn't that bad. If I pay for software, I can re-install it any time I want, regardless of if the company who wrote the software has their servers online or is still in business. Online activation is just as bad as limited installs, you're just not thinking far enough ahead for you to realize it's a problem.

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 15:15
As I said IF Eidos goes out of business (and they don't provide an unprotected .exe for the game before they close), I'll use a crack.



Even Microsoft isn't that bad.

Are you sure? Office and Windows have online activation (or alternatively via phone.. I think) for like.. 8 years now? And Microsoft does limit your installs, since if you activate too often your copy of Windows, you have to call them and explain yourself.

Henke123
4th Sep 2009, 16:02
We do use Securom but we don’t use Securom online product activation.

This is what Kier said to me in a PM.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 16:15
This is what Kier said to me in a PM.

So he's trying to claim that they use SecuROM without using any of it's "features"? Sounds like he's BS-ing you to make you think that they're actually on your side. He's on the companies side, not the customers side.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 16:20
As I said IF Eidos goes out of business (and they don't provide an unprotected .exe for the game before they close), I'll use a crack.

But you shouldn't HAVE to use a crack on a game you legitimately paid for. THAT'S the issue. Why should you suffer extra hassles when you PAID for the game?




Are you sure? Office and Windows have online activation (or alternatively via phone.. I think) for like.. 8 years now? And Microsoft does limit your installs, since if you activate too often your copy of Windows, you have to call them and explain yourself.

Except that MS doesn't care once a product is no longer supported. Also, their limited installs at least have some justification (on the OS anyways). Besides, MS has 24/7 computerized hotlines that you just call, say you're re-installing on the same hardware, and less than 2 minutes later you're good to go. A far cry better than the people who've had to wait DAYS for a company to authorize them to install a game that they're running.

One more thing - if you install Windows without a proper key (which you can do) you can still use Windows - you just can't get updates (so waiting to call isn't really an issue) - with games with online activations, you can't even install and play without their permission. Same goes with Office - 30 days use without a key. Also, due to evolving standards, most people upgrade to a new copy of Office at least every other release so that they can use the current features / file formats. The odds of having them discontinue support for the version of Office you are running are pretty slim, unless you're horribly behind the times, in which case just download Open Office for free and it's a non-issue.

Oh yea, I'll also point out that most people don't buy Windows - they get it pre-installed on their system. That's very different from going out and buying a product off the shelf.

Henke123
4th Sep 2009, 16:22
So he's trying to claim that they use SecuROM without using any of it's "features"? Sounds like he's BS-ing you to make you think that they're actually on your side. He's on the companies side, not the customers side.
SecuROM has other "features" than online activation, like disc check.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 16:42
SecuROM has other "features" than online activation, like disc check.

Know what else does? CD-Key's and disk-check without using SecuROM. They wouldn't pay the extra money for the "wonderful" (note sarcastic quotation marks) features of SecuROM if they weren't going to use them.

Marcus
4th Sep 2009, 16:48
Know what else does? CD-Key's and disk-check without using SecuROM. They wouldn't pay the extra money for the "wonderful" (note sarcastic quotation marks) features of SecuROM if they weren't going to use them.

I suspect that the amount of money a company pays to license Securom technology would depend on how many of the features they wanted to use.

There's every indication that the game will not require online activation, but I guess we'll see soon...

Henke123
4th Sep 2009, 16:49
Know what else does? CD-Key's and disk-check without using SecuROM. They wouldn't pay the extra money for the "wonderful" (note sarcastic quotation marks) features of SecuROM if they weren't going to use them.
I know, but I guess SecuROM is harder to crack than CD-Key's and other disc-checks.

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 17:34
Know what else does? CD-Key's and disk-check without using SecuROM. They wouldn't pay the extra money for the "wonderful" (note sarcastic quotation marks) features of SecuROM if they weren't going to use them.

SecuROM doesn't provide "online activation" protection only. There are different versions that only check the DVD, etc..

http://www2.securom.com/Digital-Rights-Management.68.0.html


But you shouldn't HAVE to use a crack on a game you legitimately paid for. THAT'S the issue. Why should you suffer extra hassles when you PAID for the game?

You DON'T have to. I'm only suggesting to use one if the company goes out of business and they don't release an unprotected exe. So far I know of no company that closed or the activation servers no longer work... where are you basing your concerns?

Because you know.. if you want to rant about online activation, you might as well rant about DVD copy protection. Let's say that you have a game that five years from now, the disc stops working properly, and because of the copy protection you haven't made a proper backup. Now you are forced to buy the game again if you want to play it. While you own it, unless you buy it again, you can't play it.

Isn't it exactly the same as with the online activation protection?

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 17:39
I know, but I guess SecuROM is harder to crack than CD-Key's and other disc-checks.

You mean like how it's already been cracked for BAA? Yea, that was money well spent. Didn't stop the pirates one bit.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 17:43
SecuROM doesn't provide "online activation" protection only. There are different versions that only check the DVD, etc..

http://www2.securom.com/Digital-Rights-Management.68.0.html

Except that there are already ways to check if the disc is in the drive without using SecuROM. Only if they're complete idiots would they pay to use SecuROM to just do disc checks.




You DON'T have to. I'm only suggesting to use one if the company goes out of business and they don't release an unprotected exe. So far I know of no company that closed or the activation servers no longer work... where are you basing your concerns?

Because you know.. if you want to rant about online activation, you might as well rant about DVD copy protection. Let's say that you have a game that five years from now, the disc stops working properly, and because of the copy protection you haven't made a proper backup. Now you are forced to buy the game again if you want to play it. While you own it, unless you buy it again, you can't play it.

Isn't it exactly the same as with the online activation protection?

If you want to be able to play your game after Eidos no longer supports it, you DO have to. Totally unacceptable.

I guess you've never heard of .iso's then? 100% identical copy of what's on the original disc. Also, there are already cracks for DVD copy protection (do companies even bother with that crap anymore?). One of these days I'm going to buy a 2 TB hard drive and make .iso's of all my games.

And no, that's not the same as online activation. With a disc, as long as you don't scratch it, you can always install it. With online activation, it's a matter of the companies whims.

Henke123
4th Sep 2009, 18:08
You mean like how it's already been cracked for BAA? Yea, that was money well spent. Didn't stop the pirates one bit.I didn't say it was hard to crack, I said it was hardER.

I think their goal was to delay the crack to after the release, but since Direct2Drive leaked it two weeks before release the copy protection is pretty much useless now.

Totenglocke
4th Sep 2009, 18:15
Which is why they shouldn't waste their time and money on it. It's been proven time and again to be completely ineffective in stopping piracy and all it does it hassle paying customers (who then get mad and stop being paying customers).

As I pointed out before, cd-key's and having to have the disc in the drive to play is the most cost effective way to slow down piracy AND it doesn't piss off your customers either.

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 18:21
I guess you've never heard of .iso's then? 100% identical copy of what's on the original disc.

Sorry but the game will understand that it's not original DVD, and it won't play



Also, there are already cracks for DVD copy protection

That's exactly what I told you about the online activation, but you replied "why should you suffer extra hussles?"

So, I'm asking you the same thing. Why is it ok to suffer the extra hussles in this case while in the other it's not?



With a disc, as long as you don't scratch it, you can always install it.

The truth is that it's more likely that your disc will fail than the company or the activation servers going down.



You mean like how it's already been cracked for BAA? Yea, that was money well spent. Didn't stop the pirates one bit.

The fact that is cracked doesn't mean that it doesn't prevent people from pirating the game. Not all people have the know how and bandwidth to download DVD-9 sized ISOs and search for a crack.

Plus the fact that there were several SecuROM triggers has delayed the "crackers" quite a bit. Till now there are several problems that might prevent you from completing the game.

If the game wasn't leaked early (who could have anticipated that?) the 2-3 days that would take to fully crack the game, would mean that the title would not suffer from 0 day piracy and that's exactly what the companies aim for.

Nemesis296
4th Sep 2009, 18:39
It doesn't look like this game will be very easy to crack...



The problem you have encountered is a hook in the copy protection, to catch out people who try and download cracked versions of the game for free.

It's not a bug in the game's code, it's a bug in your moral code.

See it here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=95030

The Coca Cola Company
4th Sep 2009, 18:50
This problem along many others were eventually fixed, but still it's still impossible to

a) finish the game
b) enable full PhysX effects without crashing etc
c) explore the whole game world without being stuck somewhere

I know that there are many people that downloaded the game, played a bit, got stuck due to the various SecuROM triggers, but they were so amazed at how good the game is (it truly is amazing.. Game of the Year material for sure!), that they deleted their copy and will wait to buy the game!

Nemesis296
4th Sep 2009, 18:54
I know that there are many people that downloaded the game, played a bit, got stuck due to the various SecuROM triggers, but they were so amazed at how good the game is (it truly is amazing.. Game of the Year material for sure!), that they deleted their copy and will wait to buy the game!

This is precisely why SecuROM works now...and you said it better than I could ever hope to...

matches81
4th Sep 2009, 22:42
This problem along many others were eventually fixed, but still it's still impossible to

a) finish the game
b) enable full PhysX effects without crashing etc
c) explore the whole game world without being stuck somewhere

I know that there are many people that downloaded the game, played a bit, got stuck due to the various SecuROM triggers, but they were so amazed at how good the game is (it truly is amazing.. Game of the Year material for sure!), that they deleted their copy and will wait to buy the game!
Well... remember Titan Quest? Leaked before release, shoddy cracks appeared and the cracked versions crashed without any notice to the user as to why this was the case. Result? The game had an incredibly bad reputation, didn't sell and Iron Lore Entertainment went down.
Not saying this will happen to B:AA, just saying that things like this can be pretty hurtful to the product.

on topic:
As I said several times, I'm going to order the CE of B:AA for PC as soon as there is an official statement regarding the copy protection / DRM involved. I've read the statements of jaycw2309 and I respect those (btw: I didn't mean to imply you were belittling music piracy, so sorry if you understood it that way), but an employee taking part in a discussion in a forum is still not an official statement by the publisher. What I'd like to see is something like an entry in the offical FAQ for the game or a piece of news on the official site. So far, I consider it very likely that I will be able to actually buy B:AA for PC, but sadly had to learn the hard way that "very likely" is not enough to bet your $50 on.

Totenglocke
5th Sep 2009, 02:49
IF (and that's a big if) it's true that there will be no online activation and no activation limits, then yes, I will buy B:AA. However, I'm waiting until after it's out and people have tested to make sure that there really is no online activation or activation limits before I buy.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 11:01
It doesn't look like this game will be very easy to crack...



See it here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=95030

These cracks have been put together by users on the internet, and they have all but cracked it except for one trigger. When the scene groups get their hands on the retail they will walk all over this protection.

I hate the fact people will not be buying this game, but if they are seriously putting in limited activations then they really shouldn't be surprised when people boycott the retail version for one that they can install whenever they want.

Paulley
5th Sep 2009, 11:12
On the subject.. who here agrees with the Publishers that are rallying against retail shops that sell pre-owned games.. developers want either to stop that part of the market or make sure retailers cut them in on the profits.

Like "illegally" sharing, buying pre-owned games stops game sales and cuts down the profits as multiple players are getting games that only one person bought!!!

--

Lol, anyway i dont play many games in general.. if there is a really good looking game that really catches my eye i will pre-order it (i.e. B:AA) but the only games i buy for my PS2 in the last few years were pre-owned/bargain bin ones.

i sometimes download games.. but most of the time its games that im not sure i will like and after trying them i un-install and feel glad i didnt waste £30 on them.

anyway agreed with of the other comments that stealing and sharing are two very different things.. i read my neighbors paper the other day i hope The Mail dont track me down and take my eyes so i dont illegally share papers again...

lets face it, if a game is good enough it should make profit if there is file sharing or not

As for people actually complaining that there illegal copy is not perfect (idiots).. like DVDs if you download a version before the actual DVD release then its gonna be poor quality wait like everyone else or buy the game when it comes out.

Choronzonon
5th Sep 2009, 12:31
Let me net it out for you. In order to subsidize the creation of high quality games, they need to sell a certain number of copies. In fact, they know exactly how many copies they need to sell in order to make a profit.

Numerous studies -- as well as the near collapse of the music business -- have shown that pirated copies are not "free advertising" or only used by people who wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content. In fact, a large percentage of pirated copies of content actually represent lost sales of official copies of the content.

If the number of pirated copies forces a game to be unprofitable, there's no reason for that game to exist. Game companies are businesses; they exist to make money. Now, you can argue that they'll make money anyway even with piracy -- just less of it -- but the truth is that content creators in many industries are going out of business as the result of illegal copying.

Game companies have a limited number of ways to cope with the problem. The short term solutions are to put more energy and effort into platforms that make piracy more difficult if not impossible (i.e. PS3 and xBox), and to add different kinds of security to the PC version.

When this doesn't work, the long term solution -- which represents the future of computer gaming -- is to implement games so that ALL game play takes place online. ALL. And then charge a subscription fee to use the servers. Do not kid yourself. This is right around the corner and the mathematics (i.e. the number of PCs that are "permanently" connected to the Internet) make it a practical alternative.

The business models for online gaming are incredibly attractive, because the ongoing revenue (and profit) from the subscription fees can greatly exceed the revenue that the game companies receive from a "perpetual license" (that's what you get now), providing people continue to play the game for a long period of time.

That's true even if games aren't pirated. (Example: $20 for a copy of a game, plus $10 a month, for an average subscription of six months equals an average revenue per game of $80, versus $50 for a perpetual license.)

So all you clever idiots who want the right to pirate and complain about copy protection are basically screwing yourself, because all you're doing is forcing the game industry even faster into the subscription model, which will not only make piracy impossible but also force you to pay even more per copy for games that you actually like to play.

Frankly, I feel a bit embarrassed that I have to explain basic economics to people, but I suppose that a fair number of game pirates don't get the chance to learn much about the business world while living in the basement of their parent's home.

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 12:45
I hate the fact people will not be buying this game, but if they are seriously putting in limited activations then they really shouldn't be surprised when people boycott the retail version for one that they can install whenever they want.

Again, why is it that there are people who think that they are putting limited activations in the game when the guy who is responsible for choosing the protection scheme, said that they will NEVER use something like that in ANY disc based game?

I really can't understand you... :confused:

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 13:46
Again, why is it that there are people who think that they are putting limited activations in the game when the guy who is responsible for choosing the protection scheme, said that they will NEVER use something like that in ANY disc based game?

I really can't understand you... :confused:

Like I said....if.


Let me net it out for you. In order to subsidize the creation of high quality games, they need to sell a certain number of copies. In fact, they know exactly how many copies they need to sell in order to make a profit.

Numerous studies have shown that pirated copies are not "free advertising" or only used by people who wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content. In fact, a large percentage of pirated copies of content actually represent lost sales of official copies of the content.

Show me these studies. There can be no such thing because there is now way to measure such data. As such the rest of your post was not worth my reading time.


This is the way I see it, I have the PC CE on pre-order at game, which I intend to honour. Now with all this fuss being kicked up, and evidence of Securom authentication software in the demo and the leak, rather than a mod on the forum posting about how they will never use such DRM, shouldn't they officially state what protection they are going with and end this once and for all? Unless they actually are going with this DRM and are just waiting for people to find out the hard way.

Totenglocke
5th Sep 2009, 14:13
Numerous studies -- as well as the near collapse of the music business -- have shown that pirated copies are not "free advertising" or only used by people who wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content. In fact, a large percentage of pirated copies of content actually represent lost sales of official copies of the content.

Those studies are horribly bogus and a paid for by the publishers to find the results the publishers want them to find. Just like when tobacco companies pay for studies that just so happen to come back saying that smoking has no negative effects on your health. Or those bogus studies done by extremist groups that come back saying that video games cause kids to kill people or that listening to heavy metal will cause kids to kill people.

A similar study was paid for by the music industry in the UK to look into music downloads - the actual results showed that 136 of the people interview downloaded music. The study then claimed that since X % (I think it was like 11% or so) of the people interviewed did it, then it must mean that 11% of ALL people in the UK download music - THEN they went one step further and said that it was "obvious" that a smaller percentage of people would admit to it than actually do it, so they rounded their numbers up even further!. The result? Because 136 people admitted in a survey that they downloaded music, the study paid for by the UK music industry claims that over 7 million people in the UK download music. That is a blatant lie, and the same tactics are used when game companies look into "lost" sales by piracy.

Just because I do not buy your product does not mean you lose money. You fail to gain money, which is a big difference. If you believe the "lost income" bull****, then every time that you walk buy a copy of their product without buying it (even if you've already purchased a copy) you are "stealing" from them because you didn't fork over more money to them.


If the number of pirated copies forces a game to be unprofitable, there's no reason for that game to exist.

As has been proven time and time again, a great game will still sell tons of copies and make a huge profit, even WITH lots of piracy. It is only the games that no one wants to play that become "unprofitable" due to piracy. Those games would still be unprofitable even if there was no piracy.



When this doesn't work, the long term solution -- which represents the future of computer gaming -- is to implement games so that ALL game play takes place online. ALL. And then charge a subscription fee to use the servers. Do not kid yourself. This is right around the corner and the mathematics (i.e. the number of PCs that are "permanently" connected to the Internet) make it a practical alternative.

And you know what will happen then? I, along with every gamer I know, will stop playing new video games and will be content with the old ones until we get bored and stop playing. Know what else? Kids who aren't old enough to have their own jobs won't play much (if at all) any more because most parents will refuse to go along with that. The end result? Through greed and sheer stupidity in management, the gaming industry will be destroyed.



Frankly, I feel a bit embarrassed that I have to explain basic economics to people

You're not explaining basic economics - you're explaining that you're not smart enough to understand the corporate BS that is used to justify screwing customers. I would know - I actually have a degree in Economics.

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 16:35
evidence of Securom authentication software in the demo and the leak, rather than a mod on the forum posting about how they will never use such DRM, shouldn't they officially state what protection they are going with and end this once and for all? Unless they actually are going with this DRM and are just waiting for people to find out the hard way.

1) He said that they won't use limited installs in the disc based version. The D2D leak means nothing.

2) They never said that the disc based version won't use Securom, all they said is that it won't limit the number of installations. Securom provides many different versions of protection.

3) He's not simply a "mod", he's one of the producers of the game.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 16:50
1) He said that they won't use limited installs in the disc based version. The D2D leak means nothing.

2) They never said that the disc based version won't use Securom, all they said is that it won't limit the number of installations. Securom provides many different versions of protection.

3) He's not simply a "mod", he's one of the producers of the game.

So if this is a case, make a proper statement as to the protection for different versions and stop being so vague. This close to release it really should be official which method it uses.

matches81
5th Sep 2009, 16:59
Let me net it out for you. In order to subsidize the creation of high quality games, they need to sell a certain number of copies. In fact, they know exactly how many copies they need to sell in order to make a profit. Well, that's not exactly rocket science, is it? Divide the cost of making the game by the net gain they have for each sold copy, done.


Numerous studies -- as well as the near collapse of the music business -- have shown that pirated copies are not "free advertising" or only used by people who wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content. In fact, a large percentage of pirated copies of content actually represent lost sales of official copies of the content.
So, there's actually a study that has solid numbers on how many pirates would have bought a game if it wasn't available for free? Wow... I'd love to see that study, honestly. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that somebody claims to have reliable numbers on how many sales were lost due to piracy? Feel free to explain to us how those numbers could have been researched.


Game companies have a limited number of ways to cope with the problem. The short term solutions are to put more energy and effort into platforms that make piracy more difficult if not impossible (i.e. PS3 and xBox), and to add different kinds of security to the PC version.
Piracy on the 360 is far from difficult, it's about as simple as on the PC, AFAIK. The added "security" to PC versions of games has not worked so far and very likely won't in the future.


When this doesn't work, the long term solution -- which represents the future of computer gaming -- is to implement games so that ALL game play takes place online. ALL. And then charge a subscription fee to use the servers. Do not kid yourself. This is right around the corner and the mathematics (i.e. the number of PCs that are "permanently" connected to the Internet) make it a practical alternative.
As Totenglocke pointed out: That's not a solution. A model like that would scare away too many customers... at least the way you're making it up here.
Having to be online to play? Probable. Having subscription fees for a normal single-player game? Unlikely. Companies like Valve trying out a subscription model for all their games, for example? Could happen, but would probably fail.


So all you clever idiots who want the right to pirate and complain about copy protection are basically screwing yourself, because all you're doing is forcing the game industry even faster into the subscription model, which will not only make piracy impossible but also force you to pay even more per copy for games that you actually like to play.
a) not a single person here has claimed he wants the right to pirate anything.
b) people aren't complaining about copy protection in general, they are complaining about one specific thing: DRM... which isn't copy protection, by the way.
c) people complaining about some copy protections or DRM are very rarely pirates... why would pirates complain about things like that? They're not encountering it. If I intended to pirate B:AA, for example, I'd just wait a week after its release and get it with all protections removed. I wouldn't be here asking how the game will be protected. Things like SecuROM and DRM are only interesting for people who want to buy the game, because they might be affected by it.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 17:04
people complaining about some copy protections or DRM are very rarely pirates... why would pirates complain about things like that? They're not encountering it. If I intended to pirate B:AA, for example, I'd just wait a week after its release and get it with all protections removed. I wouldn't be here asking how the game will be protected. Things like SecuROM and DRM are only interesting for people who want to buy the game, because they might be affected by it.

This ^ Nail on the head.

I know that I could find this on the net probably 2 days before the official UK release due to it being available in the states 2 days before. I don't want to do that, I want to buy the game, but don't want to be limited in how many times I can install it. Simple.

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 17:06
@SteMot: I don't think that Eidos has ever made a press release to announce the protection a game of theirs will use, the only thing that they can do is to respond here, like they did earlier in this thread.

So, let's hope that a representative of them posts here exactly what protection the game will use, but I doubt you will get 100% official confirmation (aka press release)

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 17:27
Piracy on the 360 is far from difficult, it's about as simple as on the PC, AFAIK. The added "security" to PC versions of games has not worked so far and very likely won't in the future.

It's not that simple. If they find out you are playing a pirated copy of a game, they ban you from Live (which you have to pay for!) and you can't play any multiplayer game. Plus if (or rather when!) your console breaks down they won't repair it, so you have to buy a new one.

On the other hand on the PC you can play any pirated game and have nothing to worry about.



So, there's actually a study that has solid numbers on how many pirates would have bought a game if it wasn't available for free? Wow... I'd love to see that study, honestly. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that somebody claims to have reliable numbers on how many sales were lost due to piracy? Feel free to explain to us how those numbers could have been researched.

That's easy. An example:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951


Of the overall figure, North American sales of the Xbox 360 version accounted for 3.04 million. The PC version, meanwhile, only sold 383,000 units at North American retailers, though that number does not include sales made through digital distribution platforms such as Steam.

Isn't it obvious that if it wasn't so easy to pirate on the PC, the PC version would have sold at least an equal number of copies if not higher (due to vast amount of PC gamers) to the Xbox 360 version?

Unless you believe that PC pirates will NEVER buy a PC game, even if they want to play it so badly and they will prefer to not play it at all, unless they can do so for free, I can't see why isn't it obvious that piracy is a huge problem right now.

matches81
5th Sep 2009, 18:08
That's easy. An example:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951

Not a single statement regarding how many pirated copies were around (not even in the article linked in there concerning "rampant PC piracy")... and far from a "we lost X sales due to piracy". Why? Because even Infinity Ward themselves can't begin to estimate that. That, however would be the only interesting number in this whole mess.


Isn't it obvious that if it wasn't so easy to pirate on the PC, the PC version would have sold at least an equal number of copies if not higher (due to vast amount of PC gamers) to the Xbox 360 version?
Actually, no. Far from it. In the US, console gaming is far more widespread than PC gaming, for example. Also, while CoD4's only real competitor for online gaming on the 360 was Halo 3. On PC? Well... tons of them. You can come up with tons of reasons why the PC version of CoD4 wouldn't sell as much as the 360 version, especially when "that number does not include sales made through digital distribution platforms such as Steam", which are very important for PC gaming these days.


Unless you believe that PC pirates will NEVER buy a PC game, even if they want to play it so badly and they will prefer to not play it at all, unless they can do so for free, I can't see why isn't it obvious that piracy is a huge problem right now.
I don't deny that piracy is a problem. I'm just doubting that its effects are actually as big as the publishers tend to make them out to be. I base that doubt on a simple, logic question: How many pirates would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it?
Also, how many people refrain from buying a game they wanted to buy because they have the option to get it for free? (which is basically the same question turned around)
Without a decent answer to that question, piracy remains a big unknown. Pretty simple, imo.

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 18:40
Actually, no. Far from it. In the US, console gaming is far more widespread than PC gaming, for example.

Nope, PC gaming is as strong as ever, it's just that no one pays to play the games. :D
There are many more PC gamers than console gamers.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/study-claims-pc-market-largest


This year the PC gaming market is worth over $20 billion, that figure will rise to $34 billion before 2012, and since 2005 there has been more gaming PCs shipped than the Wii, PS3 and 360 combined.


Who do you think is buying all those new graphics cards, if not PC gamers? --> http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=28341&catid=6





Also, while CoD4's only real competitor for online gaming on the 360 was Halo 3. On PC? Well... tons of them.

AFAIK, at that period there weren't many(/any?) new PC exclusive multiplayer games, so I don't think that you have a valid argument.



You can come up with tons of reasons why the PC version of CoD4 wouldn't sell as much as the 360 version, especially when "that number does not include sales made through digital distribution platforms such as Steam", which are very important for PC gaming these days.

Again no, that's not the case. There is not a single game, that has sold more copies through digital distribution than on retail. Even Valve's games (the creators of Steam) still sell more on retail than on Steam ( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digital-overtaking-retail-for-valve )

So it's not like you can say that if you combine the sales, somehow the PC sales will be boosted to 1+ M. At best they are going to be near 500k, which means that the Xbox 360 version sold 6x more copies!



How many pirates would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it?


As evidenced by the console sales: many.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 21:01
Nope, PC gaming is as strong as ever, it's just that no one pays to play the games. :D
There are many more PC gamers than console gamers.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/study-claims-pc-market-largest



Yet there is no way to say how many of those are actually bought as games machines rather than people who buy a top end PC because they do not know anything about the technical side of PC's Or they do graphic design or 3d modelling work and need a good PC.
Throwing these numbers around is all when and good, but as always, they don't factor in a lot of possibilities.



Who do you think is buying all those new graphics cards, if not PC gamers? --> http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=28341&catid=6


Again, just because someone buys a new 3d card doesn't mean they are goping to use it for gaming. 3D cards have so many other advantages to even desktop operations such as video encoding and editing or model/texture or photo manipualtion.

Not everything revolves around games in terms of the PC.



AFAIK, at that period there weren't many(/any?) new PC exclusive multiplayer games, so I don't think that you have a valid argument.

A game does not have to be PC exclusive for people to enjoy it more than CoD 4, and besides, why does it even have to be new games that compete with it, people still play counter strike for gods sake, the PC has always had more choice in that department, so I think his argument is very valid.





Again no, that's not the case. There is not a single game, that has sold more copies through digital distribution than on retail. Even Valve's games (the creators of Steam) still sell more on retail than on Steam ( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digital-overtaking-retail-for-valve )

Funny how anyone except Valve could ever know that since they have never EVER released any sales numbers for Steam. Again, your working on assumptions.


So it's not like you can say that if you combine the sales, somehow the PC sales will be boosted to 1+ M.
.

Actually, it's very much like that. Valve have actually stated that their recent free weekend for L4d netted them a 3000% increase in online sales (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/57308), which would have amounted to a hell of alot of copies sold since the game has never been out of the Steam top sellers list in the year it's been available. Quite possibly selling more than retail.

Stop trying to throw around research and numbers that have not even tried to make their findings impartial to all the facts.

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 22:20
Again, just because someone buys a new 3d card doesn't mean they are goping to use it for gaming. 3D cards have so many other advantages to even desktop operations such as video encoding and editing or model/texture or photo manipualtion.

Not everything revolves around games in terms of the PC.

Nah, you won't find many people buying new 3d cards to use the e.g CUDA technology to encode videos and such. Sure there are people who will buy a new 3d card for such reasons, but they are very very few.

I have never seen any statement that says that PC gaming isn't as widespread as console gaming. I have only seen statements, that those that buy the PC games they play are very few.

World of Warcraft has around 11.5M subscribers! Isn't this number big enough to prove that there are many active PC gamers?



A game does not have to be PC exclusive for people to enjoy it more than CoD 4, and besides, why does it even have to be new games that compete with it, people still play counter strike for gods sake, the PC has always had more choice in that department, so I think his argument is very valid.

1)I used the word exclusive because he said that maybe PC gamers were playing other multiplayer games instead of CoD 4. By that logic, what stopped the console gamers of playing other multiplayer games? The answer can only be that these games were PC exclusive. And I can't remember of any such game.

2)Sure, people still play CS.. so? They won't buy CoD 4 because they still play CS? This doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the Xbox gamers won't buy Halo 3, because they still play Halo 1/2, or they won't buy CoD 5 because they still play CoD 4, etc.



Funny how anyone except Valve could ever know that since they have never EVER released any sales numbers for Steam. Again, your working on assumptions.

All publishers that sell the game through Steam, have access to sales data of their games, yet no one ever said that "we now sell more copies through Steam rather than retail."

If Valve's games don't sell more copies through Steam than retail what are the chances this happens to the games of another publisher?

Do you really believe that it's even remotely possible that 2.5+ M of CoD 4 were sold through Steam while only 370k copies were sold through stores?!



Actually, it's very much like that. Valve have actually stated that their recent free weekend for L4d netted them a 3000% increase in online sales (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/57308), which would have amounted to a hell of alot of copies sold since the game has never been out of the Steam top sellers list in the year it's been available. Quite possibly selling more than retail.

Yeah but we are talking about the 2007 period when CoD 4 was released, aren't we? In the link I posted Gabe said that he believes in the near future it will be possible that games will sell more through Steam, and maybe.. that's what is happening now, but it certainly can't explain the low number of retail sales in 2007!!

Plus, CoD 4 never had a free weekend, so why would the Steam sales of the title would suddenly sky rocket to match those of the console version?

The Coca Cola Company
5th Sep 2009, 22:55
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Left 4 Dead - Current Players: 14,373 Peak Today: 16,246
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - Current Players: 620 Peak Today: 703


As I said before just because Valve's games have very Steam good sales, it doesn't mean that the games of the other companies do as well. As evidenced above only a small amount of people (500 - 1000) are active CoD 4 Steam players.

SteMot
5th Sep 2009, 23:10
Nah, you won't find many people buying new 3d cards to use the e.g CUDA technology to encode videos and such. Sure there are people who will buy a new 3d card for such reasons, but they are very very few.

Again, your working on assumptions, the new cards do wondrous things for the modern desktop applications. You'd be a fool to believe people who use their PC mainly for this are not going to have the best hardware.


I have never seen any statement that says that PC gaming isn't as widespread as console gaming. I have only seen statements, that those that buy the PC games they play are very few.

World of Warcraft has around 11.5M subscribers! Isn't this number big enough to prove that there are many active PC gamers?

Wow is a game that runs on very low spec PC's and it is not fair to compare the worlds most successful game with others that may be out there.
Also, yes, WoW has all those users even with pirated versions available, which is something you are stating shouldn't be possible.



1)I used the word exclusive because he said that maybe PC gamers were playing other multiplayer games instead of CoD 4. By that logic, what stopped the console gamers of playing other multiplayer games? The answer can only be that these games were PC exclusive. And I can't remember of any such game.

2)Sure, people still play CS.. so? They won't buy CoD 4 because they still play CS? This doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the Xbox gamers won't buy Halo 3, because they still play Halo 1/2, or they won't buy CoD 5 because they still play CoD 4, etc.


You completely mis-understood me. The PC multiplayer market is already saturated with brilliant multiplayer games, whereas the x-box 360, lets be honest, outside of Halo, Gears and CoD is a bit barren. That's the point I was trying to make, 360 owners don't have as much choice as PC owners when it comes to games to play on-line.




All publishers that sell the game through Steam, have access to sales data of their games, yet no one ever said that "we now sell more copies through Steam rather than retail."


So because the companies do not discuss their sales figures you make up facts to suit your argument? Really?


If Valve's games don't sell more copies through Steam than retail what are the chances this happens to the games of another publisher?

Again, you have no idea that they don't, Valve will never discuss their sales figures Steam or retail, so stop inventing these things to try and suit you.


Do you really believe that it's even remotely possible that 2.5+ M of CoD 4 were sold through Steam while only 370k copies were sold through stores?!

What? Where are you pulling these fugures from? I never said anything of the sort, only that you could not possibly know how many sales are sold on Steam asSteam sales are not publicly discussed by Valve or any company who use it, this is a cold fact and one your failing to grasp. Nobody outside of Valve or their associates has access to this numbers.




Yeah but we are talking about the 2007 period when CoD 4 was released, aren't we? In the link I posted Gabe said that he believes in the near future it will be possible that games will sell more through Steam, and maybe.. that's what is happening now, but it certainly can't explain the low number of retail sales in 2007!!


Why only then? You said in the same post Steam sales do not exceed retail. Whether last week or last year, the statement put out by Valve about this 3000% increase in sales shows how much can be shifted in an on-line sales marketplace.


Plus, CoD 4 never had a free weekend, so why would the Steam sales of the title would suddenly sky rocket to match those of the console version?

I didn't realise that the whole of your online versus retail argument was limited to CoD 4, though it's looking more and more like this is the case.


http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Left 4 Dead - Current Players: 14,373 Peak Today: 16,246
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - Current Players: 620 Peak Today: 703


As I said before just because Valve's games have very Steam good sales, it doesn't mean that the games of the other companies do as well. As evidenced above only a small amount of people (500 - 1000) are active CoD 4 Steam players.

That's current users, of one day no less, not sales. Which again is made up of different factors. I wish you'd stop trying to pass of unrelated figures off as something else.
Also, what you actually said before was that not even Valve games sell more on Steam than retail. which we have already determined may not be the case.

Choronzonon
6th Sep 2009, 00:18
Those studies are horribly bogus and a paid for by the publishers to find the results the publishers want them to find. Just like when tobacco companies pay for studies that just so happen to come back saying that smoking has no negative effects on your health. Or those bogus studies done by extremist groups that come back saying that video games cause kids to kill people or that listening to heavy metal will cause kids to kill people. Well, well, well, we've got somebody who actually wants to argue with me. OK. If what you say is correct, then the collapse of CD sales -- a very well-documented phenomenon -- was faked by the music companies. But, of course, it wasn't so you're wrong. Your other comparisons are ridiculous because they're irrelevant, and clearly calculated to put an emotional spin on a purely economic discussion. A weak and rather childish ploy, frankly.



Just because I do not buy your product does not mean you lose money. You fail to gain money, which is a big difference. If you believe the "lost income" bull****, then every time that you walk buy a copy of their product without buying it (even if you've already purchased a copy) you are "stealing" from them because you didn't fork over more money to them. As has been proven time and time again, a great game will still sell tons of copies and make a huge profit, even WITH lots of piracy. It is only the games that no one wants to play that become "unprofitable" due to piracy. Those games would still be unprofitable even if there was no piracy.
I would have a modicum of respect for you if you simply admitted that you're a thief because you don't want to pay money for something that you want to use, rather than come up with some absurd justification that stealing from people who have money is somehow not stealing. The amount of profit is not really the issue, because the creator/distributor of the content owns the rights to the content and are allowed, legally, morally and ethically, to charge whatever they want for that content. You're not the arbiter of their business model. If you pirate, you're just a thief. That's all.


And you know what will happen then? I, along with every gamer I know, will stop playing new video games and will be content with the old ones until we get bored and stop playing. Know what else? Kids who aren't old enough to have their own jobs won't play much (if at all) any more because most parents will refuse to go along with that. The end result? Through greed and sheer stupidity in management, the gaming industry will be destroyed.
I guess that's why Blizzard is going out of business...because World of Warcraft drove so many gamers away. Your analysis and forecast shows that you know nothing about the gaming industry.

You're not explaining basic economics - you're explaining that you're not smart enough to understand the corporate BS that is used to justify screwing customers. I would know - I actually have a degree in Economics.
Well, if you actually have a degree in economics, which I doubt, you certainly didn't learn much. In cases like this, when somebody CLAIMS some kind of authority, I ask them to prove it. Identify your real name and prove that you've actually got the degree. If you can't you're just laying down a line of BS.

To show you how it's done, here's my QV: My real name is Geoffrey James and I'm a business journalist with credits including Wired, Business 2.0, Upside, Red Herring, Computerworld, BNET, NY Times, Ad World, etc. I've written extensively on game industry business models for computer industry publication and covered the Machinima phenomenon in several issues of Computer Gaming World.

So? How about you?

The Coca Cola Company
6th Sep 2009, 00:30
Again, your working on assumptions, the new cards do wondrous things for the modern desktop applications. You'd be a fool to believe people who use their PC mainly for this are not going to have the best hardware.

You are also working on assumptions. While I don't have proof that the vast majority of those that are buying good new hardware tend to be PC gamers, you too try to convince me without presenting any evidence that a large percentage of those are buying new 3d cards to manipulate videos/images, etc.



Wow is a game that runs on very low spec PC's and it is not fair to compare the worlds most successful game with others that may be out there.

Yes, I agree but that shows that there are many people who play PC games, the platform isn't abandoned.


Also, yes, WoW has all those users even with pirated versions available, which is something you are stating shouldn't be possible.

In this kind of games, the pirated versions are a joke. To fully enjoy the game, you should buy a subscription which proves what I'm stating again and again:

a)if a game is good (because if it's crap who cares? LOL)
b)the pirated copy doesn't provide you the same experience (WoW is a 100% online game, and you can enjoy it only if you play in official authorized servers)
c)there might be severe consequences if you get caught (eg ban from Live)

..most people will buy the game.



You completely mis-understood me. The PC multiplayer market is already saturated with brilliant multiplayer games, whereas the x-box 360, lets be honest, outside of Halo, Gears and CoD is a bit barren. That's the point I was trying to make, 360 owners don't have as much choice as PC owners when it comes to games to play on-line.

Why don't you name a few? Those PC multiplayer games are PC exclusive? If not, then why is it that they are so successful on PC but not on 360? Or are they older (pre-Xbox 360) PC games? Because I can't imagine anyone thinking "well, why buy a new multiplatform game, I still play "X", "Y" and "Z" 3 years later and I still enjoy them! I won't buy any other game!"

Again: name a few.



So because the companies do not discuss their sales figures you make up facts to suit your argument? Really?

I'm making a logical conclusion about the situation in 2007-8. What's YOUR evidence that there might be companies who sell much more copies through Steam rather than retail when in May 2008 Valve said that they were still selling more games through retail?


What? Where are you pulling these fugures from? I never said anything of the sort, only that you could not possibly know how many sales are sold on Steam asSteam sales are not publicly discussed by Valve or any company who use it, this is a cold fact and one your failing to grasp. Nobody outside of Valve or their associates has access to this numbers.

The number I've written was the number of sales the Steam version of CoD 4 would have to sell so that we could say that the PC version as a whole sold a comparable number of copies to the Xbox 360 version. Just because they haven't released any numbers it's not illogical to think that the Steam sales of the title weren't this huge.


Why only then?

Because that's when CoD 4 was released, and the released sales data were of this period?


I didn't realise that the whole of your online versus retail argument was limited to CoD 4, though it's looking more and more like this is the case.

It's just an example.




That's current users, of one day no less, not sales.

I know this. Less than 1K owners of the game have connected to play the game. Is it possible that the game sold 2-3M copies through Steam but only 1K of them connected to play today? I don't think so. Compare the number to the number of the Left 4 Dead's active players and the only conclusion that you can reach is that the Steam sales of the game weren't terribly good.





I wish you'd stop trying to pass of unrelated figures off as something else.

I'm not.


Also, what you actually said before was that not even Valve games sell more on Steam than retail. which we have already determined may not be the case.

I'll post it again: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digital-overtaking-retail-for-valve

30 May, 2008

"Speaking to a select group of journalists about Steam and the future of PC gaming today, Valve president Gabe Newell revealed that the company will SOON be making more money from digital distribution of its games than traditional boxed sales."

Since CoD 4 was released in Q4 2007 and Valve's games are naturally expected to sell much more copies through Steam than all the other games that are offered via the service how is it possible that CoD 4 could have sold much more copies through Steam than the 370K it sold in stores?

SteMot
6th Sep 2009, 07:27
You are also working on assumptions. While I don't have proof that the vast majority of those that are buying good new hardware tend to be PC gamers, you too try to convince me without presenting any evidence that a large percentage of those are buying new 3d cards to manipulate videos/images, etc.

I know what is needed on the hardware side to do these things, I also know many people on the internet that not only create this stuff, but do it for a living. Your just failing to see the objective side of the stats. Not all high end PC's are for gaming, that stands to reason. So therefore it also stands to reason that not all high end PC sold are being used for games. It is an assumption, but frankly it's a more realistic assumption than saying all high end PC's sold are games machines.





Yes, I agree but that shows that there are many people who play PC games, the platform isn't abandoned.

In this kind of games, the pirated versions are a joke. To fully enjoy the game, you should buy a subscription which proves what I'm stating again and again:

a)if a game is good (because if it's crap who cares? LOL)
b)the pirated copy doesn't provide you the same experience (WoW is a 100% online game, and you can enjoy it only if you play in official authorized servers)
c)there might be severe consequences if you get caught (eg ban from Live)

..most people will buy the game.



Though people who are using a pirated version will find ways to get an experience close to the subscription service anyway, otherwise there would be no point in having a pirated version.
The fact that WoW has such a large user base even though the cracked software exists is already a nail in the theory of "all pirates are potential sales"



Why don't you name a few? Those PC multiplayer games are PC exclusive? If not, then why is it that they are so successful on PC but not on 360? Or are they older (pre-Xbox 360) PC games? Because I can't imagine anyone thinking "well, why buy a new multiplatform game, I still play "X", "Y" and "Z" 3 years later and I still enjoy them! I won't buy any other game!"

This is your response? Of course plenty of people still play old games over the new ones, I gave one example before in the original counter strike, which is still amazingly popular and can still get more users than the big new releases. Part of PC gaming for many people is sticking with a certain multiplayer game, you don't seem to understand that.
Name some, okay you asked for it:-

Counter Strike
Day Of Defeat
Quake Live (essentially a web based Quake 3)
Unreal Tournament 2004
Quake 2
Half-Life 1 Deathmatch
GTA Vice City Multiplayer Mod
Battlefield 2
Star Wars Galaxies
Everquest II
Guild Wars

How many do you want me to list? You really are niave if you didn't know this already.


I'm making a logical conclusion about the situation in 2007-8. What's YOUR evidence that there might be companies who sell much more copies through Steam rather than retail when in May 2008 Valve said that they were still selling more games through retail?

That was not what you were originally saying, you said that Steam games NEVER outsell retail, you never specified a time frame, only when I gave some eveidence to back myself up you decided to switch it to that time frame.



The number I've written was the number of sales the Steam version of CoD 4 would have to sell so that we could say that the PC version as a whole sold a comparable number of copies to the Xbox 360 version. Just because they haven't released any numbers it's not illogical to think that the Steam sales of the title weren't this huge.

That is my point you have no idea how many was sold as VALVE HAVE NEVER RELEASED THIS DATA. You have no ground s for this argument as you could not possibly know. In all probability it never sold as much through Steam as retail, but your half arsed attempts to pull sales figures from unrelated stories and stats is futile and only succeeds in making any argument your coming up look like you don't really have any interest in an objective point of view and you clearly have your mind made yp no matter what is shown to you.


Because that's when CoD 4 was released, and the released sales data were of this period?

But your using a single game to prop up your debate, which doesn't work. Sure, CoD 4 probably did sell more at retail, but CoD4 is not the be all and end all of the on-line sale universe.




I know this. Less than 1K owners of the game have connected to play the game. Is it possible that the game sold 2-3M copies through Steam but only 1K of them connected to play today? I don't think so. Compare the number to the number of the Left 4 Dead's active players and the only conclusion that you can reach is that the Steam sales of the game weren't terribly good.

Yeah, less than 1K nearly 2 years after release, For that one day, thats what your number show, oh, and don't even begin to compare a game that has had a couple of extra maps in the space of 2 years, to a game that has been out for a year, supported with new game modes, real community led added features, real SDK tools, persistent server side achievements and a proper social network structure in steamworks integrated into gameplay. That's a really quite ridiculous thing to do.

Just because CoD 4 is no longer a popular game to play on-line with PC owners is not proof of sales.




I'm not.

So giving out current players for the day somehow equates to what the sales were two years ago does it? No, so that is exactly what you did.





Since CoD 4 was released in Q4 2007 and Valve's games are naturally expected to sell much more copies through Steam than all the other games that are offered via the service how is it possible that CoD 4 could have sold much more copies through Steam than the 370K it sold in stores?

I have never claimed that CoD 4 actually sold more through Steam than retail, ever. I simply stated that without knowing the Steam figures you cannot objectively say otherwise. You can surmise all you want, but you have no actual Steam sales data for CoD4 and this is my problem, you can show me all the Valve quotes about how soon they may overtake retail from 2 years ago, but you don't and will never, know the actual Steam sales. So without any proof whatsoever to back up your theory's, your apparent lack of understanding for PC multiplayer games and your complete disregard for my intelligence by throwing numbers at me that have no meaning while purporting to pass them off as something else entirely, I'm done with this conversation. It's not going anywhere constructive and you're failing to grasp the need for objectivity in stats and numbers. Goodbye.

matches81
6th Sep 2009, 09:05
Well, well, well, we've got somebody who actually wants to argue with me.
Actually, I argued your points, too. Seems you missed that, but:

I would have a modicum of respect for you if you simply admitted that you're a thief because you don't want to pay money for something that you want to use, rather than come up with some absurd justification that stealing from people who have money is somehow not stealing.
statements like that somehow make me regret I did. Sorry, but you're insulting others for no good reason at all other than that they disagree with you and twist words like no tomorrow. For a guy with the CV you posted that's pretty immature, sorry. Why would someone want to argue with you?



Nope, PC gaming is as strong as ever, it's just that no one pays to play the games. :D
There are many more PC gamers than console gamers.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/study-claims-pc-market-largest

Who do you think is buying all those new graphics cards, if not PC gamers? --> http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=28341&catid=6
it's kind of funny that you say noone pays to play games on PC and, right next to it, put a link to a story declaring the PC gaming market to be the largest one around. I wonder how that market can be that large when, according to you, noone buys PC games anyway. Those two things don't go well together.
And yes: I agree that most of the high-end graphics cards probably are bought by gamers. Then again, I never tried to argue that piracy was killing the PC gaming market. If you try to recall: My point was that the PC gaming market is fine and far from dying and I therefore doubt that piracy was killing it.


AFAIK, at that period there weren't many(/any?) new PC exclusive multiplayer games, so I don't think that you have a valid argument.
I wasn't talking about any period specifically, but about available games for that platform. The only big online shooter around on the 360 besides CoD 4 was Halo 3 when CoD was released, AFAIK. On the PC, you had a plethora of other choices, and some damn brilliant ones... so, CoD4 had close to no competition on the 360 while it had to go up against some of the greatest multiplayer games ever released on the PC. And yes, I think there are tons of people thinking "why would I want CoD4 when I love playing A, B and C, I'm good at them and I've grown to like several people in their respective communities?".
There's a reason why Counter-Strike, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Q3A (now probably moving to Quake Live), UT 2004 etc are still being played on PC.


Again no, that's not the case. There is not a single game, that has sold more copies through digital distribution than on retail. Even Valve's games (the creators of Steam) still sell more on retail than on Steam ( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digital-overtaking-retail-for-valve )

So it's not like you can say that if you combine the sales, somehow the PC sales will be boosted to 1+ M. At best they are going to be near 500k, which means that the Xbox 360 version sold 6x more copies!
Well, there's no information about sales on Steam available at all... so... your guess is as good as mine, sorry. Also, I never said anything about how many sales were made through Steam, I merely pointed out that retail figures alone are highly misleading for the PC market these days.


As evidenced by the console sales: many.
Well... used panties enjoy good sales in Japan, but not in Europe... does this mean that Europeans steal them because they just don't want to pay for them?
Sorry, but you ignore every argument as to why the PC market is very different from the market for the 360 and then go on and compare those two as if they were identical and easily comparable.

The Coca Cola Company
6th Sep 2009, 11:21
it's kind of funny that you say noone pays to play games on PC and, right next to it, put a link to a story declaring the PC gaming market to be the largest one around. I wonder how that market can be that large when, according to you, noone buys PC games anyway. Those two things don't go well together.

Duh.. Isn't this the exact same thing I'm saying? That there are many people who buy PC games, they just don't pay for them?

And you are replying "hey, then how can PC gaming be so big, if they don't buy any games??" Isn't it obvious that they pirate them?


I won't reply to the rest of your arguments, since I believe I debunked them, you are just not agreeing with me and never will.

If you want to believe that somehow PC gamers are different, and will not buy as many games as the console gamers if piracy was more difficult on the PC, or that won't buy new titles because they still play old ones, or that actually PC gamers are the minority go ahead and do it. It seems I can't convince you at all.

I believe that at least some people that are reading this thread will be able to understand me and agree me.

For the record: I never had a console, I own every single one of Valve's games and use Steam everyday, I'm still playing old (or very old!) games and I'm even using GPGPU applications: Folding@Home & DGAVCDecNV. Hell I'm interested in learning CUDA since I already know to program in C\C++ and C#

I'm mentioning these just in case you think: "Oh, another console gamer that speaks about things he doesn't know". That would be very far from it. My opinion is that of a hardcore PC gamer and PC user.

Gersen
6th Sep 2009, 15:54
This is what Kier said to me in a PM.

Good, if it don't use online activation then BAA is a sure buy for me. As much as I don't like it I can "tolerate" the standard CD-check Securom (still hope a patch will remove it someday though).

Totenglocke
6th Sep 2009, 17:02
@ Choronzonon


If what you say is correct, then the collapse of CD sales -- a very well-documented phenomenon -- was faked by the music companies. But, of course, it wasn't so you're wrong.

The collapse of CD sales was caused by two things 1) the rise of online music stores like iTunes and Amazon's mp3 store and 2) people like me who said "there really aren't that many good artists these days" so now we only pick up a cd every once in awhile when we find someone we really like. When I was in early high school I used to buy at least 20-30 cd's a year. Now I maybe buy 2 a year. And no, I don't pirate. I know that your constant BS refrain that those who don't buy pirate, but no, many are like me and just don't want the product period.


Your other comparisons are ridiculous because they're irrelevant, and clearly calculated to put an emotional spin on a purely economic discussion. A weak and rather childish ploy, frankly.

They are not irrelevant. They're other instances of companies paying people to do bogus "research" so that the company can justify screwing over customers. There is no emotional spin to be put on anything. Bogus "research" is a lie used to fool the incompetent. Either you're incompetent (which I'd like to think you're not) or you have a personal reason for pushing for DRM - perhaps an Eidos or SecuROM employee posing as a user? It's well documented that companies have employees pose as customers and give false reviews on Amazon or the iTunes App Store, so it's perfectly possible that they would use them on their forums to try to quell any dissent.


I would have a modicum of respect for you if you simply admitted that you're a thief because you don't want to pay money for something that you want to use, rather than come up with some absurd justification that stealing from people who have money is somehow not stealing.

First, as I've said probably close to half a dozen times on this thread, I don't pirate. I don't feel a need to. If something is worth buying, I buy it. If it's not worth buying, why would I waste my time getting it for free? Secondly, if you don't realize that companies lose NOTHING when you right-click on an mp3 and hit 'copy', then I'm not sure how you managed to write as long of a response as you have. If you pick up a cd in a store and take it, that is stealing and the company loses profit. If you copy something that isn't physical (such as a file on a computer) there is nothing to steal. The original was paid for and the company recieved money for the costs in producing the original - after that, there are no costs involved so they can no claim that they are losing money - only that they are failing to make ADDITIONAL money.


The amount of profit is not really the issue, because the creator/distributor of the content owns the rights to the content and are allowed, legally, morally and ethically, to charge whatever they want for that content.

They own the right to SELL the content. That is why you are allowed to legally make copies of certain things and distribute them freely, you're just not allowed to CHARGE for those things.


I guess that's why Blizzard is going out of business...because World of Warcraft drove so many gamers away. Your analysis and forecast shows that you know nothing about the gaming industry.

An online-only game like WoW where they charge per-month is ONE GAME in a persons collection. Most people only play one MMO game. Many also play none. However, if you want to charge people $5, $10, $15 per-month, PER-GAME, they'll stop playing real fast. The only reason that it's tolerable for companies to charge a monthly fee for online gaming is that they are constantly providing new content. Most companies have shown that they don't care enough about their product to create additional content (I know you'll argue about DLC for things like racing games with new cars and tracks, but that's just things intentionally left out of the original game so that they could be sold to you later to make more money off of you - it's rare to find a game like Fallout 3 or Oblivion where they truly give you ADDITIONAL content). EA in particular is a repeated offender when it comes to shoving something out the door and then not giving a crap about it as long as they use advertising to con a lot of people into buying it.


In cases like this, when somebody CLAIMS some kind of authority, I ask them to prove it. Identify your real name and prove that you've actually got the degree.

Except that, unless we meet face to face or get on a webcam at the bare minimum, we CAN'T prove it. Documents are easily faked. Anything written online can be a lie. It's the one downside to the anonymity of the internet.


If you can't you're just laying down a line of BS.

Oh yes, such a wonderful argument. You know that few, if any people, on here are going to give you their real name and then say that because they won't do that, they're lying. Just admit it. You have no argument.


To show you how it's done, here's my QV: My real name is Geoffrey James and I'm a business journalist with credits including Wired, Business 2.0, Upside, Red Herring, Computerworld, BNET, NY Times, Ad World, etc. I've written extensively on game industry business models for computer industry publication and covered the Machinima phenomenon in several issues of Computer Gaming World.

Right. My real name is Barrack Hussein Obama II (yea, bet you didn't know there was a Barack Hussein Obama I, but there is). I'm currently the President of the United States. I was previously a US Senator from the state of Illinois. I have degrees from both Columbia University and Harvard Law School - where I was the president of The Harvard Law Review.

I know, you'll claim that I'm lying. Here's my challenge - prove it. To quote you, "if you can't, you're just laying down a line of BS".

Totenglocke
6th Sep 2009, 17:04
Good, if it don't use online activation then BAA is a sure buy for me. As much as I don't like it I can "tolerate" the standard CD-check Securom (still hope a patch will remove it someday though).

I've never understood why people think it's such a hassle to put a disc in to play a game. Do you complain every time you have to put a DVD in to watch a movie?

I'm not insulting you, I just don't understand why people whine about it. Odds are that it's less of a hassle to put a disc in to play a game than it is to put a DVD in to watch a movie - most people keep their cds within reach of their desk so they don't even need to get up to get the cd.

Henke123
6th Sep 2009, 17:21
I've never understood why people think it's such a hassle to put a disc in to play a game. Do you complain every time you have to put a DVD in to watch a movie?

I'm not insulting you, I just don't understand why people whine about it. Odds are that it's less of a hassle to put a disc in to play a game than it is to put a DVD in to watch a movie - most people keep their cds within reach of their desk so they don't even need to get up to get the cd.There is a difference between a movie and a game.
The movie is stored on the disc, not on the dvd-player itself (at least not on normal dvd-players). But when the game is installed all the necessary files are on the hard-drive, there should be no need for the disc.

The Coca Cola Company
6th Sep 2009, 17:23
Simple: Usually you watch a particular movie once in a few months. However you play a game for at least a few days and if it has multiplayer maybe even for months/years.

Plus there is absolutely no other way to watch the movie anyway.

Totenglocke
6th Sep 2009, 18:29
Simple: Usually you watch a particular movie once in a few months. However you play a game for at least a few days and if it has multiplayer maybe even for months/years.

Plus there is absolutely no other way to watch the movie anyway.

So leave the cd in the drive! That's what I do (heck, most people have two optical drives on their pc) - I typically have one game in the top drive and another in the bottom. Also, with some games, it's more efficient for hard drive space if you keep some of the files (like cut scenes and other video) on the disc because otherwise each game installed would consume a LOT more space. Yes, some games offer full installs (and I do a full install when I have the option, partially because I normally only have 2 or 3 games installed at a time), but many games don't offer full installs to keep from burning up hard drive space.

Totenglocke
6th Sep 2009, 18:33
There was someone above (not sure who, two people had enough back and forth with quotes to make it a chore to read it all) who said that most PC games must be pirated since console's sell more games. That's not true because PC games are normally very different from console games.

For instance, most of the people I know play RPG's and strategy games on the PC and racing / action games on consoles. Since only a small percentage of Need for Speed players use the PC to play, of course most NFS sales will be on consoles.

There is also a lot more variety of games on the PC than there are on consoles, so if you had an equal number of ps3 owners and PC gamers, the ps3 titles would sell more copies per title since there is a smaller selection.

Gersen
6th Sep 2009, 18:50
I've never understood why people think it's such a hassle to put a disc in to play a game. Do you complain every time you have to put a DVD in to watch a movie?

I'm not insulting you, I just don't understand why people whine about it. Odds are that it's less of a hassle to put a disc in to play a game than it is to put a DVD in to watch a movie - most people keep their cds within reach of their desk so they don't even need to get up to get the cd.

Well like I said in my post I can live with CD check.

But to answer the question, the problem is that it's pretty useless, the whole game is on the hard drive anyway so I shouldn't need the CD, not to mention that I had a lot of bad experience with CD-check like it deciding that my original CD was not original enough for it's liking; preventing me from playing the game, or just crashing during disk validation for whatever reason.

But then again if I have to chose between a CD-Check free but DRM-riden online activation scheme like Steam/some Securom or TAGES implementation, and a standard CD-Check I will chose the later without any hesitation even if it mean putting the CD in the drive everytime I play.

Phaid_Min6Char_Sigh
7th Sep 2009, 08:55
Well like I said in my post I can live with CD check.

But then again if I have to chose between a CD-Check free but DRM-riden online activation scheme like Steam/some Securom or TAGES implementation, and a standard CD-Check I will chose the later without any hesitation even if it mean putting the CD in the drive everytime I play.

I share your thoughts for the most part.
Personally, I HATE, HATE, HATE online activation. It's just a pain and something legitimate buyers shouldn't ever have to put up with. If my internet connection is down, I expect the game to install without any problems and be able to play single player. I paid for the game, it is my right to have such expectations.
DVD-check or no DVD needed in the drive is the way to go. I always hesitate to shell out money for a game when I hear it needs internet connection to play/install.

Neon25
7th Sep 2009, 18:28
I seriously can't believe that some guys are actually gonna pirate this game.

Rocksteady had the balls to release a demo on PC, which is really rare these days. Hell, the game is really optimized for PCs.

If you like the game(and I know many of those who play leaked D2D version do), support the developers and buy it. This way we may avoid the delay for PC version if a sequel appears (for example- Assassin's Creed II launches simultaneously on all 3 platforms)

And while I mentioned that I really don't like DRMs, I gave Rocksteady the benefit of doubt and preordered the game. :) Already paid for it too.

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 18:48
I have no plan to pirate the game Neon, however, I have no plans on paying for it either if it has limited installs / online activation.

I played the demo and LOVED it. My friend has it on PS3 and I was amazed at how bad the graphics look on the console version (it looked amazing on my desktop). I was really excited to get the game, then I came to the forums and found out that it's using SecuROM which means online activations and / or limited installs.

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 19:07
found out that it's using SecuROM which means online activations and / or limited installs.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Example:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/10/31/bethesda-fallout-3-drm-not-intrusive-spore

For Fallout 3’s copy protection on PC, we use the same security model as we did for Oblivion - a simple disc check. We only use SecuRom’s disc check functionality for copy protection. We do NOT limit the number of installs. We do NOT use online authentication or any other SecuROM functionality except for a disc check when you install the game and when you launch the game. We do not install any other programs and we don’t have anything that runs in the background while you’re playing the game.


The most recent game of Eidos that was using Securom + Windows Live was Battlestations: Pacific ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestations:_Pacific ) and it had a simple disc check only.

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 19:37
Coke, they've had simple disc checks for a long, LONG time. Why would they pay SecuROM all of that money if they're not going to do anything but a disc check?

Gersen
7th Sep 2009, 20:33
Coke, they've had simple disc checks for a long, LONG time. Why would they pay SecuROM all of that money if they're not going to do anything but a disc check?

Because... well that's what Securom does; Securom, TAGES and even Starforce were and still are used for simple CD-check, and also other games from EIDOS already uses Securom for CD-check, so unless they decide to create their own CD-check or release the game DRM/CD-check free they don't have that much choice.

And also one of the main "feature" of either Securom or TAGES is not online activation but game blocking triggers.

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 20:44
Because... well that's what Securom does; Securom, TAGES and even Starforce were and still are used for simple CD-check, and also other games from EIDOS already uses Securom for CD-check, so unless they decide to create their own CD-check or release the game DRM/CD-check free they don't have that much choice.

And also one of the main "feature" of either Securom or TAGES is not online activation but game blocking triggers.

Eidos used disc checks long before SecuROM existed.

IF (and only if) they are using DRM to make it harder for pirates to crack the game and that the DRM they use does not in any way interfere with my ability to use the game as I want (and am legally allowed to do), then I am ok with them having DRM in their game. However, DRM's history (especially that of SecuROM) is against it...

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 20:47
Coke, they've had simple disc checks for a long, LONG time.

Uh.. They are using SecuROM's disc check for years in their games. See here: http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=11

Eidos Interactive
25 to Life (7.xx.xxxx)
Ancient Wars: Sparta (7.31.0007)
Battlestations Midway (7.30.0014)
Bionicle Heroes (7.29.xxxx)
Championship Manager 2006 (7.xx.xxxx)
Championship Manager 2007 (7.xx.xxxx)
Championship Manager 2008 (7.33.0017)
Championship Manager 5 (7.xx.xxxx)
Commandos: Strike Force (7.19.0008)
Conflict: Denied Ops (7.35.0007)
Conflict: Global Storm (7.xx.xxxx)
Hitman: Blood Money (7.xx.xxxx)
Imperial Glory (7.xx.xxxx)
Just Cause (7.xx.xxxx)
Lego Star Wars (7.xx.xxxx)
Project Snowblind (7.xx.xxxx)
Reservoir Dogs (7.26.0005)
Rogue Trooper (7.20.xxxx)
Shellshock 2: Blood Trails (7.38.0009)
Tomb Raider: Anniversary (7.xx.xxxx)
Tomb Raider: Legend (7.21.0012)
Tomb Raider: Underworld (7.38.0012)
Top Trumps: Doctor Who (7.35.0007)
Total Overdose (7.xx.xxxx)


AFAIK all of these games use the simple "disk check" version.

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 20:50
Eidos used disc checks long before SecuROM existed.

Yes but as of 2006 they use SecuROM.

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 21:04
@Coke

That list is fairly recent games (as you said, since 2006). It's also amusing that I only even recognized a handful of names on that list. Batman is the first game Eidos has been involved with in probably a decade that I've wanted to play.

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 21:13
This way we may avoid the delay for PC version if a sequel appears

Or... we might just be lucky enough to ensure that such a sequel will be released for the PC too. If Batman AA sells below their expectations I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to make the sequels only for the consoles. :o

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 21:27
Or... we might just be lucky enough to ensure that such a sequel will be released for the PC too. If Batman AA sells below their expectations I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to make the sequels only for the consoles. :o

Which due to them pissing off plenty of people by using SecuROM (and refusing to tell people if there will be online activations or activation limits), PC sales probably won't be as much as they hope for. Instead of realizing their mistake, they'll just blame PC gamers.

SteMot
7th Sep 2009, 21:33
Which due to them pissing off plenty of people by using SecuROM (and refusing to tell people if there will be online activations or activation limits), PC sales probably won't be as much as they hope for. Instead of realizing their mistake, they'll just blame PC gamers.

Yep, that's about the tall and short of it. A simple, official confirmation from Kier could put everybody's mind at rest. Or not, as the case may be.

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 22:30
Which due to them pissing off plenty of people by using SecuROM (and refusing to tell people if there will be online activations or activation limits), PC sales probably won't be as much as they hope for. Instead of realizing their mistake, they'll just blame PC gamers.

So far the only ones that are pissed are those that have already downloaded the game and can't finish it. ;)

The rest of us, who actually want to buy and support the game, all we have to do is wait 1 more week to learn what copy protection method is being used.

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 23:19
So far the only ones that are pissed are those that have already downloaded the game and can't finish it. ;)

The rest of us, who actually want to buy and support the game, all we have to do is wait 1 more week to learn what copy protection method is being used.

No, there are plenty of people (like myself) who were planning on buying the game until they found out that Eidos was putting SecuROM on it. IF there are no install limits or online activation, I'll still buy the game, but since Eidos is refusing to let people know, that makes people assume that there WILL be install limits / online activation, which means that those who value their rights will not purchase this game.

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 23:38
But they aren't losing now any $, because the game isn't out yet, remember?

Maybe a few preorders were canceled, so that people can read the first reviews to make sure there's no DRM..

..But you can't say that they are already losing sales.. since it's... impossible to buy the game yet!

Those that care enough to research what copy protection the game is using before they buy it, they understand that they can't jump to conclusions before an Eidos representative speaks or the first user reviews are posted online.

So, they only ones who are pissed right now are the pirates. ;)

Totenglocke
7th Sep 2009, 23:47
No, after talking with the Eidos employee on here, I'm rather pissed and no longer plan on buying the game. After the game has been out awhile if it is proven that they aren't raping their customers, THEN I'll purchase the game. However, I've not been lead to believe that will be the case. As such I, and others like me, am no longer planning on buying the game that I was initially going to buy. That means that they'll most likely have lower sales.

People don't like being raped by DRM - or did you not notice the lawsuits against EA for using SecuROM?

The Coca Cola Company
7th Sep 2009, 23:58
No, after talking with the Eidos employee on here, I'm rather pissed and no longer plan on buying the game.

Why is that???? What he has said to you is that they won't use limited activations. Isn't that what you wanted to hear?

Let me quote him:


I dont LIKE limited installs or things like that so i dont use them.


As i have said on MANY occasions i dont LIKE DRM in protection so i avoid using it..


I have stated on MANY occasions i dont like DRM, i dont use DRM in our products for disc based versions.

If you don't like him responding that Batman AA will not use limited installations, then it's your issue............

SolidSnake_123
8th Sep 2009, 00:15
Dang guys, you PC dudes are flippin smart, hehe, only joking. Anyone notice that their are like 600 guests and 5 users on? Haha.

akskiller
8th Sep 2009, 00:30
Batman: Arkham Asylum PC Discussion (740 Viewing)

:lmao:

Kettels
8th Sep 2009, 00:34
Dang guys, you PC dudes are flippin smart, hehe, only joking. Anyone notice that their are like 600 guests and 5 users on? Haha.

half are probably looking for a reason why they can't glide :D

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 00:49
Quote:
No, after talking with the Eidos employee on here, I'm rather pissed and no longer plan on buying the game.
Why is that???? What he has said to you is that they won't use limited activations. Isn't that what you wanted to hear?

Let me quote him:

Quote:
I dont LIKE limited installs or things like that so i dont use them.
Quote:
As i have said on MANY occasions i dont LIKE DRM in protection so i avoid using it..
Quote:
I have stated on MANY occasions i dont like DRM, i dont use DRM in our products for disc based versions.
If you don't like him responding that Batman AA will not use limited installations, then it's your issue............

My problem is not just activation limits (which if you read my discussions with him, you'd realize it) - it's also online activation, which he has conspicuously avoided talking about at all (implying that there will be online activation).

He has said that he dislikes DRM, yet there is DRM in the game (no way for you to deny that). Obviously his personal preferences do not impact what the company is doing, therefore his claims of activation limits are suspect as well.

If they weren't up to anything fishy, then why not give an official statement (when Eidos knows there are so many people anxious to know) on whether there will be activation limits or online activations?

Only companies trying to screw their customers avoid giving details on their products.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 01:07
Batman: Arkham Asylum PC Discussion (740 Viewing)

:lmao:

908 now :eek: What the hell is going on that's such big news???

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 06:11
My problem is not just activation limits (which if you read my discussions with him, you'd realize it) - it's also online activation, which he has conspicuously avoided talking about at all (implying that there will be online activation).

Not all people have a problem with online activation, while almost no one doesn't like limited activations. Securom is known for annoying people with it's install limits and that's exactly what was first discussed in this thread. Also, not talking about it != there will be online activation, unless you want to jump on conclusions.



He has said that he dislikes DRM, yet there is DRM in the game (no way for you to deny that).

No. Show me some proof that there is evidence so far that the game will use DRM. Again, not talking about it != there will be DRM.



Obviously his personal preferences do not impact what the company is doing, therefore his claims of activation limits are suspect as well.

Pretty sure he's one of the people who had already decided the copy protection that would be used when he had replied here.



If they weren't up to anything fishy, then why not give an official statement (when Eidos knows there are so many people anxious to know) on whether there will be activation limits or online activations?

Didn't you just say that he's unable to convince you that what he says is real? He has already written three times that there would be no activation limits and you are saying that you still don't believe him. What are the chances you believe him if he comes back and writes a fourth time that there would be no activation limits and discuss if there is going to be online activation?



Only companies trying to screw their customers avoid giving details on their products.

So, if the game is released and features no DRM will you come back here and say "I was SO wrong on accusing Eidos on their official forums that they want to screw their customers and have no respect for them"? Because that's exactly what you're doing.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 06:51
Also, not talking about it != there will be online activation, unless you want to jump on conclusions.

People asked him on this very thread, multiple times, if there would be online activation - he ignored it every time and would only talk about activation limits. That implies (but does not mean for a fact) that there will be online activation or he would have said "no".


No. Show me some proof that there is evidence so far that the game will use DRM. Again, not talking about it != there will be DRM.

SecuROM IS DRM! You yourself have acknowledged that SecuROM is in the game!


Pretty sure he's one of the people who had already decided the copy protection that would be used when he had replied here.

Maybe, maybe not. There's no way for us to know if he has any control over the decision to use SecuROM. My guess would be not and that it came from higher up, but that's only a guess.


Didn't you just say that he's unable to convince you that what he says is real? He has already written three times that there would be no activation limits and you are saying that you still don't believe him. What are the chances you believe him if he comes back and writes a fourth time that there would be no activation limits and discuss if there is going to be online activation?

An employee posting on forums is NOT an official statement. Putting information about activation limits / online activation under the F.A.Q. on the B:AA website would be an official statement.


So, if the game is released and features no DRM will you come back here and say "I was SO wrong on accusing Eidos on their official forums that they want to screw their customers and have no respect for them"? Because that's exactly what you're doing.

The game has DRM, no two ways about it (unless you've somehow been brainwashed into thinking that SecuROM isn't DRM, in which case there's no point discussing it with you). However, it may (I highly doubt it) be that they don't infringe on peoples rights with it (which would be a shock since that's what DRM is repeatedly used for by all sorts of companies, not just game companies). If it doesn't infringe on my rights to install the software that I paid for on my system, then I will buy the game.

The fact that Eidos has refused to make an official statement and put anything on the game packaging, website, or F.A.Q. about activation limits / online activation implies that they are hiding it because they know it will upset people and cause them to not buy the game. Since the fiasco that SecuROM has created for EA means that many people are pestering Eidos about information on SecuROM in B:AA, it would be a HUGE selling point and really inspire people to support the game if they came out and officially said "There will be no activation limits and no online activation".

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 07:07
SecuROM IS DRM! You yourself have acknowledged that SecuROM is in the game!


The game has DRM, no two ways about it (unless you've somehow been brainwashed into thinking that SecuROM isn't DRM, in which case there's no point discussing it with you).

It seems you can't understand it. I have only said that they are most likely going to use the simple "disc check" version of Securom, I never said they're going to use the DRM (aka with activation limits) version of SecuROM. In fact AFAIK no game of Eidos has ever used that (if I am mistaken please correct me) and there's ZERO ( 0 ) evidence that this game might use it. (Of course it might turn out that the game has Securom DRM but I repeat myself, so far there's absolutely nothing that points to them using Securom DRM)

Using SecuROM != using DRM (aka activation limits and/or online activation)



Putting information about activation limits / online activation under the F.A.Q. on the B:AA website would be an official statement.

Most companies do not have such FAQ on the official website even when they use nothing like activation limits. Not putting it there != they are probably hiding something.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 07:11
SecuROM is DRM - just because they may not use the nastiest features of it doesn't make it any less DRM. That's like saying that a V6 Mustang isn't a Mustang because it doesn't have the V8 (though yes, you're a poser if you don't buy the V8 with a manual).


Most companies do not have such FAQ on the official website even when they use nothing like activation limits. Not putting it there != there are probably hiding something.

No most companies (or at least the ones I buy from) DO keep a FAQ where they answer questions such as that. Blizzard has openly said that they will have online activation required for Starcraft II. Eidos knows that online activations and install limits are a major issue right now and when they've had large numbers of people ask them about it, to not issue an official statement implies (I never said guarantees) that they're hiding something.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 07:19
SecuROM is DRM - just because they may not use the nastiest features of it doesn't make it any less DRM.

CD key is also a form of DRM. It seems that you want the game to feature absolutely no protection.


No most companies (or at least the ones I buy from) DO keep a FAQ where they answer questions such as that.

In the official website (not in their forum)? Links to a couple of companies please.

Totenglocke
8th Sep 2009, 07:26
A CD key is not DRM. It cuts down on people using pirated copies only in that (if you play online) it checks to make sure that a key is not used more than once at the same time. I can take my copy of Starcraft and burn 1,000 copies - as long as those thousand people don't get online at the same time to play it, the game works perfectly fine for everyone.


In the official website (not in their forum)? Links to a couple of companies please.
http://www.starcraft2.com/ Most companies put up a website for each game.......Eidos is the first I've seen that doesn't do that and instead just puts up a forum.

The Coca Cola Company
8th Sep 2009, 07:35
A CD key is not DRM.

Then why do you classify the use of disc check as DRM???

Here's wikipedia's article on DRM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Computer_games


Computer games sometimes use DRM technologies TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SYSTEMS THE GAME CAN BE INSTALLED ON. MOST GAMES WITH THIS RESTRICTION ALLOW THREE OR FIVE INSTALLS. This limits users who have more than three or five computers in their homes (Seeing as the rights of the software developers allow them to limit the number of installations).

It doesn't say that using a disc check is DRM but you are saying it is. That's what you said:


SecuROM is DRM - just because they may not use the nastiest features of it doesn't make it any less DRM.


http://www.starcraft2.com/ Most companies put up a website for each game.......Eidos is the first I've seen that doesn't do that and instead just puts up a forum.

You are wrong, this is Batman's website: http://www.batmanarkhamasylum.com/
And I see nowhere in the FAQ of starcraft 2 ( http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml ) that they have put official confirmation what's the copy protection method they are going to use.

jaywalker2309
8th Sep 2009, 11:30
DRM means `digital` rights.. a disc check is not a digital check, its a physical check, using the physical disc to authenticate the user. If that is all thats used as the protection then no DRM is used

If you buy the game online and install it there is no physical disc to check for authenticity, so THEN a digital rights management system would be used to link the game to the user, this is true of EVERY game you buy online, that KEY you get is a part of the DRM system.

People need to differentiate between the different ways to authenticate a game.

Install limitations on a disc based purchase is not something i'd ever want to do as this is using DRM on your machine to track how many times etc.. ie its stored something on your machine to keep tally.

matches81
8th Sep 2009, 12:05
Sorry for the late reply, but:

Duh.. Isn't this the exact same thing I'm saying? That there are many people who buy PC games, they just don't pay for them?

And you are replying "hey, then how can PC gaming be so big, if they don't buy any games??" Isn't it obvious that they pirate them?
You're kidding, right? The size of a market is the amount of money it generates. Pirates are not included in that, since they don't generate any money. If nobody was actually buying PC games, the PC gaming market wouldn't be the largest one around.


I won't reply to the rest of your arguments, since I believe I debunked them, you are just not agreeing with me and never will.

If you want to believe that somehow PC gamers are different, and will not buy as many games as the console gamers if piracy was more difficult on the PC, or that won't buy new titles because they still play old ones, or that actually PC gamers are the minority go ahead and do it. It seems I can't convince you at all.

I believe that at least some people that are reading this thread will be able to understand me and agree me.
Actually, I agree on quite a few things you said. The only thing I disagree with is that PC games would sell just as much as 360 games, even if there was no piracy at all. I believe that the reason I gave for this should be very understandable: There's a lot more competition for any game on the PC than on the 360. The PC brings a game catalogue to the table that easily trumps PS3 and 360 combined in size. It's not that far-fetched to go on from there and assume that there's not as much left of the cake for each individual game.
Why do you think the Sims are so damn successful? I think the main reason, besides being a good game, is: It's completely alone in that genre. There is no competition for that game. Now, take a look at some big FPS. That one goes up against hundreds of other FPSs. There's probably around 20 competent FPSs on the PC each year. Sure, the best one will probably outdo its competition in sales, but it still won't create as many sales as a great shooter for the 360, because that one goes up against perhaps 3 or 4 from that same year, if at all.

Btw: I never said PC gamers don't buy as many games.


For the record: I never had a console, I own every single one of Valve's games and use Steam everyday, I'm still playing old (or very old!) games and I'm even using GPGPU applications: Folding@Home & DGAVCDecNV. Hell I'm interested in learning CUDA since I already know to program in C\C++ and C#

I'm mentioning these just in case you think: "Oh, another console gamer that speaks about things he doesn't know". That would be very far from it. My opinion is that of a hardcore PC gamer and PC user.
First off: I'm a "hybrid", PC and PS3. No interest in Folding@Home and things like that, but quite interested in CUDA, as I also know C, C++ and C#. Also, I never thought of you as a console kiddie. Two reasons for that: A console kiddie would never deny that PC games can't compete with console games in terms of sales. Also, you're way to eloquent for being one and you haven't insulted me yet. ;)

Sorry, but I still believe PC gamers are different from console gamers. Even the games themselves are different. Most console games are made to be satisfying almost immediately, while quite a few PC exclusives do require quite a bit of an attention span, because it often takes an hour or more until the satisfaction truly kicks in. The reason for that is simple: Consoles are a rather "casual" form of entertainment. They reside next to your TV in the living room, you come home at night, pick up the controller and just want to enjoy yourself for an hour or so. Playing one of the more demanding PC games requires you to invest a serious amount of time. You definitely won't pick up Empire: Total War, for example, when you just want an hour of entertainment after work. You pick that game up when you know you have quite a bit of time on your hands and are looking forward to ponder your moves hour after hour.
Having experienced both "worlds" (computer, i.e. C64,Amiga and PC, games for more than 20 years and console games for roughly 8 years), I know there is a difference between the two for a fact. I just played inFamous and Killzone 2, for roughly 90 minutes combined and enjoyed it thoroughly. Sorry, I just wouldn't do something like that with The Witcher and Anno 1701, for example... it would be no fun at all.


@Totenglocke: Sorry, but there's a difference between DRM and copy protection. Disk checks, CD keys etc are copy protection. DRM "manages" the rights of the publisher for the sold product, for example by requiring you to activate your copy online, limiting the number of times you can activate it or restricting you to using it on one system only. This way, the publisher is still in control of how you use his product. Basically, you're looking at DRM if you still have to ask the publisher whether you're allowed to use the product after you bought it. If you don't require the publisher's cooperation to use the product, it's not DRM.
SecuROM provides both a copy protection method (a disk check) and DRM (online activations with the possibility of introducing a limit).

I think it's kind of funny, btw, that the music industry already acknowledged the fact that customers aren't happy about DRM and that it's not helping their sales at all, while the gaming industry, which should be the most competent in that matter compared to music and movie industry, is the last one to give it a try and probably will be the last one to drop it.

Choronzonon
8th Sep 2009, 13:40
@ Choronzonon
Here's my challenge - prove it. To quote you, "if you can't, you're just laying down a line of BS".
Anyone who wants can email me or call me to confirm that I left that comment. I'm not exactly difficult to locate:

http://www.geoffreyjames.com

Or you could just Google me. Since you'll get dozens of articles, it might be a little difficult to fake all that up.

By the way, I notice that your "degree in economics" appears to have disappeared from the discussion.

Want to prove that you're not laying a line of BS? How about sharing your name, and a link to the school website where they announced the awarding of your degree? Then put a note on your Facebook blog about this post, assuming you've used your own name. If it all matches up, you'll have proved your identity to everyone's satisfaction, I'm sure.

I'm not holding my breath though, because I'm pretty sure that you're all noise and no substance. It would be almost impossible for anybody trained in economics to make the kind of naive remarks you've been making about the economics of intellectual property theft.

Furthermore, I've learned that, when it comes to claims of authority stated on forums, many are trolls but few are real.

Nemesis296
8th Sep 2009, 15:01
Anyone who wants can email me or call me to confirm that I left that comment. I'm not exactly difficult to locate:

http://www.geoffreyjames.com

Or you could just Google me. Since you'll get dozens of articles, it might be a little difficult to fake all that up.

By the way, I notice that your "degree in economics" appears to have disappeared from the discussion.

Want to prove that you're not laying a line of BS? How about sharing your name, and a link to the school website where they announced the awarding of your degree? Then put a note on your Facebook blog about this post, assuming you've used your own name. If it all matches up, you'll have proved your identity to everyone's satisfaction, I'm sure.

I'm not holding my breath though, because I'm pretty sure that you're all noise and no substance. It would be almost impossible for anybody trained in economics to make the kind of naive remarks you've been making about the economics of intellectual property theft.

Furthermore, I've learned that, when it comes to claims of authority stated on forums, many are trolls but few are real.

Why....do you honestly care that much about a PC game? Honestly, I can't even read these walls of text anymore because they have just turned into a giant flame war. Either buy the game and play it, or don't. It's that simple. There, I drew through all of the grey areas/black and white lines for you. No one on here cares about degrees, legitimacy, etc when it comes to this...maybe you do, but if that's the case, the video game forums for Batman: Arkham Asylum are not the place for you. I don't come here saying "Post your degree, or it isn't true!" I come here to be entertained and discuss the best video game ever made. Your posts and bickering are just turning it into a nightmare. :hmm:

chip5541
8th Sep 2009, 15:18
This is one thing I really hate about copy protection threads. Always easily derailed because it affects so many levels of entertainment. You should have seen the Starforce thread at avault. That turned real ugly. I really think this thread has pretty much run its course and that the basic question of Securom has been answered. I will leave this thread up to help others that are looking for Securom info but I am going to go ahead and close it.