480 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All that means is you won't buy it before realising the problem.

Uh... Yeah? That's pretty much my point. Complaining about Steam is all well and good, but if you've bought the game and tried installing it to find it needs Steam - and it says so on the box - then you look like a bit of a pilchard, especially if the mention of Steam is surrounded by a bright red box on the back of the case - Right underneath the specs.

I want The Settlers 7, but I've not bought it because I disagree with Ubisoft's DRM. I'm not, however, sitting on their forums going YOU GUYS R T3H SUXX FOR UR DRM. I'm voting with my money - and my money says "Err... No, I'm not buying that".

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the problem is still there, and it prevents many people from playing the game.

I think you mean 'a small few with potentially incorrect opinions', rather than "many". If it truly was a case of "many", then it wouldn't have sold like it did. Steam's only a problem if you let it be one.

You're ignoring that the person could have read all the info off the box, gotten really upset, and then bought the game anyway because the desire to play it was still strong.

[Amioran]

Xandrar wrote...

QTF.

Allthough, AC2 (not brotherhood) seemed quite effective as it took a few weeks before it was fully cracked. But then again, Ive got no clue how much sales they lost on all the negative rep they got for such rigorous DRM. But I think crackers are now familiar with that once-new DRM, so I dont think they can pull it off again.

No. As I said AC2 drm was a lie, so the common rules (either for cracking it) doesn't apply.

AC2 system will always work because in truth is not a real DRM, it is just how the game is created. It is a sort of MMO in functioning. A server is required to give informations to full some strings, i.e. it is needed to send data without the wich the game cannot run.

For an hacker it's impossible to know in anticipation what kind of "segment" is given, just because it is bundled in how the game works and it's not already present in the disassembled code to find. So, while they know the system this will help them in the slightest in future, since it's not a DRM in realtiy, but simply a programming of the code, and you cannot recreate missing part of it in anticipation.

It took so long to "crack" (wrong word, but anyway...) AC2 because they had to create an offline server and replicate all the missing piece of codes. In execution this is really easy to do (in fact it was not done by a group, but by single users), but it requires a lot of work on retrieving the pieces, a thing an hacker group will never lose time with.

Modifié par Amioran, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:40 .

[elearon1]

Amioran wrote...

elearon1 wrote...

This is pointless, it will take hackers less than a week to break this...

Less than a week? Are you crazy? It will take a group less than a day (if not less than 12-16 hours, depending on when they get the game). .

I'm not really that informed on the speed of such things, but I was aware I was still being generous in giving them a week.  I have to wonder, though, if you're going to steal a game, is waiting a day - or even a week - really that big of a deal?  Is preventing a day 0 piracy saving the companies that much money by forcing would-be pirates to buy the game at release?  I would be very interested to see the statistics on this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Steam's a problem as long as it limits what version of a game I can play. It forces you to patch the game when you install it (there's no way to prevent this), and after you install any patch it's impossible to rollback to an earlier version even by reinstalling.

Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

[Loerwyn]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You're ignoring that the person could have read all the info off the box, gotten really upset, and then bought the game anyway because the desire to play it was still strong. 

In that case, my point about being a pilchard stands. 

If you don't agree with something, don't bloody buy it. I don't agree with Activision, so I don't buy their games. I don't agree with DA2's direction, so I'm not buying it. I don't agree with Ubisoft's DRM, so I don't buy their games. Even if I really want something, I'm not going to buy it as it goes against what I think. I vote with my money.

If you buy a game that does something you don't like - Such as use Steamworks DRM - All you're saying is "Give me more of it". You're not saying "Take your DRM and shove it", are you?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Steam's a problem as long as it limits what version of a game I can play. It forces you to patch the game when you install it (there's no way to prevent this), and after you install any patch it's impossible to rollback to an earlier version even by reinstalling.

Steam isn't the only one to do this. Impulse does it, and I believe Direct2Drive and GamersGate games download fully patched, but I could be wrong.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

So? It's called having principles, something a lot of people don't seem to have these days. If you don't agree with something, take your business elsewhere - Simple as that.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:43 .

[twincast]

I guess all this is BioWare trying to make me hate it to make the subsequent breakup hurt less. Feels like it at least.
Whatever, I'll just go throw myself into the young, strong, Polish arms of CD Projekt.

Since I already pre-ordered DA2 I'm leaning towards buying it and downloading a l'il additional file. Same goes for ME3, if solely for the sake of completing the trilogy. And of course I wanna try TOR. But after that? Zip. BioWare has now finally lost all my trust it had earned. No writing however great can salvage it from offending pretty much every principle (all: ME, all but one: DA) I have in regards to video games.


edit: I do vote with my money by not buying Ubisoft games - and
would do the same with Activision if the Activision part of
Activision-Blizzard had anything of interest to me to offer in recent
memory. (Well, I got TF:WfC because, hey, it was the first proper TF
game in ages - and only the second that wasn't terrible, but that
compulsive behavior won't apply for any sequels.) But for whatever reason (number of their games I played, dev activity on the (prior) boards,...) I still feel connected to BioWare enough to most likely go and learn more about Thedas in DA2 and adhere to my completism with ME3.

Modifié par twincast, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:58 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

This isn't like an election. (though I still think you are definitively wrong about a "vote" even there) Lot's of people vote both ways. You are not a single vote, you are a vote that's part of a large pool of similar votes. Collectively there is weight because there are lots of people tha agree with you and vote the same. Lots of poeple don't buy the game. Lots of people pirate the game. And lots of people do buy the game. Moving numbers from one toward another is something that does happen and can be seen in sales numbers.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

Start a consumer advocacy group.  If you get big, influentual, and loud enough they might start to care.

[the_one_54321]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
If you buy a game that does something you don't like - Such as use Steamworks DRM - All you're saying is "Give me more of it". You're not saying "Take your DRM and shove it", are you?

Indeed. As much as the person was hating it, that person was still sending the message that "it's still not too much for me."

[Amioran]

elearon1 wrote...

I'm not really that informed on the speed of such things, but I was aware I was still being generous in giving them a week.  I have to wonder, though, if you're going to steal a game, is waiting a day - or even a week - really that big of a deal?  Is preventing a day 0 piracy saving the companies that much money by forcing would-be pirates to buy the game at release?  I would be very interested to see the statistics on this.

Yes, it makes a looot of difference. If a game is pirated before it ships is a tremendous blow. There are game that lost more than 50% sales just for this. Day zero piracy is one of the worst thing you can have.

Pirates are usually not patient people, even more for "hyped" titles. When Bioshock came out and pirates couldn't get the game after a day the majority of them just bought the game. You may think it silly just because they don't pay for the game so they might just wait, but this apply only for the "real" pirate, the one that will unavoidably steal it. What companies care about are not those, but the ones that are "undecided", and, so to speak, lazy. If they don't see a way to have the game for free they will buy it. These are the "pirates" that matters for sales, and these people care about day zero, max one, release before giving up.

[tishyw]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

tishyw wrote...
but this isn't as bad as Fallout New Vegas which made me install steam to play the boxed copy.

I suggest you learn to read the box, then, or do better research on the products you're buying.

It's clearly stated on the back of the box that you need Steam.

Yes, you're right, I should have read the box, I just presumed that it would be the same as Fallout 3.  But that's not really the point, the point is that I had to install 3rd party software to play the boxed copy of a single player game, which I thought was disgusting.

Back on topic, I'm confused, do we need to be connected to the internet at all times for the game/dlc to work, or just to authenticate the game and download the dlc?  I thought it was the latter, but having read this thread I'm now completely unsure.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

This isn't like an election. (though I still think you are definitively wrong about a "vote" even there) Lot's of people vote both ways. You are not a single vote, you are a vote that's part of a large pool of similar votes. Collectively there is weight because there are lots of people tha agree with you and vote the same. Lots of poeple don't buy the game. Lots of people pirate the game. And lots of people do buy the game. Moving numbers from one toward another is something that does happen and can be seen in sales numbers.

Moving numbers, if large enough, makes a difference.

One customer is not a large enough number.

So yes, I'm part a larger pool of votes, but if I decline to take part that large pool still exists.  My presence or absence makes no material difference.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:49 .

[Super_Cat]

I'm getting it digitally so I don't even have to deal with disc checks.



And I actually like the online interaction, uploading character info and stuff like that. So using the internet to make sure my copy is valid really isn't an issue for me.

[Nighteye2]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
No. Based on the contract terms (the EULA) EA would be within their rights to terminate their license to you at that point. Whether or not this would stand up in court is a different issue. It depends on how software is treated as IP.

Thank you for specifying that. Probability of me not buying DA][ has now increased to >95%.

Why are you drawing the line with this game?  EULAs have been saying precisely that for years.

I drew the line with the concept, not this game. You'll be hard pressed to find a game that fits this model in my collection.

(as an example, if Blizzard dies off, thought it probably wont unless it chooses to, I'll still be able to play my old copy of Starcraft. If BioWare dissapears I'll still be able to play my old copy of NWN. If CDP goes bankrupt I'll still be able to play my copy of The Witcher)

As I slight counter-point: if I recall correctly, once a company ceases to exist, it becomes legal to circumvent their DRM. I vaguely recall a judge ruling something like that in regards to a site trying to preserve very old games, which still used old DRM like asking words from the manual and such...and also games with 16-bit DRM which did not run on 32-bit or 64-bit machines.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nighteye2 wrote...

As I slight counter-point: if I recall correctly, once a company ceases to exist, it becomes legal to circumvent their DRM. I vaguely recall a judge ruling something like that in regards to a site trying to preserve very old games, which still used old DRM like asking words from the manual and such...and also games with 16-bit DRM which did not run on 32-bit or 64-bit machines.

That makes sense.  Once one party to the contract ceases to exist, the other party owes no one compliance.

[Nighteye2]

the_one_54321 wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
If you buy a game that does something you don't like - Such as use Steamworks DRM - All you're saying is "Give me more of it". You're not saying "Take your DRM and shove it", are you?

Indeed. As much as the person was hating it, that person was still sending the message that "it's still not too much for me."

Yes, but the bar for buying games would be raised. Only games that were really, really good would be able to compensate for the huge downside of the DRM.

[-Zorph-]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You're ignoring that the person could have read all the info off the box, gotten really upset, and then bought the game anyway because the desire to play it was still strong. 

In that case, my point about being a pilchard stands. 

If you don't agree with something, don't bloody buy it. I don't agree with Activision, so I don't buy their games. I don't agree with DA2's direction, so I'm not buying it. I don't agree with Ubisoft's DRM, so I don't buy their games. Even if I really want something, I'm not going to buy it as it goes against what I think. I vote with my money.

If you buy a game that does something you don't like - Such as use Steamworks DRM - All you're saying is "Give me more of it". You're not saying "Take your DRM and shove it", are you?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Steam's a problem as long as it limits what version of a game I can play. It forces you to patch the game when you install it (there's no way to prevent this), and after you install any patch it's impossible to rollback to an earlier version even by reinstalling.

Steam isn't the only one to do this. Impulse does it, and I believe Direct2Drive and GamersGate games download fully patched, but I could be wrong.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

So? It's called having principles, something a lot of people don't seem to have these days. If you don't agree with something, take your business elsewhere - Simple as that.

Wait let me get this straight...

You are cheating yourself out of great games, because you believe that you have even a slightest effect on the develoeprs by boycotting their games? First of all, you are not leading a righteous crusade of not purchasing a product, because most people would see your logic as extremely flawed.

If I really wanted to play a game, I wouldn't simply go against what I want to play as an entertainment product, simply because I believe online activation is wrong. I mean really, hook up an internet connection and activate it, but I guess you can't please them all.

Anyways, what I am trying to say is that you avoiding products is not 'voting with your money', because they could care less if one consumer stops buying their products, and they won't know that you don't agree with the DRM when you avoid them; so how in the world is it saying "Take your DRM and shove it!"

Seriously, your post was either a major joke, or you are a troll. Because I fail to see how making yourself prived from games, is in anyway a good thing.

Even if a business does something you don't agree with, it doesn't matter what you think. Ok, let me rephrase that; everyone has a right to an opinion. However, the developers don't automatically take your opinion and make changes to suit YOU PERSONALLY.

I don't even understand why somebody would think that avoiding games that you want to play just because the publisher/developer put something so minor as a DRM onto their products.

Like what? I don't even...

Modifié par -Zorph-, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:08 .

[JamesX]

I thought your Bioware account is your EA account? If you are posting here... doesn't it mean you have one already?

[StormbringerGT]

Connect wrote...

Well guys, the EULA for Dragon Age II has just been posted a couple of hours ago on the EA website and it appears that they are going back to the dreadful days of the Mass Effect 1 DRM, even worse in some aspects.

So, here's the deal: you need an EA account, then you need to activate the game on that account and you are limited to running the game on 5 PCs in 24 hours. I realize most people will not play the game on 5 PCs in the same day, but I have a question:

WHAT THE PLOK WAS WRONG WITH THE DRM IN DRAGON AGE 1?

I just don't understand these people. Is it that hard to keep boxed copies on a DISC CHECK only? I thought they have learned their lesson with Mass Effect 1, but it seems they just keep going back to the online activation shenanigans.

Dragon Age Origins, Awakening, Mass Effect 2 - all wonderful games with friendly DRM (disc checks). I even bought 2 copies of Mass Effect 2 at launch to show my support for the friendly DRM. Yes, I bought one extra copy just for the DRM.

Now I have 2 pre-orders for the BioWare signature edition and I am canceling one and will probably cancel the second one too. Screw this, I'll get it in the bargain bin for 3 dollars next year.

If you put online activation DRM in Mass Effect 3 too then I am done with BioWare.

I don't have an issue with the DRM I rarely have an issue with DRM in games. Maybe its luck? Didn't have an issue with Mass Effect 1DRM either.

To offset a knee jerk reaction I'll pre-order an extra copy for both ps3 and the PC. I got Dragon Age for both PC and 360 and yes both were collectors editions, check my profile I think it shows both registered. I also bought at least 2 copies for cheap friends who kept playing the same 5 games on 360. At least not they keep playing the same 6. Don't get me started on what I own Mass Effect wise...

So consider your vote null and void as they will never feel the loss of your canceled pre-orders. Muahahahaahahah. 

[StormbringerGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Steam's a problem as long as it limits what version of a game I can play. It forces you to patch the game when you install it (there's no way to prevent this), and after you install any patch it's impossible to rollback to an earlier version even by reinstalling.
Oh, and by the way, voting with your money doesn't work. The marginal impact of your purchase is effectively zero.

Sylvius?! Wait you play games! I thought you only posted in game forums.

I jest, I jest! You avatar portrait makes me miss old school dungeons and dragons.

[Bryy_Miller]

Bann Duncan wrote...

If you are here, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EA ACCOUNT.

I giggled.

[Eurypterid]

-Zorph- wrote...
Wait let me get this straight...

You are cheating yourself out of great games, because you believe that you have even a slightest effect on the develoeprs by boycotting their games? First of all, you are not leading a righteous crusade of not purchasing a product, because most people would see your logic as extremely flawed.

If I really wanted to play a game, I wouldn't simply go against what I want to play as an entertainment product, simply because I believe online activation is wrong. I mean really, hook up an internet connection and activate it, but I guess you can't please them all.

Anyways, what I am trying to say is that you avoiding products is not 'voting with your money', because they could care less if one consumer stops buying their products, and they won't know that you don't agree with the DRM when you avoid them; so how in the world is it saying "Take your DRM and shove it!"

Seriously, your post was either a major joke, or you are a troll. Because I fail to see how making yourself prived from games, is in anyway a good thing.

Even if a business does something you don't agree with, it doesn't matter what you think. Ok, let me rephrase that; everyone has a right to an opinion. However, the developers don't automatically take your opinion and make changes to suit YOU PERSONALLY.

I don't even understand why somebody would think that avoiding games that you want to play just because the publisher/developer put something so minor as a DRM onto their products.

Like what? I don't even...

One voice makes no difference, but many do. Were you around for the outcry about the DRM on ME1? I was (in fact, I was one of the people complaining about it). Guess what? They scaled it back, and then changed it to a simple disc check on ME2. Voting silently with your wallent doesn't make a difference, no. But being vocal about it and then voting with your wallet can.

Personally, I think it's too soon to get up in arms about what may be on DA2 for DRM. Judging by the thread so far, it's not entirely clear how invasive/offensive it will be. I'll wait until I see some further clarification (hopefully from the devs) before I decide whether or not it's on/off my 'to buy' list.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't see how it's much different than what Origins had.

[Reanna]

the_one_54321 wrote...


Are you trying to sarcastic? Lots and lots of people still have no internet connections around the world.

And yet they have computer's?? I would venture a guess that most people that have a computer that can run this game have basic internet at the very least.