bit-gamer.net

C&C 4 requires constant internet connection

C&C 4 requires constant internet connection

The upcoming Command and Conquer 4 will require a constant internet connection in order to run, apparently.

Electronic Arts has revealed that the recently announced Command and Conquer 4 will require a constant internet connection to play, though perhaps not for the reasons you might expect.

Rather than being an anti-piracy device, EA Community Manager Aasron Kaufman claimed that the game has certain features in common with an MMO game and will use that always-on 'net connection to track player progress through the game.

"As of right now, you need to be online all the time to play C&C 4," Kaufman posted on a fan forum (via Voodoo Extreme).

"This is primarily due to our 'player progression' feature so everything can be tracked. C&C 4 is not an MMO in the sense of World of Warcraft, but conceptually it has similar principles for being online all the time. While some may be taken aback by this, we've been testing this feature internally with all of our worldwide markets."

This also re-affirms the fact that Electronic Arts is making Command and Conquer 4 a PC exclusive title, with no console spin-offs planned for this particular instalment.

Command and Conquer 4 is due out next year some time, though we're not sure yet if it'll get a retail release too or be a purely digital title, like the C&C Red Alert 3: Uprising expansion. Let us know your thoughts on the game in the forums.

102 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Gremlin 15th July 2009, 11:22 Quote
Yeah... No thanks.... Just GTFO EA, just GTFO
mjm25 15th July 2009, 11:24 Quote
i guess internet connections are as much a requirement now as a CPU and a Graphics Card and rightly so if it adds to the experience!

People will still bitch though :D
PT88 15th July 2009, 11:25 Quote
Sounds like pure Bull&%*t to me......

Screw EA, they have destroyed one of the best RTS game series there ever was....
Blademrk 15th July 2009, 11:31 Quote
A constant internet connection you say, that's all very well but what if an ISP decides to block that particular server (I'm looking at Pipex here, they've already done it with Steam)?
wuyanxu 15th July 2009, 11:37 Quote
that's just wrong. not everyone lives in one place and able to have 24/7, 356 days a year internet connection.

i moved to my summer placement, and only living there for 3 month. it's really hard and expensive to get a connection for such a short period.
(managed in the end with a really nice neighbour who agreed to share his fiber connection)
we moved to a new house first of July for new accademic year, and until now, my housemates are still living in the house without a connection because of the 2 weeks needed by BT and O2.

the fact is, even it seems like everyone has internet. require a singleplayer game to have constant internet connection is still wrong.
ChaosDefinesOrder 15th July 2009, 11:39 Quote
um... how the hell is constantly tracking a player's progress a "feature" that warrants constant internet connection?
lp1988 15th July 2009, 11:44 Quote
"This is primarily due to our 'player progression' feature so everything can be tracked"

this just sounds like a bad excuse, 'player progression' sounds like something like stats in BF2 or the likes, something that are mostly useful for competitive online play, but for singleplayer (assuming there will be one) mostly useless and not required to be online.

In the end an excuse, but in the end it will properly have no effect on pirating, give it two days and there's a crack.
I-E-D 15th July 2009, 11:44 Quote
Whats the point of always on... Surely you can just do it once a day?

And what happens if someone turns on a microwave?!?
PQuiff 15th July 2009, 11:50 Quote
EA....FAIL...

So it would be to hard to keep your stats on a file on your PC, and upload them when you want to play multi player.

I spy the DRM monkeys flying overhead.
Rexxie 15th July 2009, 11:51 Quote
Sounds like an excuse to implement anti-piracy measures, to me.
logonui 15th July 2009, 12:00 Quote
So does this mean that it always has to have a process running in the background????

Gonna have to skip this one i think.
general22 15th July 2009, 12:07 Quote
I guess if they are making it PC exclusive they are introducing more DRM to guarantee their investment in the platform. So more DRM but you could get a better game since all resources will be PC focused.
naokaji 15th July 2009, 12:22 Quote
And once again EA wastes all ressources on inventing new anti piracy measures instead of making a game that is worth buying.

Seriously, if your internet doesnt work for some reason what do you do with a computer? play some game? ohh wait you can't if its C&C4.

For anyone who wants to argue I must be a pirate due to my dislike for anti piracy measures that hurt honest Customers, have a look here in the thread with the 10 most torrented games in 08.
Paradigm Shifter 15th July 2009, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin
Yeah... No thanks.... Just GTFO EA, just GTFO
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
A constant internet connection you say, that's all very well but what if an ISP decides to block that particular server (I'm looking at Pipex here, they've already done it with Steam)?
'Tis a good question - especially now since those people who are actually worried about games requireing internet connections have an excellent example in what Pipex have done. You can no longer argue 'oh, but internet is nearly ubiquitous now' and say that anyone wanting to play said game needs to sort out internet... you might have internet... you might have really fast internet... but if the ISP decides to give you the metaphorical finger when it comes to a particular service/program/server... you're screwed.

Makes me wonder why Pipex (or someone else) haven't tried blocking World of Warcraft, either - patches on that game are delivered via P2P aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
um... how the hell is constantly tracking a player's progress a "feature" that warrants constant internet connection?
Stops cheaters. Stop pirates.

Theoretically.

They might justify it by providing 'value added' extras like, "Stuck on this bit of this mission? Click here for hints or videos of Pro's playing this map!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by logonui
So does this mean that it always has to have a process running in the background????

Gonna have to skip this one i think.
Very good question. With luck it's just that the game talks to EA's servers while you're playing, giving info like what level you're on. With bad luck, however... it'll be something talking to EA's servers giving info like what programs are running, what you've got installed (hardware and software)... stuff like that.

I'm gonna pass on this game. EA have managed to kill a great series. :(

Hopefully the internet storm that this starts will be big, messy and leave EA doing a quick U-turn.
Nikumba 15th July 2009, 12:51 Quote
Well unless this changes, thats me not buying this game

Kimbie
DragunovHUN 15th July 2009, 12:53 Quote
Yeah umm, then don't shut the f*cking servers down after 3 years, would you?
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 12:54 Quote
Is this really even an issue in 2009? come on, how many PC gamers do not have high speed? There is more then enough to justify needing a net connection. BUT, people will complain like ea stole their children,. Much ado about nothing really. I never saw people get so riled up then against things like this, too bad people never turne their hate on pirates, but, that would actually make sense.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 12:56 Quote
PC exclusive, pC gamers will whine so much about requiring an internet connection (Woop de doo), causing bad word of mouth, hurting sales. PC gamers are their own worse enemy.
xaser04 15th July 2009, 13:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Is this really even an issue in 2009? come on, how many PC gamers do not have high speed? There is more then enough to justify needing a net connection. BUT, people will complain like ea stole their children,. Much ado about nothing really. I never saw people get so riled up then against things like this, too bad people never turne their hate on pirates, but, that would actually make sense.

Probably because the majority of us are with ISP's that either limit the users monthly usage (allowance) despite being 'unlimited' or in the case of Pipex completely block certain applications completely.

Of course there is always the argument that why should a SINGLE PLAYER game NEED constant internet access?!

The simple point here is that the game should not require this unless you happen to be playing it in multiplayer.

When will developers/ publishers realise that is DRM like this (lets face it the real reason here is to prevent piracy) that causes people to pirate the game in the first place. Perhaps one day they will realise that key to making a decent profit is to both not treat your customers like they are criminals AND make a decent, unique, and thoroughly enjoyable game for once (something EA seems incapable of).
l3v1ck 15th July 2009, 13:23 Quote
EA just don't get it do they?
DragunovHUN 15th July 2009, 13:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
causes people to pirate the game in the first place

Hey, wait. Now that you mention it.. i WILL pirate this game. EA has ****ed me over one too many times. I will NOT pay them for this because i KNOW that they will eventually pull the plug on the servers. They always do.

A CUSTOMER LOST IS A PIRATE GAINED! ARR!!!
lp1988 15th July 2009, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Probably because the majority of us are with ISP's that either limit the users monthly usage (allowance) despite being 'unlimited' or in the case of Pipex completely block certain applications completely.

I don't believe the amount of information would be a problem, it's not like they need to transport several GB to update.

however as a anti piracy measurement, it's gonna be as useless as usual, anything that has been programmed can be reprogrammed.
The only thing DRM does is punish those that by a retail copy. DRM is the sole reason why I don't have GTA4, any why I almost dropped Fallout 3 (until i found out Windows live was not a requrement)
Paradigm Shifter 15th July 2009, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Is this really even an issue in 2009? come on, how many PC gamers do not have high speed? There is more then enough to justify needing a net connection. BUT, people will complain like ea stole their children,. Much ado about nothing really. I never saw people get so riled up then against things like this, too bad people never turne their hate on pirates, but, that would actually make sense.

Are you really that naive?

Two examples of why your argument just isn't enough:

Pipex have just made themselves an excellent example of why having an internet connection is not enough - they block Steam completely during what they define as 'peak' hours - you need to have an internet connection you can trust 100% for a game to require something like this.

My cousins have recently had a great deal of fun with their internet connection when BT managed to flick a wrong switch in their local exchange and disabled their broadband for close to three weeks before BT finally found the problem. Three weeks of no internet because an engineer flicked a switch he shouldn't have. Good luck playing a game if/when all games require this sort of nonsense and something like that happens.
smc8788 15th July 2009, 13:41 Quote
Not to mention people that simply can't get access to broadband in their area (not just in the UK, but everywhere else).

It's like EA just don't want to sell any copies of this game, so they made a complete pig's ear of the entire franchise, alienated their customer base, then deliberately limited its appeal by restricting access to only a certain number of gamers.

Way to go, EA. Way to go. If I was their CEO I'd be seriously be considering firing this bunch of incompetent halfwits, as they clearly have no idea how to make a video game successful.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 13:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Is this really even an issue in 2009? come on, how many PC gamers do not have high speed? There is more then enough to justify needing a net connection. BUT, people will complain like ea stole their children,. Much ado about nothing really. I never saw people get so riled up then against things like this, too bad people never turne their hate on pirates, but, that would actually make sense.

Are you really that naive?

Two examples of why your argument just isn't enough:

Pipex have just made themselves an excellent example of why having an internet connection is not enough - they block Steam completely during what they define as 'peak' hours - you need to have an internet connection you can trust 100% for a game to require something like this.

My cousins have recently had a great deal of fun with their internet connection when BT managed to flick a wrong switch in their local exchange and disabled their broadband for close to three weeks before BT finally found the problem. Three weeks of no internet because an engineer flicked a switch he shouldn't have. Good luck playing a game if/when all games require this sort of nonsense and something like that happens.


LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen? LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Not to mention people that simply can't get access to broadband in their area (not just in the UK, but everywhere else).

It's like EA just don't want to sell any copies of this game, so they made a complete pig's ear of the entire franchise, alienated their customer base, then deliberately limited its appeal by restricting access to only a certain number of gamers.

Way to go, EA. Way to go. If I was their CEO I'd be seriously be considering firing this bunch of incompetent halfwits, as they clearly have no idea how to make a video game successful.


Then don't buy it , it is a requirement stated on the box, there is more then enough gamers online to sell a game that requirse internet, this is 2009, not 1996. Steam, WOW, many other games require online, hardly an issue with reagrds to sales in this day and age.
smc8788 15th July 2009, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Then don't buy it

I won't be.

Sounds like it's gonna be arse anyway.
lp1988 15th July 2009, 14:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen? LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.

I would have to disagree, I don't know where you live but this may be true most places, however I lived just a year in the US (KY) and honestly thier internet is some S**** several were still on the old dial up and the rest was unstable at best. you can't say people has to pay for a dialup phone line just to play a single player !

for most of us I do see your argument, personally would it be no problem, as long as the game just need to connect to a (stable) server. But if they want some program running om my pc constantly, then that is when I begin to have a problem.

Thinking that everybody has a great connection is naive, however I believe that things like this is going to be more common over the next few years.
kenco_uk 15th July 2009, 14:08 Quote
As long as it features a blonde bimbo and a russian redhead, I'm like there dude.
DXR_13KE 15th July 2009, 14:16 Quote
I bet that the pirated version of this will give less headaches....
lp1988 15th July 2009, 14:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
I bet that the pirated version of this will give less headaches....

It seems to be the case a little too ofthen.:(
Paradigm Shifter 15th July 2009, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen?

More often than you'd think when it comes to British Telecom. You're not too good at reading, either, are you? I said cousins. Notice the s on the end. That was a family of five, and apparently most of their neighbours as well that were left without internet. So no, it's not 'one guy'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.
I would be fascinated to know what your response would be if you ISP decided to block Steam. I'm sure you wouldn't consider it a 'non-issue' if it affected you. Not everyone has good, fast or reliable internet.

To be fair to EA, they label their games that require a 'net connection a lot better than some others. The 'online activation required' warning on the game 'Legendary' is tiny (less than 1/3" square) and blends in remarkably well with the games' box art. Fortunately I spotted it before I unwrapped the thing.

...

DXR_13KE... you're probably right.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 14:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen?

More often than you'd think when it comes to British Telecom. You're not too good at reading, either, are you? I said cousins. Notice the s on the end. That was a family of five, and apparently most of their neighbours as well that were left without internet. So no, it's not 'one guy'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.
I would be fascinated to know what your response would be if you ISP decided to block Steam. I'm sure you wouldn't consider it a 'non-issue' if it affected you. Not everyone has good, fast or reliable internet.

To be fair to EA, they label their games that require a 'net connection a lot better than some others. The 'online activation required' warning on the game 'Legendary' is tiny (less than 1/3" square) and blends in remarkably well with the games' box art. Fortunately I spotted it before I unwrapped the thing.

...

DXR_13KE... you're probably right.


LOL, you know a coupel peopel, WOW. Call the press, means zilch.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen? LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.

I would have to disagree, I don't know where you live but this may be true most places, however I lived just a year in the US (KY) and honestly thier internet is some S**** several were still on the old dial up and the rest was unstable at best. you can't say people has to pay for a dialup phone line just to play a single player !

for most of us I do see your argument, personally would it be no problem, as long as the game just need to connect to a (stable) server. But if they want some program running om my pc constantly, then that is when I begin to have a problem.

Thinking that everybody has a great connection is naive, however I believe that things like this is going to be more common over the next few years.

Once again, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT like GPU, CPU, if you have an issue simply do not buy, not hard to udnerstand. There is more then enough gamers with stable HS connections to sell millions of copies. Who said anything about having to pay for anything, do not buy the game and move on, not sure why people get bnt out of shape about requiring a net connection, many types of software outside of games require registration and verification online and has for years, With the way piracy is on PC that's prob where everything is heading.
wuyanxu 15th July 2009, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen? LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.
some of us need to constantly moving house, due to job requirements and/or tenancy terms ending. (university students) because of this, often we are left with 2 or more weeks without internet connection. this is why i prefer everything to be in physical form or in my terabyte hard drives.

require an internet connection for single player game is crazy and stupid. so is requiring internet connection in LAN events. (looking at you, Blizzard)

i don't know how old you are or what kind of internet situation you've got. but not everyone's situation is as stable as living with your parents. be considerate and read what other people posted.

btw, putting posts in paragraphs makes it much easier to read. just a heads up :)
lp1988 15th July 2009, 14:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Once again, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT like GPU, CPU, if you have an issue simply do not buy, not hard to udnerstand. There is more then enough gamers with stable HS connections to sell millions of copies. Who said anything about having to pay for anything, do not buy the game and move on, not sure why people get bnt out of shape about requiring a net connection, many types of software outside of games require registration and verification online and has for years, With the way piracy is on PC that's prob where everything is heading.

I think you misunderstood me a little there. You sounded like you expected everybody to have a good connection, wich was what I wanted to prove wrong.

I did not say that there was no market for it, on the contrary a service like Steam should be more than enough evidence that the market is there.

That the games are going to be more and more online is just the development, and personally not a problem, I just dont want to have to make several accounts and install five diffrent programs in order to play a game, so logging into a server is no problem. In the end, as a developer I might have done the same.
Dr. Strangelove 15th July 2009, 15:00 Quote
I must admit I really fail to see the issue....

Sure not every single computer playing person in the world has an internet connection, so they don't buy the game.
Interestingly a large number of the people in this thread who state "not going to buy it due to this internet requirement" finish their statements with something like "I never get EA games as they are ****" or "the game looks like it will be **** anyway"... so if you weren't going to buy the game anyway, why should you care?


I don't use steam but if virgin was to shut down access to WoW servers I would put my money where my mouth is and change ISP.. not whine about it... I mean most of us can get internet access from a wide range of ISPs, not just one or two.

I mean seriously is this method of DRM not a whole hell of a lot better than most other systems?

Personally I think this is the best way to implement DRM as it should mean no secondary programs running on your system, no rootkits and all that other ****.. just the game verifying your serial code when it starts.. or every now and then.

The game will obviously get cracked so that an internet connection is not needed, but that is hardly the point, look at it this way: This type of DRM will most likely be less intrusive for the people who actually paid for the game.
BLC 15th July 2009, 15:01 Quote
What does this amount to though, really? Is it an objection to needing an internet connection for a single player game, a bad taste in your mouth from previous EA products, or the possibility for abusing this system? Personally I'm used to needing an internet connection from playing games bought from Steam (I know you can set it up to play offline); it's a stupid idea, but I understand the reasons for it and it's not a *really* problem for me. Even though my Virgin Media connection often craps out to the point where no traffic is coming in at all and the first I know about it is when Audiosurf won't load.

What *is* a problem for me, is what guarantee are EA going to give me that this system cannot be hacked and used for nefarious purposes? I.e. exploiting back doors and security holes to gain access to target PCs. If they're going to design a system like this, it needs to be tighter than a duck's *rse.

I'm not going to buy the game either way - I went off the C&C series a while ago.
Elton 15th July 2009, 15:03 Quote
Well, there's always the chance the community will make something like Xliveless for this like they did for GTA IV.
lewchenko 15th July 2009, 15:18 Quote
Doesnt bother me in the slightest. All my PC's are hooked up to the internet anyway, so its a non issue. A computer without the internet is borderline useless these days.

The model may actually work too. I quite fancy an RTS that has persistence qualities like an MMO.

And we dont complain that an internet connection is required to play WOW now do we !

What worries me is that it was hard enough getting C&C3 working properly through my router when multiple people were at the house to play others online and host games, so without LAN play C&C4 better improve in this area.
DragunovHUN 15th July 2009, 15:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewchenko
Doesnt bother me in the slightest. All my PC's are hooked up to the internet anyway, so its a non issue. A computer without the internet is borderline useless these days.

That's not what we're worried about. At least not me. It's the fact that EA shuts down server support for their games after a few years.
Dr. Strangelove 15th July 2009, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
That's not what we're worried about. At least not me. It's the fact that EA shuts down server support for their games after a few years.

By that time they probably feel that they have gotten all the money out of the game they can... so three things will/can happen:

1. they release a patch which removes the internet connection requirement, unless its actually needed for game play.

2. they release the server software and someone else will host

3. most likely thing is that you have already gotten sick and tired of the game and are playing C&C 7!

A fourth option is that you use one of the 50 cracks which will be available and disable the internet bit that way
D3s3rt_F0x 15th July 2009, 15:25 Quote
Right heres sommit new, how about people wait to hear about the new features and details before they judge.....shocking I know.
DragunovHUN 15th July 2009, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

3. most likely thing is that you have already gotten sick and tired of the game and are playing C&C 7!

I still miss Generals : (

Even though it works with Hamachi it's impossible to get a decently sized group together.
sotu1 15th July 2009, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
PC exclusive, pC gamers will whine so much about requiring an internet connection (Woop de doo), causing bad word of mouth, hurting sales. PC gamers are their own worse enemy.

QF absolute T.

You know it's amusing, marketing 101 tells you that you find a niche market in a crowded marketplace and you cater for the top 20% of your audience because they bring in 80% of your income. If you want to cater for the lowest common denominator then by all means, build a game that will run on PCs built 5 years ago but it will be crap. Hell, you guys don't even know what this new always online feature will do! At least wait until they reveal what it is before slating it!
lp1988 15th July 2009, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by D3s3rt_F0x
Right heres sommit new, how about people wait to hear about the new features and details before they judge.....shocking I know.

naeh, It's mutch more fun talking about something you don't know anything about :D
Blademrk 15th July 2009, 16:27 Quote
Also, how will the save system work?

I remember when the latest Unreal Tournament game came out I found it really annoying that whenever my net connection dropped (remember during Single player, you had to be connected to the Gamespy server) the game would kick me back to the menu and would lose all the single player levels and bonuses I'd completed since the last save.
DXR_13KE 15th July 2009, 17:41 Quote
I know that this is not a valid comparison, but, what if the next version of Word needed constant internet connection for it to work?
wuyanxu 15th July 2009, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
I know that this is not a valid comparison, but, what if the next version of Word needed constant internet connection for it to work?
it is a good comparison.

Word as singleplayer game, Outlook as multiplayer game. so you won't want to be required to be constantly connected to the internet.

another could be a mobile phone need plugged in to function. this is a metaphor of being tied down to something unnecessary.


PC gamers isn't killing PC gaming. it's the publishers who put unnecessary DRM and making pirate's life easier, legit buyer's life harder.

look at 2Dboys who made World of Goo, they didn't put ANY DRM and the game sold very well. it's the quality of the game that matters, and often, publishers blame poor sales on pirates instead of bad game design. (in Gears of War PC port's case, bad multiplayer system: Games for Windows Live)
Furymouse 15th July 2009, 17:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
I know that this is not a valid comparison, but, what if the next version of Word needed constant internet connection for it to work?

And DirectX 11 :D

OT: While I don't really care about a need for constant connection, the reason behind it seems, well, stupid. To say that it is " for your own good", or for the benefit of the game, just sounds so much like a parent scolding a child.

DRM is DRM.
AshT 15th July 2009, 17:54 Quote
"Command and Conquer 4 will require a constant internet connection to play"

I've no problem with that. If it stops piracy - which is what this is about - then good for them. It's better than that securom guff.

Everyone I know has permanent 365 days a year internet connections to their PC's. So, where's the fire?
CardJoe 15th July 2009, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu

look at 2Dboys who made World of Goo, they didn't put ANY DRM and the game sold very well. it's the quality of the game that matters, and often, publishers blame poor sales on pirates instead of bad game design. (in Gears of War PC port's case, bad multiplayer system: Games for Windows Live)

Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1
AshT 15th July 2009, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu

look at 2Dboys who made World of Goo, they didn't put ANY DRM and the game sold very well. it's the quality of the game that matters, and often, publishers blame poor sales on pirates instead of bad game design. (in Gears of War PC port's case, bad multiplayer system: Games for Windows Live)

Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1

Unlucky wuyanxu, maybe you can provide a better example of a company not using DRM that isn't rampantly pirated by kids and chavs?
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 18:26 Quote
World of goo, lol, were comapring big budget titles to the likes of world of goo, Stardock niche games that only need to sell 100,000 copies for a profit, a little perspective here. I don't know about you, I do not want PC to turn into a Niche, RTS, indie game machien only. I like my Stalkers, Witchers, Mass Effects, etc on PC to. Stop bringing up Stardock, they were pirated as much as anyone, the difference is he likes tooting his own horn too much, and they are perfectly happy to have a low budget and sell small numbers for profit, not reality for bigger name games today.
wuyanxu 15th July 2009, 18:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1
oh? it's a brilliant game.....

anyway, my point is: unnecessary DRM is the end of PC gaming, and this is the prime example.
AshT 15th July 2009, 18:41 Quote
Speaking of World of Goo being pirated like crazy.

It was only pirated outside of Steam and not in Steam I'm pretty sure ...

Maybe someone could clarify that?

And Steam requires internet connection most times except for when in offline mode ...

Wow ... similarities ... to this story ... but no boycotting Steam ... Hmmm ... intelligence .... not ... found ... here.
DXR_13KE 15th July 2009, 18:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1

IIRC that study didn't consider non static IP addresses and customers that pirated and then bought the game....

Anyway, even if the numbers were that high, how much money did they save by not licensing or making a DRM system? if they implemented a DRM system would this number be lower?
dylAndroid 15th July 2009, 18:47 Quote
I think the way for them to pull off what they're trying to do, and do it right, would be to not require the internet connection, but make added game features that become available with the internet connection so compelling, that 95% or more of people use it.

And this would have to be a situation where the features enabled through net connection would logically require a net connection.

Done like this, it's a win on many sides: actual DRM would be unnecessary, and a quality game would have had to have been produced, therefore it's a win for us as well as game designers who like to do good work. It would strengthen EA's brand and help shake their bad reputation. It would also allow the executives who are so concerned about piracy to pat each other on the back, as this would reduce that as well, though without the conventional DRM.

I swear, it's like the majority of people running EA don't seem to understand business. Let's see if this product changes that.
Lepermessiah 15th July 2009, 19:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1
oh? it's a brilliant game.....

anyway, my point is: unnecessary DRM is the end of PC gaming, and this is the prime example.
LOL,the sky is falling, Pc gaming will survive, DRm, no DRM, or anything else, please, 99% of gamers barely know what DRM is.
i7lova 15th July 2009, 19:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewchenko
Doesnt bother me in the slightest. All my PC's are hooked up to the internet anyway, so its a non issue. A computer without the internet is borderline useless these days.

The model may actually work too. I quite fancy an RTS that has persistence qualities like an MMO.

And we dont complain that an internet connection is required to play WOW now do we?

No we dont becuase its a godd*** MMO. Which in case you didn't know mean massively multiplayer ONLINE. You can't play a f***ing MMO without an internet connection period becuase it wouldn't be a MMO! So no s*** Sherlock of course we don't complain it requires an internet connection!

I think the people that are complaining them most are mostly concerned about the single player aspect of the game and don't have much interest in the multiplayer. you shouldn't have to have an internet connection to play a single player game it makes no sense other than to try and stop piracy. Which it won't.
HourBeforeDawn 15th July 2009, 19:53 Quote
I hate the idea of everything like games going to an internet online bases or this constant connection, with all this talk from ISP talking about changing from a pay by speed to a pay by bandwidth is going to kill a lot of this or make it really expensive and what about people that dont have access to decent high speed internet, shoot 56% of the USA is stuck with only Dial Up unless they want to pay for over priced crappy satellite service.
BLC 15th July 2009, 20:02 Quote
Remember kids, internets is serious business.
Bindibadgi 15th July 2009, 20:03 Quote
Quit your flaming or I'll send you away for a few days.

Leper - you've been told before.
MiNiMaL_FuSS 15th July 2009, 21:11 Quote
Re-installs RA2

It was always a pipedream...
wafflesomd 15th July 2009, 21:43 Quote
I'll pass then.
Aragon Speed 15th July 2009, 21:44 Quote
Yet another game I shall not be buying. I have had enough of being bullied into certain setups.
B1GBUD 15th July 2009, 21:51 Quote
It's EA re-cycled crap.... end of.
thehippoz 15th July 2009, 21:59 Quote
ea and c&c.. not much more to say other than I wish yuri would take over the dev team
DXR_13KE 15th July 2009, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by i7lova
No we dont becuase its a godd*** MMO. Which in case you didn't know mean massively multiplayer ONLINE. You can't play a f***ing MMO without an internet connection period becuase it wouldn't be a MMO! So no s*** Sherlock of course we don't complain it requires an internet connection!

I think the people that are complaining them most are mostly concerned about the single player aspect of the game and don't have much interest in the multiplayer. you shouldn't have to have an internet connection to play a single player game it makes no sense other than to try and stop piracy. Which it won't.

how the hell did they turn a classic RTS into an MMORPG?!?
GrimJack 15th July 2009, 22:42 Quote
I've been trolling Bit-tech's forums for several years now and finally felt the need to post my disappointment with video games developers, EA specifically this time. I find the need for an always on connection for a non MMO game to be utterly and completely unnecessary. Why the hell does it need to ping a server to tell it what your stats are unless it is changing the game play dynamics on the fly to suit your gaming style and progress. In the end, I feel like I'm living in the age of Orson Wells' 1984 where Big Brother is always watvching what I'm doing when it comes to gaming.
DXR_13KE 15th July 2009, 23:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJack
I've been trolling Bit-tech's forums

Not trolling, a troll is something bad.

You have been lurking, you are a lurker.

I think.
dyzophoria 16th July 2009, 04:20 Quote
Quote:
"This is primarily due to our 'player progression' feature so everything can be tracked. C&C 4 is not an MMO in the sense of World of Warcraft, but conceptually it has similar principles for being online all the time. While some may be taken aback by this, we've been testing this feature internally with all of our worldwide markets."

they should have just announce it as an MMO if they wanted the public to embrace their so called feature,lol
BLC 16th July 2009, 07:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Not trolling, a troll is something bad.

You have been lurking, you are a lurker.

I think.

Correct ;)
bigsharn 16th July 2009, 10:01 Quote
Bring Westwood Studios back and let them do it properly...
N19h7m4r3 16th July 2009, 11:37 Quote
Another game I won't bother getting so.

C&C is dead to me. The last one I got was C&C3 and it was disgraceful compared to the previous.

I don't game online alot. Hell at my apartment the ISP cuts out ALOT and mostly we have speeds around 56k when everyones on.

So I won't just bother with alot of new games that need this.

Atleast with the classics everyone in the place can play thanks to LAN.
PQuiff 16th July 2009, 11:42 Quote
Oh i cant wait to see what they do to RAPE BF3..

/me hides under covers
Grimloon 16th July 2009, 16:47 Quote
Unfortunately I'm another of those who can't guarantee a reliable net connection. I've also had fun and games with my ISP (oddly enough, Pipex) randomly throwing a dart at a wall of port addresses to see which one they block next. Usually it's one required for whatever online game I happen to be enjoying at the time.
Otto69 16th July 2009, 18:22 Quote
"Then don't buy it , it is a requirement stated on the box, "

Actually I worked on a game at EA where the idiots literally didn't put the fact that it required a monthly fee on the box. It was an MMOG. On the second release they put it on, but in very very very small print.
GrimJack 17th July 2009, 04:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Not trolling, a troll is something bad.

You have been lurking, you are a lurker.

I think.

Correct ;)

I stand corrected. I shall continue "lurking". That is all.
liratheal 17th July 2009, 12:20 Quote
I've been trying, for as long as I've known it'll need a constant net connection, to care.

I really have. I hate DRM in all forms, I believe that if you pay for the content, you should be allowed to do anything you want with it short of reverse engineering it. Yes, that means I believe you should be allowed to make a floppy hat out of the latest game.

I don't think, though, I have any more fight left in me. DRM is creeping.. No, thundering, into all my favourite games. SCII forcing everything through Battle.net, Constant net connection for C&C4, DoWII using Steam and G4WL, online only games etc.

At this stage, so long as it doesn't try and hog my bandwidth, I'm not sure I can bring myself to care.
impar 17th July 2009, 12:41 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
At this stage, so long as it doesn't try and hog my bandwidth, I'm not sure I can bring myself to care.
What about limited activations DRM?
BLC 17th July 2009, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

What about limited activations DRM?

How many times do you need a game installed? I would hedge my bets here and say that most people (I mean mass market here as well, not just hardcore gamers or the Bit-tech crowd) will have a game on no more than one or two systems at a time. As long as they offer a way to "de-activate" a copy of a game, e.g. by uninstalling it, then I'm not too bothered about install restrictions. Most modern games that I buy only ever get installed on one machine at a time - mine.
liratheal 17th July 2009, 13:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

What about limited activations DRM?

Even with Spore (I installed at least 7 times. Same hardware, nearly) and never hit the "omgnoactivation" thing.

Hell, I even activated my Vista 64 OEM three times without issue, on three different hardware sets.
impar 17th July 2009, 13:57 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
How many times do you need a game installed?
I need a purchased game installed how many times I wish.

I am currently replaying my purchased MW4 games (MW4, BK, Mercenaries), those are 2000-2002 released games.
I have installed those several times on my systems, I lended to a couple of friends and to my cousins. I wouldnt do that if they had limited activations DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
I would hedge my bets here and say that most people ... will have a game on no more than one or two systems at a time.
You do realise that concurrent installations are not really the issue, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
As long as they offer a way to "de-activate" a copy of a game, e.g. by uninstalling it, then I'm not too bothered about install restrictions.
Most games that come with limited activations do not have such a system and, for those that do have, do you really uninstall/revoke the games you own before reformatting your system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Even with Spore (I installed at least 7 times. Same hardware, nearly) and never hit the "omgnoactivation" thing.
You installed the game seven times. How many times did the game activated?
Its not the same thing.
BLC 17th July 2009, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

I need a purchased game installed how many times I wish.

I am currently replaying my purchased MW4 games (MW4, BK, Mercenaries), those are 2000-2002 released games.
I have installed those several times on my systems, I lended to a couple of friends and to my cousins. I wouldnt do that if they had limited activations DRM.

You do realise that concurrent installations are not really the issue, right?

Most games that come with limited activations do not have such a system and, for those that do have, do you really uninstall/revoke the games you own before reformatting your system?

You installed the game seven times. How many times did the game activated?
Its not the same thing.

OK, I'm going to come right out and ask this; you say "most games" - can you give me examples? I've never had an issue with me hitting the activation limit on any kind of DRM, let alone games (not even iTunes), so I've never had a problem.

Some quick research I've done in the last 10 minutes turns up two recent games which use DRM: Spore and Red Alert 3. Spore allows you to only have 3 installations of the game at any one time and authenticates when it is first installed - no further authentication is needed (I'm assuming it's linked to the user account); RA3 allows only 5 authenticated PCs at any one time. Both of these are now coming out with patches to remove the authorisation from that current PC; how this will work, whether it's setting a software flag or uninstalling the game, I don't know and frankly I'm not bothered as I don't own either of them. It seems that - in these two cases at least - publishers have blundered, realised their mistake and worked to put things right.

As to what systems other publishers or developers employ, I haven't got a clue. Frankly, three installations or activations sounds like a pretty long lifespan to me. Gone are the days when we need to re-install Windows every couple of months to keep it running smoothly. Unless you're running a test-bed system, that kind of maintenance is rarely necessary these days. As for not being able to loan the game to friends, this is the price we pay for rampant piracy. It's fair to say that piracy in PC gaming is far more prevalent than on consoles - simply because of the ease with which games are obtained (no need for a modchip or special DVD burners, etc). DRM and anti-copy protection measures are here to stay as they are a necessity. As long as people know they can get something for nothing we will have piracy - and for as long as we have piracy, we will have the need for anti-piracy measures.

If you were in the shoes of a game developer or publisher, you would want the right to protect your assets (and therefore your livelihood) as well, or you'd face being penniless. For the record, I think DRM stinks - badly - so I'm not out to defend it, merely to point out that people have to protect their interests. The music industry is starting to turn itself around on all the stupid anti-piracy measures they used to employ, so perhaps the games industry could take a few lessons there.

PS, my source for the above is at the following 2 pages: http://www.amazon.com/Most-have-wrong-understanding-facts/forum/Fx1HJE2RTRO2AI9/TxF2HIP7F895ET/1/ref=cm_cd_lm_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B0016BVY7U & http://kotaku.com/5051514/steam-drm-vs-spore-drm
BLC 17th July 2009, 14:53 Quote
Now that I think about it, the Xbox has had a form of DRM right since the original Live service was launched. As soon as Microsoft's servers detect any modified or unsigned code (i.e. a chipped console, homebrew software, copied games, etc), your console is banned from Live - it might just be the Live account, I'm not too sure about that. Either way that means that you can no longer access the Live features such as updates, marketplace, DLC, online play, etc - most of which forms a big part of the console gaming experience these days. Sure you can still use it off-line for single player, so it doesn't cripple your console entirely, but it revokes access to a large part of the experience.

It's not in the same league as always needing an internet connection to play a single-player game and we are talking about different platforms & markets, but since we're discussing DRM & copy protection it seemed a salient point.
liratheal 17th July 2009, 15:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
You installed the game seven times. How many times did the game activated?
Its not the same thing.

About six. I ket forgetting username/password/emails used. This was before I finally clocked onto the concept of forwarding them all to my main account..

About the only constant would have been IP address, I think.
impar 18th July 2009, 02:12 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
OK, I'm going to come right out and ask this; you say "most games" - can you give me examples?
With limited activations, that I knew of:
BioShock, Mass Effect, Spore, Crysis Warhead, FarCry2, Command&Conquer Red Alert3, Alone in the Dark, Dead Space, Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark, Burnout Paradise Ultimate, Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, S.TA.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, Egosoft's X3: Terran Conflict, Sacred2 Fallen Angel, and Anno 1404.
There may be more, I just dont remember.
Of those, Bioshock and, I think, all of the EA games are now capable of activation revokes. If you remember to do it before formating the system.
Some digtal distributed games have limited activations, others dont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
... Spore allows you to only have 3 installations of the game at any one time and authenticates when it is first installed - no further authentication is needed (I'm assuming it's linked to the user account);
There were at least two versions of Spore, the original release with three activations and the second release with five activations.
As long as the system is not formated, Securom will keep the record of the game activation on that system. Securom doesnt uninstalls itself when the game is uninstalled.
Thats why installation of a game may not be activation of a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
Both of these are now coming out with patches to remove the authorisation from that current PC; ...
You can revoke the activation, but you can only install the game as long as Securom servers are online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
If you were in the shoes of a game developer or publisher, you would want the right to protect your assets (and therefore your livelihood) as well, or you'd face being penniless.
I am not in the shoes of a game developer/publisher, I am in my own shoes.
This DRM does not work, it helps piracy, it kills second hand sales, causes problems and hassles to games buyers (revoking activations and upgrading hardware).
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
About six. I ket forgetting username/password/emails used. This was before I finally clocked onto the concept of forwarding them all to my main account..
About the only constant would have been IP address, I think.
Was it on the same OS installation?
BLC 19th July 2009, 21:10 Quote
OK, DRM is a bad idea - what do we then do to stop or reduce piracy and reduce the risks of developers & publishers not releasing games on the PC?

If you can't see it from the point of view of publishers and developers, then you're really missing the point here. It's all well and good saying "DRM is bad", but DRM and copy-protection measures are simply necessary on the PC.

Consoles already have adequate anti-piracy measures built into them; usually, they can only run code which has been signed by the console manufacturer - the implementation methods differ, but the general principle is the same. Therefore the developers/publishers don't have to worry about building in DRM or copy protection, because the systems are already there and it's a lot more difficult to break. Sure piracy is going to happen, but it's not usually a simple affair for the average person: generally you need some kind of hardware modification, purpose-built hardware, modified firmware, hacked save game files, etc. All a PC user needs in order to pirate software is an internet connection - no extra hardware, no risking damaging components with flashing, etc.

If you don't include any kind of copy protection, you risk a massive loss of sales revenue due to piracy. Faced with that kind of risk, developers & publishers have to ask themselves a simple question: is it worth all this money and effort, when there's a chance we won't get paid for it?
DXR_13KE 20th July 2009, 00:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
If you can't see it from the point of view of publishers and developers, then you're really missing the point here. It's all well and good saying "DRM is bad", but DRM and copy-protection measures are simply necessary on the PC.

If you don't include any kind of copy protection, you risk a massive loss of sales revenue due to piracy. Faced with that kind of risk, developers & publishers have to ask themselves a simple question: is it worth all this money and effort, when there's a chance we won't get paid for it?


let me rephrase that:
Quote:

If you can't see it from the point of view of publishers and developers, then you're really missing the point here. It's all well and good saying "Nuclear powered laser rifles are bad", but Nuclear powered laser rifles and methods by which you create huge lethal explosions are simply necessary on the PC.

If you don't include any kind of huge lethal explosions, you risk a massive loss of sales revenue due to individuals that are immune to huge lethal explosions and Nuclear powered laser rifles . Faced with that kind of risk, developers & publishers have to ask themselves a simple question: is it worth all this money and effort, when there's a chance we won't get paid for it?

so... if you insert DRM and copy-protection measures they will be cracked before the game is out for sale, pirates have an easier time playing the game than people that bought it.

if you still cant get your head around that then let me get you a simple example:

Brand X car maker says that it has had it to its head with people stealing their cars, so they spend large amounts of money to add a system that makes the car unusable after a certain number of people have used it or can only be ridden on certain parts of the city (if you drive it out of these parts then it shuts down), etc... things that, on paper, make it harder for someone to steal a car, brand X goes on the news saying that they have defeated car robbers around the planet, HURRAY!!! but wait, suddenly it becomes known that several groups of individuals have made a method by which it is easy to steal the car and they find this method before the cars come out, car robbery numbers don't change, in certain parts they rise.

has brand X invested its money well?

DRM does not prevent piracy!

edit: tell me one DRM system that prevents piracy!
BLC 20th July 2009, 08:24 Quote
I fear I'm overcomplicating the argument.

A game you really want has just been released with DRM: what are you, as a consumer, going to do about it? Boycott the game/publisher? Pirate the game out of spite? Buy the game and then rip out the DRM (which is almost tantamount to piracy)? Or simply buy it and put up with it?

I've never said that I'm in favour of DRM - in fact I stated quite the opposite in an earlier post. The current systems we'reseeing are the latest evolution in copy-protection, and copy-protection is here to stay, like it or not. In the future we'll likely see smarter and less intrusive measures, but it'll still be there.

For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Steam's approach. Leaving out issues of pricing and broken patches, I think they've managed to do a good job of authentication. The solution I'd like to see is a similar one across all publishers/developers, coupled with a system for re-selling games and an overall reduction in price.
impar 20th July 2009, 10:28 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
OK, DRM is a bad idea - what do we then do to stop or reduce piracy and reduce the risks of developers & publishers not releasing games on the PC?
You answered it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Steam's approach. Leaving out issues of pricing and broken patches, I think they've managed to do a good job of authentication.
Steam works well as a DRM system.
Problem is if all publishers create a similar system -> Password/Accounts Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
A game you really want has just been released with DRM: what are you, as a consumer, going to do about it? Boycott the game/publisher? Pirate the game out of spite? Buy the game and then rip out the DRM (which is almost tantamount to piracy)? Or simply buy it and put up with it?
I have been boycotting the game, its not like there are only those games available. And, seeing what others are doing, the publisher/developer should thank me. At least, I will eventually pay the adequate price for an infected AAA game (9,99€), others wont.
Blademrk 20th July 2009, 11:24 Quote
Quote:
A game you really want has just been released with DRM: what are you, as a consumer, going to do about it? Boycott the game/publisher? Pirate the game out of spite? Buy the game and then rip out the DRM (which is almost tantamount to piracy)? Or simply buy it and put up with it?

Myself, I'd ignore the game (or get it on console instead, eg. Bioshock/Mass Effect). Steam is the only DRM method which I'll actually put up with, although it is causing me a headache at the moment (as I've mentioned above and in the Steam/Pipex thread) but that's not actually Steams fault.

Others I know (who would normally buy the game) would turn to the torrents to get a cracked version which would work without jumping through hoops (which results in a lost sale).
DXR_13KE 20th July 2009, 13:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Steam's approach. Leaving out issues of pricing and broken patches, I think they've managed to do a good job of authentication. The solution I'd like to see is a similar one across all publishers/developers, coupled with a system for re-selling games and an overall reduction in price.

Does steam's DRM system work? of course it does not work! i wont link you to the torrents but you can easily find every game available on steam on any torrent site. Not even World of Warcraft is immune to piracy.

What needs to be done? give good deals to customers! I will buy the steam complete pack as soon as episode 3 comes out, its an awesome deal and they deserve the money, they have made some of the best games i have played in my life.

I wasn't planing on getting UT3, but as soon as i saw it on the shelf at 10€ i grabbed it and bought it, why? because its a good deal. The same with unreal anthology that i got for 20€, even if i have 2 of the games in the collection.
impar 20th July 2009, 15:07 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Does steam's DRM system work? of course it does not work! i wont link you to the torrents but you can easily find every game available on steam on any torrent site.
The idea is to kill zero day piracy.
Proper gamers will buy the games, anyway. Its the feeloaders/parasites that always find an excuse to get the game (ie. they will pirate a game because its a sunny day ot because it is a rainy day).
DXR_13KE 20th July 2009, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

The idea is to kill zero day piracy.
Proper gamers will buy the games, anyway. Its the feeloaders/parasites that always find an excuse to get the game (ie. they will pirate a game because its a sunny day ot because it is a rainy day).

zero day piracy still exists... in some cases pre-zero day piracy exists...

also refrain from using "parasites", continue with "freeloaders" ;)
impar 20th July 2009, 16:21 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
also refrain from using "parasites", continue with "freeloaders" ;)
Dont freeloaders parasite the system?
They take the developers software, take adavantage of the publishers work and expect the legitimate gamers to pay for the game?
DXR_13KE 20th July 2009, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Dont freeloaders parasite the system?
They take the developers software, take adavantage of the publishers work and expect the legitimate gamers to pay for the game?

IIRC a parasite is a creature that takes advantage of a host and gives nothing back (in most occasions it hinders the host).

Several studies indicate that individuals that commit piracy are also individuals that spend a lot of money on media, hardware and consumables like blank cds and dvds.

I agree with the term freeloaders, they do freeload, but parasites... that brings several negative connotations that may impact negatively your side of the debate.

in validity the next is what i thing when someone talks to me about piracy:

copyright infringers > freeloaders > parasites > thieves (consider it as a validity spectrum)

When someone says that "copyright infringers are killing game developers" i see that as a completely valid claim and go search data to back that up or ask for data to back that claim, i do this because i know that you will do that and you may or may not rectify your statement after you indicate the source of your data, after you give me the data (or after I find it my self) i will change my views on your subject or rest assured that my views are correct (for now).

When someone says that "thieves are killing game developers" i see it as a personal crusade against another group, congratulations, you have now joined the group of crazy fanatics that includes guys like crazyceo.

My stance on piracy: its a symptom that something is wrong, the correct way to decrease or remove piracy is not to cure the symptoms with band aids and chemicals that will make you ill, you go to the source, if you kill the source and the symptoms are still there then you have not found the source.

Valve pointed out a nice nifty fix for the situation: price reduction, remember the increases in profit?

Lets put it this way:

Considering that COD MW2 will cost £55, will have X profit and will have Y amount of piracy.

If you reduce the price to say....£20, will the value of A increase and Y decrease?
What do you think?;)

edit: i was writing the above in a calm and nice tone and with a smile on my face. It is hard to convey emotions using the internet.
impar 21st July 2009, 13:44 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
IIRC a parasite is a creature that takes advantage of a host and gives nothing back (in most occasions it hinders the host).
In many cases, it is difficult to demonstrate that the host is harmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Several studies indicate that individuals that commit piracy are also individuals that spend a lot of money on media, hardware and consumables like blank cds and dvds.
Individuals that are legitimate consumers of entertainment products have a much more positive effect on the entertainment industry than freeloaders/parasites.
And parasites is what they are, their positive contribution to the system they take advantage of is marginal. The problem you have with the use of the word in this context is only based on the negative conotation it has.
Would the world be made only of freeloaders/parasites, the pernicious nature of them would be obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Considering that COD MW2 will cost £55, will have X profit and will have Y amount of piracy.
If you reduce the price to say....£20, will the value of A increase and Y decrease?
What do you think?
X=A?
f (X, Y)=42?
;)
Bad_cancer 12th August 2009, 12:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
<snip>
Valve pointed out a nice nifty fix for the situation: price reduction, remember the increases in profit?

Lets put it this way:

Considering that COD MW2 will cost £55, will have X profit and will have Y amount of piracy.

If you reduce the price to say....£20, will the value of A increase and Y decrease?
What do you think?;)

edit: i was writing the above in a calm and nice tone and with a smile on my face. It is hard to convey emotions using the internet.

I can agree with everybody's stances on piracy, but although this might not apply to the majority of the buyers, have you considered that some people can't afford to buy games at those prices? Here £55 can be anywhere up to a third or more of the monthly wages for most gamers fresh out of college and with a job (thats 2 weeks wages for a single game). Even with a decent-ish salary thats a fifth of the monthly wages.

When you look at it from that perspective you can understand why you'd be hard pressed to find original games in these parts.
And why there isn't a crackdown on pirated games. Most people i know here would gladly buy originals, but it just costs too much to pay 2 weeks salary for 10hours of gaming... Just my 0.2$

:Edit: woah thread revival, sorry followed it from today's article
Farfalho 30th January 2010, 04:03 Quote
I can has some of that Gemma please!
The_Beast 30th January 2010, 04:39 Quote
Holy thread revival batman
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums