|
|
 |
| [Apr 09, 2009, 11:46 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
The Starbreeze Forums
and Atari
Forums for The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena each
have threads complaining about the game's DRM, describing a non-revocable
three-installation limit that does not allow further installations after it has
been reached. This has inspired another protest centered on the
reviews on the
Amazon listing for the game, where an increasing number of reviews complain
about the DRM. We contacted Atari about this and received the following response:
The protection on the PC version of The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault
on Dark Athena is an activation system with online authentication required the
first time you install the game on a machine. The activation code lets you
install the game on up to 3 machines, with an unlimited number of installs on
each assuming that you don’t change any major hardware in your PC or re-install
your operating system.
If you reach the maximum number of installations you can contact the Atari
hotline and if it’s a legitimate request you can get a new activation code.
We implement this protection in an effort to avoid early piracy.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 101. |
Re: On Dark Athena DRM |
Apr 11, 2009, 20:21 |
Jerykk |
|
|
You can view this as having no moral base, and that's you perogative, but I prefer to look at it as being rewarded for hard work with greater success and reward.
That's the problem. People don't pay for hard work. They pay for results. Movie tie-ins suck 99% of the time but it isn't for a lack of effort. The developers put in countless hours trying to pump those games out within the ridiculously short dev cycles and for every platform known to man. Does that mean we should all go out and buy every movie tie-in, regardless of quality? No, because that's not how capitalism works. Capitalism is all about results. I'm sure Iron Lore put a lot of effort into their games but people simply weren't all that interested in the results.
Any pirate would have a swift change of heart if they made something a ton of people used and enjoyed and got NO reward out of it.
Pirates do that all the time. They don't get paid to crack games yet they share their cracks with people around the world. What they do is illegal and they put themselves at great risk doing it, as authorities almost always go after the pirate groups instead of individual downloaders. If all pirates believed in capitalism, they'd charge a fee for their cracks. Granted, there are some pirates do sell pirated games but they aren't the ones who actually crack the games. They simply download them, burn them and try to reap the rewards. That is the capitalist way.
No one WANTS to buy anything, that's the problem. It's funny you have such a cynical view on capitalism but later on you seem to have this great optimistic view on humanity... make a good product and they will pay you for it. That's B.S..
If what you say is true, why are movies, music and games still selling? After all, anybody can download all three things with ease. Movies and music have virtually no copy-protection yet they continue to be very successful industries. Games are harder to pirate, yes, but not that much harder. If nobody wanted to pay for them, they would simply download them.
This idea that many on the Internet have of handing out your product and hoping people pay for it is ridiculous, and again if any of you were creators you would think much differently.
It's not ridiculous. Refer to the answer I provided above. It is exceedingly easy to pirate games, movies and music yet hordes of people continue to buy them. If you want to succeed in a capitalist society, your focus should be on getting more people to buy your stuff, not trying to get less people to steal it. Suits always assume that the two are directly correlated but as reality proves, this is not the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
