MMORPGHoD - How could you not know what DRM is in any given game these days?

Sure, by spending time reading forums and doing some searches I can find out what DRM is. I'd prefer the disclosure be official and not hearsay. Some games, like those from EA, are going to be obvious. Other games in the past, like those with starforce, weren't so obvious even after reading the forums when the DRM was region specific.

Still, we here at BN are not representative of the PC game market. The majority of people likely don't do any research on the DRM. They just buy it or ask for it for Xmas. They're also the reason why our boycotts of DRM games, while noble in principle, is ultimately futile. The masses outnumber us greatly.

I believe any steps taken toward educating the masses on DRM content in games, no matter how trival, helps.

So, for all intents and purposes it isn't possible to resell games on Steam. I contacted Valve about transferring games from an old account I had to my current account and they said I wasn't allowed to do that, so I know firsthand that it isn't possible.

Can't you just create a new email account for each steam game you buy? Might be a bit of a pain, but I personally don't give a crap about my old games on steam, let alone need to keep them up-to-date once I've played them.

Boston- What gamer wouldn't support this? Any gamer with an ounce of common sense. Whether you personally resell pc games or not, it is a right already existing in the United States at least, under First Sale Doctrine. Disclosing DRM is just the carrot to distract you from the stick.

Having a game disclose the DRM on the box makes it easier to avoid that game and not purchase it in the first place, does it not? Otherwise, how the hell are you going to be to stand by your principles and avoid DRM games without having that information? Having it on the box seems to be better than waiting for someone to post about what DRM a game may or may not have (presumably after they installed it).

you think so? where can you purchase a pc for $120? is this really a serious reply?

So you think the subscription fee is going to be $12 a month? Wow !

Lol, maybe he has some inside information.

There are low end Dell deals all the time and I just picked one up for a family member for $270 with taxes/shipping (2.5ghz dual core, 3 gigs RAM, 360GB HD). Most people's throw away/hand-me-down systems can handle 640x480 no problem. Why 640x480? Because anyone who is cash conscious won't be paying for a 5MB+ line to be able to use 720p, assuming that's even available where they live. They'll be going with DSL at $30 a month or less, reducing the quality to standard definition at 640x480.

Even the best case scenario at the show had a 6MB connection to servers 50 miles away, and graphics glitches / lag was still observed. It would be nice to see this work well, but let's not delude ourselves.

This comment was edited on Mar 31, 2009, 11:46.

But is it really cheaper? Would the cost of 10 months worth of subscription fees get you a system that would be able to run your game locally at 1280x720? 640x480? I think so. Heck, most people need a PC for their web browsing and email anyways. Or for that much money you could get a 360, which would still give you a better looking game. The shacknews article basically confirms what we were thinking. From a technological point of view it's a great achievement. From an actual usability point of view, not so much.. unless you're not used to playing lag free, blockyness-free games at resolutions higher than 1280x720.

No surprise here. PhysX wasn't going anywhere. Even if they add ATI to the mix it's still a hard sell to get developers to spend time on it. It's difficult enough getting them to release titles on PCs that are more than a no-frills port from consoles.

I still have a hard time believing this technology is that much more advanced than existing remote desktop software.. which sucks at 1.5Mbs DSL. That's essentially what this software is, except now you're streaming a game rather than a fairly static 2D desktop.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2009, 14:13.

Well, that makes some more sense. With 1.5Mbs I don't think I'll be playing a standard defintion game on my 1920x1200 flat panel display. 720p resolutions don't sound very nice looking either.

It's an interesting idea, but obviously waaay too early to try to implement on a large scale IMO for a number of reasons. Another related issue to consider besides the streaming video is something almost as important, audio. The comments about the audio quality from people trying to use netflix for streaming videos does not bode well for streaming games. Well, unless it's bejeweled.

This comment was edited on Mar 24, 2009, 18:46.

Well, good luck to those onlive pioneers. I won't be able to use that any time soon with DSL. Just waiting for the desktop icons to refresh in remote desktop for a computer down the street is lag central. I'll stick with local apps for my gaming. Someday maybe, but not today. And any investor in this tech best do their research...

It was entertaining to watch the 5000 people going nuts on the sci-fi BSG forums. Pure chaos. I didn't realize so many people were into this.

I had already not been all that interested the way the were going to remake this series, so I only watched BSG off and on until they made it to that settlement, New Caprica? After that I lost interest. Not enough action for me and too much milking of the plot lines without any revelation, almost as bad as LOST. Then I watched the last few EPs of BSG and found not much had changed since I left off. The ending? LOL. My thoughts:

Lee, now that you've saved your people, what are you gonna do? I'M GONNA GO CLIMB A MOUNTAIN!!! Ok, see ya. And all that tech that everyone was pickin apart Galactica for? We don't need no stinkin tech. Throw it all in the sun! Phhft, glad I didn't get into this show..

Babylon 5 kept my interest much more intensely and I can still remember the emotion of the liberation of earth and Ivanova's vengence, "Who am I? I’m Susan Ivanova. Commander. Daughter of Andrej and Sophie Ivanov. I am the right hand of vengeance and the boot that is gonna kick your sorry ass all the way back to earth. I am death incarnate and the last living thing that you are ever going to see. God sent me!"

When you can pick up a blu-ray player for $150, the PS3 starts looking overpriced. Before it made perfect sense to get the PS3 if you wanted something that played blu-ray movies, because all the players were up there in price anyways. Now it only makes sense if you seriously plan on playing PS3 games. The drop in blu-ray player prices should actually start adding to downward pressure on PS3 console price.

lulz, Obama fingers!?


This comment was edited on Mar 16, 2009, 13:08.

I don't believe isolating that kid in germany from video games would have helped him any more than I believe video games make us more likely to kill. People that are messed up like that will explode eventually regardless.

LOL, it's only a 150MB patch. Seems, like we're going backwards from the old days. Just click on one of the many mirror links, download in seconds, and apply. Easy. No certification, no special delivery systems. Not so easy when your options are limited...

This comment was edited on Mar 10, 2009, 19:01.

I've been using Vista64 because it supports more than 4GB of RAM and because it has numerous features of use to me, including DX10.

Fair enough. A 64-bit version is a tangible reason to upgrade and I'll likely use a 64-bit version of Windows 7 in the next machine I build and go nuts with RAM.

Installing new hardware is a MUCH more pleasant experience in Vista and I've had Vista auto-install devices that refused to work under XP. Win7 is just Vista with a few tweaks (I know, I've used it) so I don't see how upgrading from XP was a bad decision... in fact I can stick with Vista if Win7 proves to be too expensive and all I'd really be missing is some UI changes, which have their own issues anyway (it's no longer possible to minimise / restore applications by clicking the icon if multiple windows are open).

Vista was initially burned by the lack of 3rd party drivers. I needed to use a USB serial adapter for a machine running Vista that had no built in serial ports. When Vista was first out, there were no drivers for it so I was SOL. These days it's more driver rich. Unfortunately it spent too much time after launch trying to be as compatible and fast as XP.

Windows 7 seems to be a more more scalable OS that MS has made by chopping bloat out of Vista. It's coming right out of the gate as something that won't compromise on performance. That's what I want, along with DX11 if it doesn't make the same mistakes DX10 did and next Xbox targets DX11 in 2010. I think it also will be a better fit for the new netbooks (hardware that still ships with XP!), which I believe mainstream PC usage is heading toward.

I find it embarrassing to go back to systems with XP and it just goes to show how stubborn some people can be.

Embarrassing? In what way? I use both XP and Vista on a daily basis and I don't see such cause for embarrassment. I disable UAC right off the bat under Vista, because quite frankly it's annoying as hell. I dislike the default look of vista in things like the control panel, as it looks like it was designed for a child. It's obvious that changes were made to the UI to protect computer illiterate people from screwing things up.. by burying it. That's not what I'm looking for in an OS. I prefer solid performance, the ability to easily minimize overhead and increase efficiency over reshuffling icons and pretty pictures.

There has to be better a reason than "it works for me", because that's exactly what the XP people are saying. Instead of "it works for me", the reason should be why it works better than XP for you. People weren't willing to pay what MS was asking for Vista's "feature set". You might think they were crazy, but maybe they were smarter than those who just paid for a Vista upgrade only to find it will soon be replaced by Windows 7.

We complain about how games get repackaged with the same features and little innovation. There seems to be little we can do about that. Inevitably it comes down to the fact that people keep supporting that practice by buying it. This time I think people did something about it.

Pushing DX10 means you can make a game with a lower minimum videocard requirement and/or more stuff for the higher-end cards, but the end result really wouldn't be anything more than DX9 on steroids.

A lower minimum videocard requirement.. other than the requirement of having a DX10 compatible card. And if you have a DX10 compatiable card, obviously you'll be able to handle DX9 games.

As for higher end card capabilities, as you said there isn't much in the way of "Oooo shiny!" to offer.. and that's the problem. I mean, that's the main reason WHY you buy a better video card! DX10 might make it easier on developers, but end users see nothing special. Many gamers didn't adopt Vista because they didn't "see" any compelling reason to do so. Is that such a terrible reason?

The potential of DX10 never seemed to be of any consequence, because there was never much potential to begin with. There will be very little incentive to push graphics in general until we see changes in the platform that most AAA title game developers care about, the next XBox that supports something better than DX9.0c. Hopefully that will be DX11.

This comment was edited on Mar 4, 2009, 14:29.

With declining PC sales in this economy, I wouldn't count on Vista boosting its install base that much this year. In any case, this game will suck compared to the existing and upcoming RTS titles out there. The only thing they did was make their sales figures worse.

I'm still wondering how DX10 matches the capabilities of the XBox 360, which doesn't support DX10. Or maybe he means the next next generation.