User information for Jan Martin Mathiassen

Real Name
Jan Martin Mathiassen
Nickname
tgr
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Annoyed Ex-Gamebuyer

Supporter

Signed On
November 22, 2008
Total Posts
17 (Suspect)
User ID
54565
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
17 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
31.
 
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II
Oct 27, 2010, 15:09
tgr
31.
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Oct 27, 2010, 15:09
Oct 27, 2010, 15:09
tgr
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Oct 27, 2010, 14:22:
It's pretty damn common, there's multiple threads a day on the Steam forums about it.

Ok. As I said, this is the first I've seen of it being worse than just "oh you have to wait a few days compared to the US". But again, if they don't want my money, that's fine by me.

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that if I want to, I can buy FU2 as a physical copy in Norway, right now.
21.
 
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II
Oct 27, 2010, 07:37
tgr
21.
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Oct 27, 2010, 07:37
Oct 27, 2010, 07:37
tgr
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Oct 27, 2010, 06:38:
It's almost as if you aren't used to this by now.

In movies, sure. In games? with that strong a wording? No. At worst I've seen "will be unlocked in 2 days" when USians are already playing the game, not just an unfriendly "NOT AVAILABLE IN YOUR REGION!".
19.
 
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II
Oct 27, 2010, 05:08
tgr
19.
Re: Ships Ahoy - Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Oct 27, 2010, 05:08
Oct 27, 2010, 05:08
tgr
 
Tried to see if it was available on steam yet. The page I found was: http://store.steampowered.com/app/32500/

"An error was encountered while processing your request:

This item is currently unavailable in your region"

It's almost like they don't even want me to give them money.
88.
 
Re: Ubisoft DRM Analysis
Jun 1, 2010, 07:23
tgr
88.
Re: Ubisoft DRM Analysis Jun 1, 2010, 07:23
Jun 1, 2010, 07:23
tgr
 
Reactor wrote on Jun 1, 2010, 06:54:
Anything that urges people to pay for games, or spreads the word that piracy is hurting developers makes a difference. The key I think is in the balance of it all.

I agree. I have no issue with the more or less inobtrusive methods chosen with f.ex having to keep the disc in the drive, it's just when we're dependent on external resources, or we're all labelled as pirates even before we've even tried to fork over the money that I, as a customer, become annoyed.

I think that one of the major reasons the PC gaming is having the amount of issues it is having lately, is the ever-increasing focus on glitz over pure gameplay. While graphics is nice, gameplay is better (I'm still playing Jagged Alliance 2 once in a while, and you can hardly say that's start of the art graphics), and gameplay is (I believe) much cheaper to accomplish than graphics glitz and gloss. So 10 years ago games probably cost a lot less to make than they do today, which means the publishers of today is probably under much more pressure to actually sell sell sell. And that probably makes them get a lot worse with regards to how they word everything they say and do.
86.
 
Re: Ubisoft DRM Analysis
Jun 1, 2010, 04:38
tgr
86.
Re: Ubisoft DRM Analysis Jun 1, 2010, 04:38
Jun 1, 2010, 04:38
tgr
 
As it is now, I feel like kxmode, that I, as a legitimate customer, don't matter because all developers ever want to focus on, talk about, and make business decisions for are those who DIDN'T pay.

I can only emphasize this bit. I have hundreds of games that I've bought over the years, and I've literally only bought 4-5 games each year the last 2 years because the DRM has gotten too bad, because I do not want to support idiotic stances like ubisoft's. However, I keep seeing how it just keeps on getting worse and worse for PC gamers, with more and more awful systems implemented month after month, no matter how much I keep telling them "stop doing this, you're losing my money by doing that".

Hell, I even bought prince of persia for the PC because it was (in some versions) released without any DRM whatsoever, to try to convince ubisoft to take a step back from requiring activations on their games. And what happened? They upped the ante by requiring us being online all the time.

Basically, I feel like nothing I do will help, and I don't really feel like being a console gamer (until they give us the possibility of having a KB/M interface for strategy games etc). Which means that from my perspective, PC gaming really is dying. And there's fuck-all I can do to help stop this development.

* If I buy a drm-infested game, ubisoft will take that as "it works".
* If I don't buy it, I lose out on a potentially great game, ubisoft lose out on a sale, and the statistics show that PC gamers don't want those games anyway.
* If I pirate it, I at least get to play the game, ubisoft loses out on the sale, and ubisoft get to point to the piracy statistics and say "see? see?! they're all ebul piwates!".

It's frustrating, but it looks like I'll have to find another hobby, because this one seems to finally be imploding in on itself, with no proper replacement I'll consider viable for my gaming style.
10.
 
Re: Ubisoft's Nature RTS Game
May 21, 2010, 08:08
tgr
10.
Re: Ubisoft's Nature RTS Game May 21, 2010, 08:08
May 21, 2010, 08:08
tgr
 
Great. Another game that might be interesting, but is probably fucked up by shitty DRM and thus ignored by me.

This comment was edited on May 21, 2010, 08:39.
2.
 
Re: Command & Conquer 4 Ships Worldwide
Mar 19, 2010, 11:35
tgr
2.
Re: Command & Conquer 4 Ships Worldwide Mar 19, 2010, 11:35
Mar 19, 2010, 11:35
tgr
 
That's correct. It only requires an EA account, that you log into, and that you stay online at all times. And of course all your progress goes bye-bye if you have any problems whatsoever with your internet connection.

Not DRM-like at all. Nope.
60.
 
Re: EA Games on Steam
Dec 22, 2008, 10:47
tgr
60.
Re: EA Games on Steam Dec 22, 2008, 10:47
Dec 22, 2008, 10:47
tgr
 

You are confusing 'ownership' with 'right to redistribute'.

You're confusing owning a physical copy with owning the software itself. Read some EULAs. Anything you buy is a license and can generally be revoked at any time, on a whim, if they wanted to. Boxed copies are just like Steam.

I'm not saying I like that, I'm saying that's how things are written anymore.

I'm going to start off with a disclaimer here. I am not a lawyer so I might have misinterpreted something. So, basically, if I am wrong in my interpretation, please do update me on where I might be wrong. It's always best to have ones facts correct.

Anyhow, if I'm correct, then he's not far off, at least if you're reading the law itself, instead of the EULA which may include whatever the publisher might take as a flight of fancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Specifically:

This leaves the copyright holder, through the terms of the EULA and TOS that many software and music companies favor in order to bypass section 109, liable for Clayton Act violations through the fact that they claim that the purchase of the software or music is not a purchase and that the end user does not own the software but has rights to use it, thus engaging in other acts or practice in the nature of rental or lease. While many states have changed their contract laws so that a sale of software is defined under the UCC, in response to UCITA through so called Anti-UCITA bills, so a purchase of software is a sale under the UCC at the point of purchase, thus the purchaser owns the software at the time of purchase and the EULA terms imposed after the sale, if not disclosed prior to the sale, are unenforceable, other states have not.

Even MicroSoft's tried to enforce the EULA and has in essense lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v._Zamos

This isn't iron-clad however, as it doesn't appear to have been fully set in stone for absolutely all possible variations, but when it comes to games and software, my interpretation of the law is that while the EULA states that we own a license to the software, the law says that we own that one copy of the software. What we then choose to do with that one copy is up to us. What we definitely can't do, however, is make copies and sell/give away. But rent, lend, sell? Our prerogative.

Or, actually, Virginia and Maryland appears to have accepted the UCITA, whereas the other states refused to do so due to the following:
The UCITA has been extremely controversial and has been opposed by a number of consumer groups and the attorney generals of many states because it is said to considerably weaken consumer protections, reinterpret contracts and licenses in such a way that is — in the opinion of these critics — unduly favorable to the software producers and disregarding the reasonable entitlements of consumers.

I'm not going to look into what each and every country practice wrt EULAs and their applicabilities, suffice it to say people should probably read up on this.
54.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 18, 2008, 20:35
tgr
54.
Re: Op Ed Dec 18, 2008, 20:35
Dec 18, 2008, 20:35
tgr
 
Well, you do get http://reviews.cnet.com/keyboards/microsoft-xbox-360-messenger/4505-3134_7-32517446.html if you like, but that's specifically disallowed in games by microsoft. I seem to remember that this was because they didn't want the xbox to encroach too much on the PC marked, however some people claim it's because it would "unbalance gaming". Except they don't appear to be complaining about steering wheels in racing games, or guitars in guitar hero, etc etc etc.

Actually, ask for KB/MS on the 360, and you'll start to think the pirate/anti-pirate discussion is performed by very adult people compared to the console weirdoes. 99% of the time the first comment will invariably be something related to "you're a cheater" or "it's not balanced/fair!" etc. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?s=ed04ddac1fbef30bd831327fb299aae0&p=1228007&postcount=15 has a few good points on this subject of fairness etc.

Hell, if they're afraid it would compete against the PCs with regards to flexibility, they could just provide a special keypad (20 keys should be plenty) and a mouse and that's it. I just want to play games like far cry 2 on the console without having to slow-pan. I made that mistake with GRAW once, I'm not making it again. Pity, since apparently that's where there's les piracy, more sales and higher prices. I guess they don't really want my money anyway.

This comment was edited on Dec 18, 2008, 20:36.
103.
 
Re: Retail PoP DRM-Free
Dec 18, 2008, 11:48
tgr
Re: Retail PoP DRM-Free Dec 18, 2008, 11:48
Dec 18, 2008, 11:48
tgr
 
I don't think it's just the target group that's important, I also think it's both the production cost they put in AND the value we as customers get back out. Most of the games of a few years ago had 20-50 hours worth of entertainment (depending on how much you rushed things), whereas today it seems like 5-10 hours is more the going rate.

I think us older gamers have much less problems appreciating a good and deep gaming experience but with less of a graphical wow-factor, whereas teenagers are the opposite.

Now, PoP isn't really glitzy compared to some games these days, but it's Good Enough. It doesn't have deep gameplay (far from it), but it's okay fun. Actually, it reminds me of an old classic I once played on the PC, namely MGS. Ugly graphics, great cutscenes, brilliant story. Loved it and wanted more. Not to say PoP is MGS-like, but the actual gameplay in MGS is so shallow that having an okay story saves the game by turning it into a 20-30+ hours long interactive movie.

PoP is a nice enough distraction, but it isn't anywhere near the value of old games. My belief is that if you wanted to make that kind of game (i.e. if I were to do the next PoP installment), I would probably keep the artlevel, engine, world and model detail etc at the level they're at now, and hire in someone who's pretty damned good at making pretty damned good stories, and focusing on that, rather than wow-factors. If it's basically an interactive movie, then I say it shouldn't hurt to treat it like one. Especially since that's basically what most of today's console games are.

Then again, there's a reason I'm not a games producer, but rather a games player.
52.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 18, 2008, 08:44
tgr
52.
Re: Op Ed Dec 18, 2008, 08:44
Dec 18, 2008, 08:44
tgr
 
@dsmart
By the same token, those who are worrying about an authentication server going offline are pissing in the wind because unless you forgot to read the EULA, you don't own frigging game. You have a license to use it.
Yes and no. I've said it before, I'll say it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Specifically the following:
In 1909 the codification originally applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"), but in the 1976 Act it was made to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord (recorded music) regardless of whether it was first sold. So, for example, if the copyright owner licenses someone to make a copy (such as by downloading), then that copy (meaning the tangible medium of expression onto which it was copied under license, be it a hard drive or removable storage medium) may lawfully be sold, lent, traded, or given away.
and
Some U.S. case law allows manufacturers to restrict the first-sale doctrine by a clickwrap contract or other agreement. The case law is conflicting, however, and the legality of allowing first-sale doctrine rights to be abrogated by contract has been questioned.
I'll even add http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/11/you-bought-it-you-own-it-part-iv-quanta-v-lg-electronics which I just found.

In short, they haven't really decided whether or not such agreements should override first-sale doctrine. In fact, there are a few examples of such EULAs being regarded as not valid, and the whole "the software's licensed, not sold" part is just yet another attempt in a long long line by copyright/patent holders to try to restrict consumer rights.

Heck my DTV, phone, DSL etc all go dark every now and then, but my life goes on. In fact a few weeks back I was on dial-up, believe it or not, because my DSL was down for over a day. Did AT&T tell me why? Nope. Did I switch to cable? Nope.
You may very well not change your providers when they go dark for a whole day, that still doesn't change the fact they've then basically cheated you out of 1 day's share of the monthly (or whatever it is you pay for) subscription fee. In an ideal world, you would be refunded for that day's downtime. Unfortunately, nobody does demand that, so the few who do are just ignored. That's their loss, it still doesn't mean it's right.

The gamers who are against online authentication (at least if it isn't removed after, say, 6-12 months by a patch, which I'll grudgingly accept as an anti-piracy cooldown period) just haven't given up their rights yet. That's the difference between "the vocal minority" who are clamoring against online activations, and in particular one with limits.

And just in case the whole "well, look at MMOs then!" thing pops up again, consider this: there's a radically different mental outset that we, the gamers, enter into when we enter into an MMO vs a singleplayer game such as Spore or FarCry 2. When we buy into an MMO, we buy a service. It, like the phone company, can have outages, and trust me they do. They are also games which depend on the fact there are other gamers around, because otherwise there wouldn't be any point to joining an MMO game. Hence "massive" and "multiplayer". There's also a very logical link between "the servers are down" and "it's not working", because you are aware of the fact that you're dependent on an external source before you even bought the game, and it's an intrinsic value of the structure of the game itself. So you accept the risks of it being down to get the experience.

Singleplayer games like Spore however is more aimed at people sitting at a computer and playing at their own pace, at their own choosing. If it refuses to install or start because the authorization server is down, then that is wholly illogical for the common user. There's no direct link between their game and some "authorization server, whatever that is". If you were denied from downloading creatures because your game was "illegal", then that would be a much smaller problem to understand, because then you already know that you are going out on the internet to fetch some resources. You can then more readily accept it, since it doesn't really impact more than that part of the game. Even if they were to shut down the servers permanently, that'll only be a part of the game which was unavailable. You can still make all the creatures the other people've made, it'll just take time.

You've said yourself that limiting resale etc is wrong, but that is basically what the online activation thing IS, unless it is removed after the initial sales date of the game (since that's when the most income is realized), and even then I'd consider it borderline. Not due to the practical aspects, it's the principle of the thing. Most games are played through once and then put away, never to be played again, but that's my choice. It isn't something which should be forced upon me. But the reason for me considering it borderline is because even though patches are released, they may not always be available when I suddenly get the urge to play an old game again, or if I sell it/give it to a nephew who is weird and likes the nostalgia of older games.

But I'll accept that as a risk of doing gaming, if only it would get RTS/FPS games developers to go back to the PC as a primary platform again. Failling that, get a keyboard/mouse controller for the consoles so real men can play real games with real depth, and not just these watered-down games of today.

If Microsoft wanted to kill PC gaming, they could do it overnight. All it would take is <long list>
Actually, for me, all it would take to reconnect the 360 to the 20" monitor is ... allowing a keyboard and mouse to be used in the games. This one restriction is enough to put me off of the 360 with a few notable exceptions: GTA4 and Mass Effect. Racing games have steering wheels (even if their physics suck), guitar player/rockband have other specialized equipment, but keyboard/mouse so FPS/RTS games can be played sensibly? Noooooo. Das ist verboten! Which means I'm clinging desperately on to the PC as a gaming platform. The games which I want to play are just not made or properly doable on a console. If Supreme Commander 2 is released on the consoles, chances are I'd rather eat my own kitchen table than be forced to play that with a gaming pad, with its slow tracking etc. Just like playing GRAW on the 360 was like walking on melted glass while being shot at with mortars; i.e. Painful. I played that for 15 minutes, threw the DVD in the cover and tossed it so far back into the gaming cupboard I could.

Actually, allowing keyboard/mouse for gaming use would, as far as I can see, basically erradicate the entire difference (apart from just raw performance) between the 360 and the PC.

How much do you want to wager that once they've cut out the PC as a platform to develop on because the consoles have a much lower piracy rate than the PC, they're going to bitch and moan about piracy rates on the consoles as well? And second-hand sales (oh boo hoo hoo 20% of games sold today are used games, we're starving!).
70.
 
Re: Used Games Hurt Game Quality?
Dec 9, 2008, 08:28
tgr
70.
Re: Used Games Hurt Game Quality? Dec 9, 2008, 08:28
Dec 9, 2008, 08:28
tgr
 
Correct. You own the package and its contents, but the software itself on the CD/DVD remains the property of the developer that you're, in-effect, renting.

Not quite. There's this thing called "first-sale doctrine". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine if you're interested.

Basically it gives you the right to sell your copyrighted material on, and nobody can say you can't do so (well, except maybe in a few states in the US, I think). Microsoft tried to do that in one case, and that didn't quite work.
57.
 
Re: All Aspect Warfare Info
Dec 7, 2008, 12:14
tgr
57.
Re: All Aspect Warfare Info Dec 7, 2008, 12:14
Dec 7, 2008, 12:14
tgr
 
@dsmart

I was going to write an overly long posting ripping yours apart because you went down hard on me, particularly on the clueless part (I realized that starforce had drivers when I installed a demo from steam, and I then found tages also had it, at which point I ignored that too. safedisk and securom at the time was in pre-driver mode I believe. Also, I know starforce wasn't "replaced" with a "new" system tages, ubisoft replaced starforce as their drm system of choice. That's what I meant, please do not read into what I wrote what isn't there), but I've decided I'm not going to be bothered. Mainly because you're probably used to people ripping into you in this thread, so you automatically lash out, but also because we're basically in agreement on the whole DRM issue (well, except for the fact that you're requiring online activation, and a driver).

The game looks like it might be very fun, so I've put it up as a possible buy, I'll just have to see when I get there how other people think the DRM fares.

I'll agree that what most gamers are up in arms about the online activation and install limits (and for that I hope EA loses the lawsuit against them, hard), and it's only people like me who are a bit of a more vocal minority. That doesn't mean we can just be written off as pirates and forgotten about. It just means

I've given this a fair bit of thought the last few hours, and I think I've come across what might be a fair middleground.

First of all, though, I must admit that I am still in disagreement on the whole driver part, since we all know that securom, safedisc, etc are all cracked either within a day or two of release, or even before release, so I don't really see why one should bother inserting more code into ring0 than is already necessary. There are plenty of examples of that backfiring, with f.ex securom refusing to run if process explorer has been run once since the computer was booted up (prior to process explorer v11), refuses to run with daemon tools installed, if there's a debugger installed or running (I'm a programmer, I often debug my own programs, I've seen this bite me when I wanted to just run a quick game in the middle of a debugging session), etc etc etc.

So I just don't see the point of going for a driver. But that's for another time and place, because I have a possible solution which might please everyone. What if publishers all detailed any and all known sideeffects, functionality, limitations and caveats etc that might be anticipated with games using DRM, and in large print on the back of the case (not the 4 point fontsize which f.ex farcry2 now has). Also a complete and utter uninstall feature, which must have the possibility of taking the driver down with it. This way everyone who does care about the health of their OS, and don't wish to reinstall their OS every 6 months, can choose to ignore the game for now. Then, once sufficient amounts of time has passed, say a year, the publishers must release a patch which removes DRM. That way people who dislike DRM to the point where they will not buy good games because of DRM (or even pirate it just to get the gaming experience/story without the DRM experience ... you may stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that this can and does happen), will have a chance of buying it a year after everyone else and not get the DRM experience.

Surely that would be one solution which might be good for everyone. That way there won't be a limitation on the first-sale doctrine (if you'd read my second link, you'd've seen that mentioned. Basically it covers resale, activation, lending it to your friends, modifying it to make mods without getting the DMCA after you, which is another chapter in limiting our rights which I won't go into here), fair use (i.e. making a backup of my own game) or any of the other potential problems you might run in to. Hell, it might even *gasp* generate some goodwill towards publishers again, instead of just more and more badwill.

The only problem I can think of is what happens to the patches in 10 years time, if I suddenly decide to fire up f.ex supreme commander, command and conquer, or the like. I think the internet being the internet would take care of that by someone making a copy of that patch available somewhere, or you could just make sure you've got a repetoir of patches for all the games you own.

Egosoft does this, and I've bought x2 and x3:r after they removed the DRM, and I believe I'll do the same when x3:tc loses its drm. What I wrote in my open letter wasn't being sensationalist, it was being honest. I have set myself a goal of not buying games which require online activation and maximum activations pr copy, or any other sort of usage limit, or installs drivers deep into the OS for no real apparent reason. I may go back on the driver thing if the game is good enough, but the game would have to be dramatically good for that to happen.
50.
 
Re: All Aspect Warfare Gameplay & DRM De
Dec 6, 2008, 20:37
tgr
50.
Re: All Aspect Warfare Gameplay & DRM De Dec 6, 2008, 20:37
Dec 6, 2008, 20:37
tgr
 
*sigh* Not this again.

Only pirates make the most noise about DRM because all the average gamer cares about is that the DRM scheme not be intrusive, invasive or restrictive.

I'm sorry, but no. I'm not a pirate, I've bought loads of games (I actually haven't got a number on how many, but it's way too many) over the years, and I am one of those who "make the most noise about DRM". It isn't because "oh boo hoo hoo I can't pirate the game". If I want a game, it's certainly not difficult to get. Everybody with half a brain, a webbrowser and access to google can figure this out.

No, what I'm making noise about is the fact that people like EA start infringing on multiple points while justifying that on "piracy" and treating users like criminals. And while they're treating users like criminals, they're basically being criminals themselves, by trespassing on your computer, inserting unauthorized drivers into ring0, which is about as high up on the privilege scale as you can get, and just completely pissing all over the concept of "fair use" and "first-sale doctrine" by limiting how, where and in some cases even when you can use your game.

I will allow them to use the disc as a dongle, since I can see the argument of needing some protection. Not that it's worth much, but anyway. I will not allow them to insert code into my OS and keep it and my game hostage because they feel insecure. And as long as they keep doing that, I will upholding what I swore in my open letter: [url=]http://tinyurl.com/6ejfq7[/url].

And a while later, I amended that to include not infringing on rights given to us consumers by law, as discussed in "casual piracy": [url=]http://tinyurl.com/5j9z4x[/url].

(Apologies in advance for tinyurls, apparently blues' forum software doesn't recognize _ as a legal URL character, I will be changing invasive_drm to invasive-drm on monday, in case I'll publish links here again.)

I am not a pirate, I am much worse than that. I am a pissed off ex-gamesbuyer. That is sales down the drain because I will not tolerate being treated as a criminal, or having my rights taken away from me unlawfully. I will also not tolerate being called a pirate just because I'm telling developers/publishers that what they are doing is WRONG and OVER THE LINE.

That is all.

-----------------------------

Edit:

Actually, that's not all. I'm going to commend you for not going the EA route and limiting the amount of installs, that is a big hurdle off for me accepting the game.

I'm still not 100% convinced about the whole online activation thing, since it means having a reliance on someone else when you either want to install or play the game. You do not want that server being down when you install or fire the game up, as has been shown to be the case multiple times over the years with even Valve's system. And as for getting patches which removes the DRM after, say, 12 months, I can sort of live with that. Hell, I'm decidedly not buying X3:TC now, because I know they have a DRM which installs a driver, but I'm waiting for them to release a patch which'll remove that in about a year's time. I'll buy that game then, not sooner.

And I am still unshakable on the whole install-a-driver-in-ring0 thing. That is just wrong. A PC is a complex piece of hardware where enough things can go wrong, you do not add extra components which can and will go wrong for some people.

Go back to when copy protections didn't mess with the OS, and I'll start buying games again ... if they're good enough. All too few of today's games are, I find.

This comment was edited on Dec 6, 2008, 21:03.
7.
 
Re: open letter
Nov 23, 2008, 12:15
tgr
7.
Re: open letter Nov 23, 2008, 12:15
Nov 23, 2008, 12:15
tgr
 
While I may not be the huge majority, just silently not buying games definitely won't make them see the problem. They'll just keep on going "ah well, them thar pirates are really eating into our profits!". This way, they know of at least a few games which they've lost at least one sale on each, due to DRM.

That is, if they don't just instantly assume that I'm a pirate since I don't want to buy their game, which is just frustrating to know. I want to buy a lot of their games (farcry2 looks damn sweet, fallout3 looks damn sweet, starcraft2 etc etc etc), but I am not going to.

And with this letter, I can point to that and say "I told you so". No matter if it helps or not (I'm not looking to change the world), at least it's documented so they can see it. It's better than nothing.
5.
 
Re: open letter
Nov 22, 2008, 16:09
tgr
5.
Re: open letter Nov 22, 2008, 16:09
Nov 22, 2008, 16:09
tgr
 
You don't want to see the first draft, that was /horrid/. I was still too hung up on the points which just became rants and rambling etc, so although the 2nd draft was still a lot better than the 1st, it still needed to get rid of a lot, and be much more focused. I basically needed a kick up the backside, which I got. Thanks for that.
3.
 
Re: open letter
Nov 22, 2008, 13:35
tgr
3.
Re: open letter Nov 22, 2008, 13:35
Nov 22, 2008, 13:35
tgr
 
Thanks for the feedback, I've taken it to heart and rewritten it. The old version is available for those who are a bit weird and like to read rambly longwinded rants, but the page will be redirecting to the new and proper letter automatically.

Again, thanks for the feedback, it made me realize the error of my ways.
17 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older