Mordecai Walfish wrote on Nov 10, 2011, 21:29:hahahaha! So it's better to send them into an even bigger fervor days later after the customers find out that the crooks have had their personal and payment data for days without warning?! You Valve apologists are unbelievable.
Alerting and sending into a fervor millions of customers *IMMEDIATELY* is a short-sighted and amateur response.
If a security breach were ever so severe to warrant this it would entail the developer having a great deal of certainty that crucial personal data is at risk of potentially being decrypted and manipulated.First, having payment details stolen in a breach is severe especially when it involves tens of millions of customers as it does here. Second, expecting the victim company of the breach to be certain about anything regarding security after a breach has recently occured is laughable. If these hackers had not disfaced the forum website, Valve probably would not have even known about this breach. So, using the victim company's judgment on the severity of breach and the full ramifications of it on customers is simply foolhardy.
Please don't expect such poppycock from Valve. They have shown enough respect for the gamer community in the pastThis incident proves that Valve doesn't respect its customers enough to spend sufficient resources to properly protect customers' information or to notify them promptly if their information has been stolen.
Dades wrote on Nov 10, 2011, 19:13:Actually you'd think that PC gamers would have looked at the recent Playstation network hack and subsequent outage and realized that they shouldn't have all of their games tied to a similar network which is a single point of failure especially when it is run by a company which has a history of security problems.
You'd think after the HL2 code theft and security problems that they would be on top of this.
At least the liability is relatively limited in this case unlike the Sony hack awhile ago.Yes, it's a damn good thing that Valve protected itself with its wonderfully restrictive and liability-limiting Steam Subscriber Agreement because it would certainly be a shame for Valve to have to bear responsibility and pay a price for its security failings and failure to protect customers' payment and personal information.
Creston wrote on Nov 10, 2011, 19:21:Valve wouldn't which is why it is just another case of Gabe trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The truth is that Valve doesn't know and most likely won't ever know, but "we don't have evidence" sounds a whole lot better doesn't it?
Btw, just out of curiosity. When he says "We don't have evidence that the protection on credit card numbers or passwords was cracked."
How would they know that anyway?
DrEvil wrote on Nov 10, 2011, 18:36:Absolutely not! The responsible thing to do when you suspect a breach has occured is to alert those customers who may be affected immediately so that they can take precautions. It is much better to err on the side of caution because there is no harm done to the customer for being wrong. Protecting customers first NOT a company's reputation should be the priority.
Giving details before they could confirm what happened would have been irresponsible.
Four days to properly assess the situation, ensure all systems were secure again, and to determine exactly what caused the damage does not seem unreasonable.Of course it is unreasonable because first, it gave the crooks a four day headstart to exploit the information they stole. Waiting does nothing to help customers protect themselves in the meantime. Second, it is highly likely that Valve will never fully know the scope of the breakin especially after only four days time. So again waiting doesn't help customers and puts them at further risk. In addition expecting that everything is safe and secure after only four days is absolutely laughable especially when the people making that pronouncement are the same incompetent or irresponsible fools who didn't prevent or stop the breakin in the first place.
These are problems that you can't just throw a huge amount of people at to solve; it takes time.Sure, it takes time to fix, but NOT to warn. Waiting to warn customers so they can take steps to protect themselves is irresponsible, and it is only done so that a company can keep from looking bad in case it was wrong about a breach.
Aero wrote on Nov 10, 2011, 17:50:Regardless of this setting Steam does save your credit card information in your Steam account. That is the reason why you cannot have more than two Steam accounts which use the same credit card number. Regardless of that setting if you try to make a purchase on a third Steam account using a credit card number that has been used for purchases on two other Steam accounts, it will be declined regardless of the amount of purchase or the credit limit of the card. This is one of the unreported restrictions of Steam.
Let's hope they really honored the selection to not save credit card details when you purchase something
SBlat wrote on Aug 31, 2010, 23:24:Actually that's bullshit. EVGA knows how many cards it manufactures and ships, so it knows how many codes it needs to buy to cover its shipments. Even if it somehow ended up with more codes than shipped cards, it would just use them for the next run or shipment. The eligible cards are its latest products so it's not like it has stopped manufacturing them.
EVGA has some additional codes
I think that's pretty cool of them.The only thing not cool about this offer is the limit on the supply. This isn't a sweepstakes or a contest. If you bought the eligible product during the eligibility period and submit a claim, you should get the offered item. Speed or luck in redeeming the offer should not be a determining factor aside from a deadline which would still be pretty arbitrary since it is a digital download.
doktor_tchock wrote on Aug 31, 2010, 23:18:That's irrelevant because EVGA is now offering the game to them. The main problem with EVGA's offer is that it isn't actually providing the game to everyone who purchased the eligible cards. It is limiting the supply to keep from having to pay for every buyer to get a copy. And, what makes it ironic is that because it is a digital download offer, technically there is no supply problem. The scarcity is simply artificially imposed for economic reasons.
If you already bought one of these cards, this deal in no way impacted your purchase decision in the first place, because as far as I know it did not exist until today.
Akuinnen wrote on Aug 31, 2010, 21:23:Which is unnecessary bullshit done to try to prevent honoring the warranty. The cards have serial numbers. EVGA knows when they were manfactured. EVGA should do like hard drive manfacturers do and only require an invoice if the warranty period is expired based upon the manufactured date. That way the only customers who have to hassle with finding and sending in an invoice are those who need the warranty extended because they bought old stock.
If you ever RMA the card they will ask you to upload the invoice anyway.
I'm Hit! wrote on Aug 31, 2010, 19:50:All this and the limited supply does is prevent some buyers of these cards from getting the game. The game code or a voucher for it should come bundled with cards in the box so there is no hassle or supply problems. In the old days the disc for the game would have been in the box with the card. The runaround and supply restrictions are unnecessary. Just put a code or a disc for the game in every box.
Evga's way better assures the codes are going to actual paying customers
not thievesOh yes because it's more important to keep people who receive the video card as a gift or who no longer have their receipt from getting the game than it is to allow someone who shoplifts the box to get a free game in it too. I don't think a thief is going to give a damn if he doesn't get a free game along with the $300 graphics card he stole, and EVGA hasn't lost anything more even if he does because the store paid it for the item already.
And yes you can have a limited supply of codes that unlock digitally downloaded contentNo kidding. That's called creating "artificial scarcity" which is why I mentioned it in my original post. The creators of these codes could generate an unlimited number for free in an instant if they chose.
Blue wrote on Aug 31, 2010, 18:19:I realize that, but my point is that EVGA should be putting the codes in boxes instead. It's not like they couldn't have thought of this promotion before shipping any of these cards.
but it should be pointed out that they are not putting codes in any boxes
they are retroactively handing out codes to people who already bought their cards.That is not what I am complaining about. I am complaining about the fact that supplies are limited when everyone who bought these card should get a code.
It's not a limited supply of bits, just a limited supply of activation codes that they had to pay for.Again I already know that which is why I wrote in my original post that "EVGA should open up its wallet" and not limit the supply. Putting the codes in the boxes instead would be much more convenient for customers than having to dig out and send in paperwork if they even saved it. And, it would better ensure that every buyer got the game. Putting a code or a voucher in a box even for a game which hasn't shipped yet is nothing new and could have been done here. EVGA is just being cheap.
These are in very limited supplyLimited supply of a digital download?! Really? Run out of electrons to make more data bits? There's nothing like artificial scarcity to drive demand and to prop up inflated prices. EVGA open up your wallet and put a game code in every box with the card and be done with it.
Blue wrote on Aug 18, 2010, 12:41:This looks more like a case of the feds not wanting to waste resources prosecuting a case where civil lawsuits over the same matter have already been filed by the aggrieved parties. Yes, criminal intent is a core requirement of most federal computer hacking statutes, but here the excuse is just a red herring.
I am a little mystified as well
LIQUID-SEX wrote on Jun 25, 2010, 19:55:That is not a sale price. It's the regular digital distribution price (Direct2Drive has it as well). Also be aware that version of Perseus Mandate comes with no CD key despite the lack of notice.
Fear with all the expansions for $9 (I already own the game, but the xpax alone are worth more than the $9 lol)
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jun 23, 2010, 05:29:Read the news again. The preorder stuff is not free.
Cool. I really enjoyed the first game - so now when I get around to playing this - DLC is and pre order stuff is free.
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 15:31:It's never going to be possible to pirate this content on a consistent basis. You'd have to steal the source files, and that would require inside help and still be very difficult to do. And that doesn't even consider the technical issue of untying the games to OnLive's hardware and SDK.
Much like it is not possible to pirate this content "for now".
Also the "piracy issue" is a relative non-starter on the console side of things for the most part and that's where the lions share of money is in the videogame industry these days.You are seizing on just one of the problems for game publishers that I mentioned since it is lesser on game consoles than for PC's. Used game sales are certainly a problem to them on video game consoles, and it falls into the same category as piracy.
I can't really agree with that, I think if anything OnLive faces even more obstacles than Steam did.It faces fewer obstacles because Steam, XBOX Live, etc. paved the way for consumer acceptance of the digital delivery of games. Cloud gaming services like OnLive are simply the next step in that progression.
No one is going to tolerate potentially creating a Steam situation again either, they will not put all of their eggs into one basket.Game publishers will if they control it. They so want to eliminate paying multiple times to develop the same game, that they would partner with each other to unify gaming under a single platform in the same way that home video is unified on a single standard.
I can't ever see something like this taking over, perhaps down the road as both the technology and infrastructure advances then something akin to OnLive would be offered as a service but even DD is an insignificant portion of revenue compared to the entire retail industry as a whole.Just look at how relatively quickly Netflix took over the retail video rental industry. OnLive could do the same to the video game industry as well if it gets the funding to support ten of millions of simultaneous users and exclusive game releases. All it takes is one hit game to start the ball rolling. Halo made the XBOX. Half-Life 2 made Steam. A killer game would make Online a success as well.
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 14:35:No, what the music industry learned is that if you can't control the unauthorized distribution of your product and you don't offer an attractively priced and easily accessible alternative, people will download your product for free. That's not the case with cloud gaming services like OnLive. Even if the price is initially seen as unattractive due to the existence of alternative platforms, there is simply no way for consumers to steal and distribute the content.
Everyone has limits as the music industry found out the hard way.
It also helps if you have something that people really want and OnLive isn't offering anything that cannot be found elsewhere.As I have stated that is only true for now.
you're ignoring the fact that the industry's big players had a hard enough time accepting SteamBut, now that the large publishers have embraced digital distribution that is no longer an issue. Plus OnLive doesn't have the potential risks that Steam did especially since the company is not also a competing game developer and publisher like Valve.
Cloud gaming in North America faces some pretty significant issues due to the huge distribution of population and lack of any real organized effort at a national broadband infrastructure. That's without going into usage caps and the other crap that's also been a problem for digital distribution.Those are the same issues that digital distribution faces, but they certainly haven't stopped it from being successful. With ISP's like AT&T as partners in OnLive, those issues won't keep it from being successful.
Beamer wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 12:30:Sounds like the state of video game piracy to them.
The content owners were a bit desperate. The internet was full of their content in ways they had absolutely zero control of.
For one, the content providers aren't giddy about OnLive. They're indifferent, unlike Hulu.You are wrong on that. In their eyes cloud gaming services like OnLive solves every major problem the video game industry has.
If it works and they get more sales they think it's cool, but it's nothing they're putting time and effort into.Games have to be customized for OnLive, and I doubt that the publishers are turning over the code to their games for OnLive to do it. Publishers are using the OnLive SDK themselves which means they have to devote at least some development effort to it.
They're not really "backing" OnLive, like Hulu was backed.They eventually will to get it to scale.
You have the service itself, but signing up for a subscription is a lot of effort and a big mental barrier.It's no more of a barrier than signing up for a Netflix subscription, and it's less trouble than signing up for an MMO since there is no large game to download and install.
Then there's the mental block of paying for something they never hold.Like cable television, iTunes, and utilities?
OnLive is marginally beneficial to both.OnLive is more than just marginally beneficial to the game publishers. On paper it solves most of their current problems: losses from piracy and used game sales, separate game development for multiple platforms, console licensing and certification costs, and retail space payola. The potential benefits of cloud gaming to their bottom lines are enormous IF they can unify game development and delivery around this single platform.