Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for jsmith

Real Name jsmith   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
Homepage http://
Signed On Oct 9, 2010, 18:44
Total Comments 21 (Suspect)
User ID 55992
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

News Comments > Dead Island "Private Joke" Goes Public
12. Re: Dead Island Sep 8, 2011, 15:28 jsmith
I think there are more pressing matters for this game than worrying about a joke name for an ability.

If anyone should be reprimanded at Techland, it should be the individual or individuals that signed off on not including the ability to alter the FOV, mouse smoothness, and motion blur. Or how about the god awful inventory layout which is blatant console design. Also, whoever programmed in keyboard support should be forced to learn how to program when people are having to disable repeating key strokes in Windows just to circumvent microstuttering in Dead Island. And how about the popping of sound when cycling through menu options in the game?

Techland has a quite a few more pressing matters than dealing with this 'private joke'. I hope they get their priorities in order and fix some of these things. Maybe if we are lucky, this day 1 bonus will be some of these missing features.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > First Skyrim DLCs Timed Xbox 360 Exclusives
28. Re: First Skyrim DLCs Timed Xbox 360 Exclusives Aug 26, 2011, 15:07 jsmith
Releasing DLCs instead of expansion packs is one thing, but announcing multiple DLCs a quarter of a year before the game is shipped is something entirely different. You know they have been brokering this deal with Microsoft for awhile now, maybe even over the past couple of months. So there has been more than enough time to include this content into the game itself.

It is one thing to churn out quick DLC content post release of a game, but it is sickening to see companies not even attempt to hide the fact they are excluding content months in advance just to make some extra cash at the consumer's expense.

And for those of you who would defend Bethesda with the 'the game is already done, they are just working on polish and DLC at this point', that is utter BS. We know Bethesda. They require years of post release time just to bug fix their engines. And for something as grand of a game as Skyrim is supposed to be, they certainly could use every single developer in their studio squashing bugs instead of trying to churn out multiple zero day DLC for the game. It is nothing more than pure greed and this is something I would expect from Activision, EA, or Ubisoft, but I was really hoping Bethesda wouldn't join their ranks.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > On Origin Data-Mining
14. Re: On Origin Data-Mining Aug 23, 2011, 23:33 jsmith
nin wrote on Aug 23, 2011, 22:55:
Wolfen wrote on Aug 23, 2011, 22:38:
Not much diff then Steam

Yeah, I always figured Steam did the exact same thing.

Except Valve does in fact let the user opt out of transmitting data when using Steam. In fact, according to Valve, it is an 'opt-in' feature rather than an 'opt-out' feature, and those that are selected (at random) are given the choice if they want to pass along any hardware information.

Steam information found here: Click here.

And while the ToS does leave room for Valve to change the way they handle data collection, right now they are not screwing with the user base, and I would assume they won't in the foreseeable future. So yeah, this appears to be another strike against EA's Origin service.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > No Always On DRM for TrackMania 2
3. Re: No Always On DRM for TrackMania 2 Aug 13, 2011, 00:53 jsmith
Funny how there is yet another Ubisoft game not using the Always-on DRM but yet this was quoted recently:

"Ubisoft see the DRM as a success. Speaking to us earlier today, a Ubisoft representative admitted that the developer has seen ďa clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection, and from that point of view the requirement is a success."

Maybe they are treading water before going full tilt using this DRM until Blizzard releases Diablo 3? It seems like other companies are waiting on Blizzard to lead the way on making this Always-on DRM stick.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > RAGE Using Steamworks
7. Re: RAGE Using Steamworks Aug 13, 2011, 00:42 jsmith
Creston wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 22:57:
So no "always online" stuff then for Rage. We can at least put that rumor to bed.


Was that something people figured might actually happen? I never saw any evidence in Willits' interview to support that assumption. I thought all the fuss was over Id Software's (and Bethesda by association) potential move to Always-on DRM for future products, ones that would release after Diablo 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
130. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 17:55 jsmith
Theo wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 17:07:
try telling that to the poor sap that bought boxed HL2 with no internet and tried to play it.

Fair point to some degree. However, the seeds for Always-on DRM were planted by Ubisoft, not Valve. Valve did not require an Always-on connection, nor did it require a followup connection of any type if you chose to put Steam into offline mode (and retain full functionality of the game in single player mode).

The closest Valve has come with their games is similar to release day DRM, where you have to connect once to verify (install / register with Steam) and that is it. You can go offline once that is completed. Quite a few developers and publishers have gone this route with a one time connection during the install process. And while this is not 100% ideal for every PC user, it sure is a lot more convenient than having to remain connected to the internet at all times.

Valve has made quite a lot of headway with improving Steam over the years, and has never once advanced towards an Always-on connection like Ubisoft started doing. Even the having to connect once to the internet was not pioneered by them.

D_K_night wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 17:08:
honestly WTF is your problem ppl. If you're playing a game on your GAMING MACHINE, you're connected. Yes, you are. You're a big fat liar if you actually unplug yourself before you start the game up.

Gaming on the go? What's your iphone for? You really gonna lug that big, bad laptop with you to go camping? lol

People are not arguing the Always-on connection while located in a home with a solid internet connection. Well, they are about one point: what happens if you lose your internet signal.

What people are pissed about are all the other reasons listed:

* In the military / stationed overseas.
* Flying.
* Commuting on public transit.
* Staying in hotels / motels without internet access or those that charge for it.
* Spending time away from home in a location without internet.
* Unable to spend ridiculous amounts of money on internet tethering plans.
* Using your computer outdoors.
* Live in a small / rural town.
* Using an ISP that charges based on connection time.
* Moving to a new location / without internet for a few weeks.
* Living in a dorm where the required ports are blocked.
* Long road trips.
* Visiting family where internet isn't accessible / possible / allowed.
* Residing anywhere in the world where internet isn't a common household feature.

This list just names a few. People are not always in a black and white situation. A lot of people meet at least one these criteria listed above at some point in their life. Just because you do not travel, aren't in the military, never go on trips, visit friends and family without internet, move to a new location, use a laptop, forced to use an ISP with ridiculous tethering plans or charge by the time used, stayed in a hotel / motel without free internet, or are located in one of many locales around the world without a suitable internet connection does not make this a good DRM choice.

As for the iphone, really? Show me an iphone (or ipad for that matter) that has a nice 14+ inch screen, decent mouse / keyboard support and is able to run modern AAA games at a decent framerate, and doesn't charge you for usage when hitting 2 gigs a month.

As for lugging that laptop around, yes, quite a lot of people do just that. Whether it is for work, watching HD movies, playing current modern games, giving presentations, running diagnostics, millions of people travel with their laptop. That was the whole point in its design, for traveling and being carried with you.

So why not speak out and encourage publishers and developers to look elsewhere for their DRM needs. Encourage them to come up with a solution that does not inconvenience potentially millions upon millions of PC users at one point or another. What harm is there in that?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
114. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 16:53 jsmith
Thelemite wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 16:42:
...The seeds were planted years ago with Steam....

Except Steam allows for offline mode with zero issue. The company that has attempted to pioneer this Always-on DRM was Ubisoft, where there is no option to play off line. Steam did nothing more than allow users to keep their games library in an organized environment, easy access to purchasing games, friend's access via chat or voice, convenient backup options, and allow developers cloud support with Steamworks.

Again, unless the game requires an internet connection and directly hooked to Steam in some way, you do not have to be in online mode to use Steam.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
95. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 15:02 jsmith
^Drag0n^ wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:51:
ItBurn wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:42:
...I don't know a single person who isn't online 100% of the time. Sure there will be some people negatively affected by this...

You're not likely to be online while gaming if:

You fly
You commute on public transit
You stay in hotels that charge for internet access
You spend time away from home
You don't (have the cash to) spend $100+/month on "capped" teathering plans
You use your PC outside
You live in small towns
You have an asshat ISP that charges you based on connection time (see COX, and most of the EU)...

Exactly, and to add a few more:

* Moved to a new location and are without internet for a few weeks.
* Living in a dorm where required ports are blocked.
* Long road trips.
* Visiting relatives who do not have internet or don't allow its usage.
* Live in various locations around the globe where internet access isn't a common household feature.

Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't make it right. What happens when the next idiotic idea starts to garner steam from developers and it does affect you, I'm sure you would like to have the support of the PC user base and not just those who are being affected.

In the past, enough of an outcry has curtailed or even reversed ideas from developers and publishers. Hopefully this one will follow suit as well.

I'm not against developers protecting their investments, I'm against developers protecting their investments at the expense of the legit PC purchasing user base.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
86. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 14:31 jsmith
Seen on Zenimax / Bethesda's Rage forums. I smiled at the last part.

Confused Fan wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:13:
Why Mr. Willits would you condone 'always on' internet connections for PC games? Do you really feel it necessary even for games with single player components? How about single player only games with zero multiplayer interaction?

I personally am surprised to see a man from a company who primarily makes games with a decent amount of emphasis on single player suggest 'always on' necessity. Ubisoft was demonized for attempting this policy, especially with single player games. Whether it was the fact those without constant access to the internet (laptops, traveling, various locations around the world, et cetera) or the fact that the Ubisoft servers had authentication issues from time to time and prevented people playing the game for extended amounts of time, the general consensious was extremely negative. So much so that while Ubisoft tried to claim it was successful against piracy, they changed their policy for a number of game releases. Could it be to a lack of PC sales?

As for Diablo 3, did Mr. Willits not see the 'surprised reaction' by Robert Bridenbecker towards the negative backlash the 'always on' announcement garnered? Even with a game such as Diablo 3 where the real emphasis is on multiplayer (and now flat rate fees from the real cash auction house), people still want the option to play solo. They could be traveling, out at a cafe without wifi support, at home with the internet out of commission, in a dorm room with essential ports blocked by the network, or just anti social, people want the option to be able to play single player games or single player portions of games without the need of an internet connection. And in Diablo 3's case, all data would be stored server side (characters, items, ingame currency, et cetera) and with no way to introduce single player items into the online portion of the game, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to allow offline access. It worked just fine in Diablo 2. Could the 'always on' connection just be an attempt to 1) stop piracy with this intrusive DRM and 2) attempt to get even a small fraction of the normally offline players to take a look at the real money auction house? After all, money is money and profitability seems to be the number one goal for today's businesses.

And for always being up-to-date, PC games are not updated like top end antivirus software. They do not get updated 10+ times a day, week after week, month after month. Steam seems to do a great job at keeping software current, and it also allows players to play offline. At the very least, why not just have an optional phone home feature to look for updates, which players can choose to use if they have access to an internet connection. This style of updating is all that is really needed for keeping games up-to-date with the latest patches.

Please do not go down that road Mr. Willits, or try to bring Id Software down that road. Activision, EA and Ubisoft have already won the awards for screwing with the PC playerbase with numerous actions over the years. Why not stand in the corner of the PC gamers and become a champion of the people? I think Valve is getting awfully lonely over there.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Physical Warfare Pack to Eventually be Free for All
1. Re: Battlefield 3 Physical Warfare Pack Will Eventually be Free for All Jun 16, 2011, 15:57 jsmith
Smart move on DICE's part. Either that, or the backlash was strong enough to overwhelm the stupidity / greed (through exclusive rights deals) of the EA execs involved. This should alleviate concern most people were having towards Battlefield 3.

Now all that is left is to hope EA doesn't try to bog down the game with obnoxious DRM and attempt to make Battlefield 3 an Origin exclusive along with Star Wars: The Old Republic.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DICE Addresses Battlefield 3 Preorder Questions
10. Re: DICE Addresses Battlefield 3 Preorder Questions Jun 14, 2011, 00:39 jsmith
Nate wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 23:09:
Don't care about this physical warfare pack. The 3 extra maps that you can only get by pre-ordering with EA is the issue.

Actually, the issue isn't so much the Back to Karkland map pack with preorders, it has more to do with the Physical Warfare Pack.

The map pack will be available to any preorder, whether it is from retail or digital distribution. I imagine DICE's reasoning for the so called bonus is to help justify the price hike in the Battlefield series from $49.99 to $59.99. Extra maps (though one can argue if they are completed ahead of time they should be included by default) or other bonus material tends to lessen the ire of the consumer when a price hike occurs.

In my opinion, the real issue is the Warfare Pack, which includes 1 First Day access item (unlockable by everyone if they play the game long enough) and 3 Exclusive items (not obtainable in the game), one of which is a weapon. If DICE follows suit with the UK announcement which is quite probable, this item pack will only be obtainable via select brick-and-mortar retailers and no digital distribution retailers that we know of at this time. This is one reason that people are upset, some may feel the need to purchase the game from a retailer they normally would not do business with, due to lack of convenience, disdain for that particular store, or some other reason.

Another issue is what is stated by DICE in their Physical Warfare Pack FAQ:

DICE wrote:
Q: Why do I want the Physical Warfare Pack?
A: Owning these items will give you a more varied arsenal, but it will not give you a significant advantage on the battlefield.

Does this imply there is a slight advantage? How about a moderate advantage? It is odd they chose to use the adjective 'significant' in their statement. I mean who knows, the Type 88 LMG might be ideal in certain circumstances and maybe that flechette shotgun ammunition could be lethal in the close quarter combat situations / maps where range isn't a factor in a standard engagement.

Any way you slice it, some people are going to be a bit perturbed not having access to all the same things other players will have access to when the only difference is supposed to be the player's skill.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > X Rebirth Announced
16. Re: X Rebirth Announced Apr 20, 2011, 23:24 jsmith
I truly hope they abandon TAGES this time around for DRM. If they choose to use it again, there will be one less confirmed sale for the next X game.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > The Witcher 2 Preloads & DRM, New Publishers [Updated]
36. Re: The Witcher 2 Preloads & DRM, New Publishers [Updated] Apr 15, 2011, 04:18 jsmith
So all copies except GOG's copy of The Witcher 2 will ship with SecuROM and a 5 machine limit with unlimited amounts of deauthorization. The copy from GOG (their own game sales website) will be DRM free. That is still a shady move to try and herd some customers away from other digital distribution websites. I would expect a move like this from Gamestop and there newly acquired Impulse site, but not this company.

No matter how you look at it, Good Old Games pretty much had to be DRM free with all of their games; most are outdated with zero support. Hell, some of the companies of the games being sold are no longer around. In order to sell that sort of software they have to make sure it is playable without DRM such as CD checks, words from the manual, or phone home checks. Making it compatible with Vista and Windows 7 is an added bonus for additional sales.

This is the first modern release of a popular title occurring on GOG (to my knowledge), and CD Projekt wants to cash in on extra sales directly to themselves. While I do not see a problem with a company wanting to make more of a profit, using DRM to achieve this goal leaves a poor taste for the company. It would have been better if they had offered bonuses for ordering through GOG, not punishing those that choose to go elsewhere.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > The Witcher 2 Preloads & DRM, New Publishers [Updated]
17. Re: The Witcher 2 Preloads & DRM, New Publishers Coming Apr 14, 2011, 18:30 jsmith
It seems like a potentially asinine move on CD Projekt's part to sabotage their own game with SecuROM in an attempt to drive customers to their own website, especially after seeing how much CD Projekt's head honchos dislike DRM.

ďBeing a player myself, Iím always surprised to see how many companies focus solely on preventing piracy instead of thinking about how they might encourage players to acquire original game copies."

I guess Marcin Iwinski only has a problem with DRM just as long as every copy has it attached, but no problem attaching it to every copy sans those purchased on GOG. I guess he has no problem using DRM as a tool (at the paying customer's expense) to drive a few more people to CD Projekt's website for sales.

ďOur aim is to produce games that provide the best and most satisfying playing experience. Copyright protection canít stand in the way of that. Especially since it makes life difficult for players who acquire legal game copies, that is, those to whom we owe our greatest respect."

Maybe Adam Kicinski should make an addendum stating '...most satisfying paying experience when purchased solely from' and 'Copyright protection can't stand in the way of that unless you purchased our game anywhere other than'

I am all for a site such as Good Old Games and their stance of everything released being DRM free, but it becomes shady when you start adding DRM to your game in an attempt to drive traffic to your website. If I cannot purchase the same copy of Witcher 2 that will be on over at Steam, I will skip this purchase.

They should release the game equally on all digital distribution platforms, or don't try and play the white knight card about DRM all the while using DRM to herd customers for personal gain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Rift Beta Friday
3. Re: Rift Beta Friday Nov 29, 2010, 23:17 jsmith
WyldKat wrote on Nov 29, 2010, 22:16:
I'm signed up for beta apparently but I have no idea why I signed up in the first place. It looks like a typical Korean MMO and I don't really see anything that sets it apart.

Really? Korean MMO? The game looks like a Vanguard / WoW hybrid with a sprinkling of EQ2 (maybe that's just the Hartsman factor). How do you come up with Korean MMO? Korean MMOs are Rising Force Online, Maple Story, 2Moons, Asda Story, et cetera. You may not care for the game, but at least be realistic about its appearance.

As for what will set it apart, the dynamic solo / group / raid content in the form of rifts (on top of regular group and raid dungeons) seems like a unique concept. At the very least, it's a step in the right direction from Warhammer's PQ system. Also having NPC factions warring with eachother seems like a neat feature.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Kings and Castles Monthly DLC Plans
7. Re: Kings and Castles Monthly DLC Plans Nov 14, 2010, 21:54 jsmith
It is as if he honestly believes people are excited by the notion of paying full retail for a game, followed by monthly costs and possibly microtransactions on top of that. I can honestly say I think he is truly out of touch with reality. Is he thinking to himself, "Why would people pay $50 or $60 when they can spend twice that or more?"

It's a lofty goal, but maybe he will be able to 1-up Hellgate London. Time will tell...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Call of Duty: Black Ops Steamworks
5. Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Steamworks Oct 22, 2010, 13:12 jsmith
Has Treyarch confirmed or denied the ability to alter the FOV in Black Ops yet? I know people have speculated a person could alter it since the developer console will be enabled, but again that is pure speculation.

It would be nice to get a definite one way or the other since the ex 'A-team' Infinity Ward went so far as to call changing the FOV a cheat for the previous Call of Duty game. You would think after all of the backlash Modern Warfare 2 received for not being able to alter the FOV, Treyarch would be all over mentioning it like they did with dedicated servers (another huge backlash from the game players).

Could it be that there is a limitation in the engine Infinity Ward created which would distort the game? Something that Treyarch is unable to overcome? It's quite possible they were unable to make any modifications to the engine in such a short timespan (sort of like Obsidian with Fallout New Vegas using Bethesda's Gamebryo / Fallout 3 engine).
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam Priced
4. Re: Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam Priced Oct 21, 2010, 12:05 jsmith
Has DICE resolved the teleport hack yet in BC2 & MOH?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Medal of Honor
14. Re: Ships Ahoy - Medal of Honor Oct 12, 2010, 14:29 jsmith
DangerDog wrote on Oct 12, 2010, 14:04:
It's not got enough bling bling for the 12 to 14 year olds, no eminem or fiddy cent and you can't add trinkets or stickers to your guns.

If what people are saying is true about the teleport hack still in operation, I'll take 'bling bling' any day of the week over having someone teleport myself along with my entire team out of bounds, up in the air, or right in front of their AA gun.

That is just unacceptable in a modern FPS, to have a game engine that vulnerable to client side feedback on player positioning. And this didn't happen as an oversight right at release. This is going on now, with more and more videos appearing on YouTube.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Medal of Honor
3. Re: Ships Ahoy - Medal of Honor Oct 12, 2010, 11:12 jsmith
This was created from the same Frostbyte engine behind Bad Company 2 wasn't it? If so, has that teleport glitch been resolved yet by DICE?

I know we all have to deal with aimbots and wallhacks in any popular FPS, but being able to manipulate any other player's location at the push of a button... even on so called secure dedicated servers. Well, that is just piss poor coding on DICE's part to allow such an exploit to exist.

This isn't knocking MoH (though, from the beta a few months back it played like a 'lacking' MW2, though it allowed for FOV changes) but rather people should be aware of how vulnerable the Frostbyte engine appears to be for people with a hard on for cheating.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
21 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


Blue's News logo