JD wrote on May 7, 2010, 00:55:
On that we agree because that statement certainly applies to your posts. That's not the only thing which has obviously been wasted on you. An education and the truth are two others.

Again, being a rude douchebag on the internet isn't going to impress me or anyone else for that matter

SEGA didn't say anything here about this which I why I posted my observation on it in the first place. SEGA made the change in DRM for a reason, and it is most likely for the two reasons I gave. End of story.

Translation: I want it to be my way, end of story. I've already pointed out how your observations were flawed and have yet to see a counter for them beyond some smarmy insults.

Below I simply cited the retail sales of CODMW2 as a recent example of a game with this type of DRM which was not shunned by PC game consumers. It's certainly not the only example of such a game, but it is a prominent one. The only reason I brought up the issue of Steam was to head off a rebuttal that Steam's DRM doesn't count or that Steam was the reason for this acceptance since some people like Steam for its distribution features.

I mean, the reasons why Call of Duty MW2 isn't a good example of -anything- should be readily apparent to you. You could sell that game in a shoebox with a post it note that has a link to a website saying "your key is the fifth word on the first page of the 20th google result for retard" and guess what? People would buy it. It should also be no shock to anyone that a primarily multiplayer product will have larger adoption rates for activating on something like Steam, chances are most already had accounts there anyways. So saying that people buy a juggernaut like MW2 and don't care about Steam features is probably partially true but that doesn't mean it validates any scenario involving internet activation. When a consumer wants something bad enough, all standards go out the window. That doesn't mean other games get to enjoy that kind of success with that kind of DRM at retail.

So, I pointed out that those features aren't relevant in this case because these retail buyers didn't acquire the game though Steam and these benefits aren't unique to Steam or relevant to them. It was the game itself that made the DRM accepted by retail buyers.

People didn't accept the DRM, they accepted MW2. They didn't buy the DRM. If you can't see the difference between the two concepts, we're finished here.

You are wrong on both counts. Valve has evolved Steam's DRM quite a bit over the last couple of years to the point where there are multiple options to the specific application of the DRM (although the absence of DRM still isn't one of those options).

I'm leaning towards you being the one who is wrong. As evidenced by the mountain of Steam sold games that can be moved outside of the Steam directory and run standalone without Steam even being present/running on the host.

Yes, some do. 2K used Steam purely for DRM in NBA2K9 as the game isn't even sold on Steam at all. Warner Bros used Steam as the exclusive DRM for FEAR 2 for retail copies of the game (with Gamespy providing the multiplayer support and leaderboards) although the game was also distributed through Steam as well.

Actually NBA2K9 is literally the only example of a game I can find that has Steam product protection but is not sold on Steam. Your other example is Fear2 which you readily admit is sold there. I suspect licensing issues prevented NBA2k9 more than anything else but I'll give you that one.

First, it's not just about resale. Sharing and giving away games are also quite desirable amongst most game consumers.

First off, I'm talking about the PC gaming market, not "game consumers" as a whole. I can't numerically prove that resale is unimportant to the PC market but the dwindling retail market and the growing digital distribution avenues bear out my opinion enough to me.

No, it's not just Steam because there have been plenty of AAA game titles which have used activation-based DRM which is not Steam's. Bioshock is one example. Mass Effect is another. GTA IV is yet another. Burnout Paradise, Crysis, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, MySims, NHL 09, Ghostbusters, and Sacred 2 are some others. While a vocal minority has paid some public lipservice to railing against such DRM, it apparently hasn't negatively affected sales in any significant way because this DRM continues to be used. SEGA's Uniloc will be the latest example although on paper it is much more lenient and flexible than some of these others.

You're listing games with DRM, not successful retail sold games with DRM. There's a difference. I'll give you Crysis but even then Crytek bitched and whined about the piracy which the internet was quick to blame on the DRM. The only game in that list I can say that actually supports your position well is Bioshock but it was one of the first big name examples of internet activation and all of the problems with it are part of what led to that form of DRM being so suspect in the first place. Not sure why you'd want to bring it up at all. The rest were either ports, failures or games I can't find retail numbers on.

Games having internet activated DRM isn't a valid argument for it's continued existence and it certainly isn't good support for an argument that retail consumers have adopted it.

As for Uniloc itself, digital distribution consumers don't need it and again AvP didn't sell because it was a mediocre game, not because of some weakness in Steam DRM that Uniloc would have solved or because some untold number of retail consumers just wanted resale rights for it.

If you think it's reasonable then please go ahead and buy the game at retail and have fun with that authorization tool. Keep it off my digital distribution copies - whether it's Steam, Direct2Drive, GamersGate or Impulse, thanks.

Given that the subject is addressed in the frequently-asked questions section of Steam's support website, it is obvious that many if not most people want to be able to do those things even though Steam doesn't allow them.

Yes, a CYA FAQ entry on a website surely means that all Steam consumers are demanding this feature.

Verno wrote on May 6, 2010, 21:45:
Saying something is true isn't the same as it being true.

On that we agree because that statement certainly applies to your posts.

Your continued insults and worthless snide remarks are wasted on me

That's not the only thing which has obviously been wasted on you. An education and the truth are two others.

Uh, it's pretty obvious we all knew what you meant.

Except that "we" obviously didn't include you because you missed my point with your reply. You only tried to manufacture an argument from it either because you didn't read what I wrote or because you were simply trolling.

Publishers often say one thing and do another.

SEGA didn't say anything here about this which I why I posted my observation on it in the first place. SEGA made the change in DRM for a reason, and it is most likely for the two reasons I gave. End of story.

You seem to want to separate consumer buying from the distribution when they are obviously entwined. One can only assume it's because it does not suit your argument because there is literally no other good reason. And again your entire argument sits on the precarious notion of a Sega PR statement and really, what publisher doesn't invalid claims about DRM? And as for PC gamers buying from retail, not Steam, they're all getting Uniloc regardless which is really the whole point of why we're discussing this in the first place.

Wow, there you go again. You start with a false premise of my position, and then you just take off on a tangent from there. You don't need to divine or assume what my position is. You simply need to read it below in black and white and cogitate on it while you do.

Below I simply cited the retail sales of CODMW2 as a recent example of a game with this type of DRM which was not shunned by PC game consumers. It's certainly not the only example of such a game, but it is a prominent one. The only reason I brought up the issue of Steam was to head off a rebuttal that Steam's DRM doesn't count or that Steam was the reason for this acceptance since some people like Steam for its distribution features. So, I pointed out that those features aren't relevant in this case because these retail buyers didn't acquire the game though Steam and these benefits aren't unique to Steam or relevant to them. It was the game itself that made the DRM accepted by retail buyers.

Steam itself is the DRM for all meaningful intents and purposes. Steam's actual DRM is nothing more than a simple executable wrapper that is easily defeated.

You are wrong on both counts. Valve has evolved Steam's DRM quite a bit over the last couple of years to the point where there are multiple options to the specific application of the DRM (although the absence of DRM still isn't one of those options).

Publishers do not approach Steam for simple product protection

Yes, some do. 2K used Steam purely for DRM in NBA2K9 as the game isn't even sold on Steam at all. Warner Bros used Steam as the exclusive DRM for FEAR 2 for retail copies of the game (with Gamespy providing the multiplayer support and leaderboards) although the game was also distributed through Steam as well.

Name one Steamworks title that is not also distributed through Steam.

I just did.

Regardless, people who want resale purchase at retail regardless because resale on digital distribution services is dead and quite frankly was never really alive in the first place.

First, it's not just about resale. Sharing and giving away games are also quite desirable amongst most game consumers. In the old days with computer games that came on physical media, it was common, relatively easy, and even permissable in many cases to share a single copy of a game amongst friends and family members especially for multiplayer use. Steam and similar types of restrictive DRM have robbed PC gamers of that ability. Resale, sharing, and transferring is only dead at digital distributors like Steam because its policies forbid these things and its DRM enforces that. At Direct2Drive where its games primarily use Internet activation-based DRM with some DRM-free titles, it is still possible to share and pass along a copy of a game so long as available activations for the game remain. This is because a game's DRM is separate from its actual distribution and unlike Steam all of a customer's games aren't tied together with the same DRM lock so if you lose access to one game, you lose access to them all.

You claim consumers have accepted internet activation DRM, I don't really buy that. I think consumers have accepted Steam.

No, it's not just Steam because there have been plenty of AAA game titles which have used activation-based DRM which is not Steam's. Bioshock is one example. Mass Effect is another. GTA IV is yet another. Burnout Paradise, Crysis, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, MySims, NHL 09, Ghostbusters, and Sacred 2 are some others. While a vocal minority has paid some public lipservice to railing against such DRM, it apparently hasn't negatively affected sales in any significant way because this DRM continues to be used. SEGA's Uniloc will be the latest example although on paper it is much more lenient and flexible than some of these others.

Uniloc DRM and other internet based activation methods that use hardware hashes can't make that same claim.

A hardware hash is not what makes a DRM restrictive. Steam uses a similar hash for its offline mode to keep people from being able to play a transferred game on a PC on which it was not activated/authorized. What makes a DRM restrictive are the actual limits that are placed on the use of a game. That is where Steam is too restrictive and where SEGA's use of Uniloc is more lenient.

Even a casual market title like Spore was met with serious press problems related to its hardware hash based DRM.

And yet the game is still for sale with this DRM.

I don't see how you can reasonably make this claim when any other DRM can and has had the same effect on the consumer.

No, that is exactly the point of the statement. Steam's DRM is every bit as much a lock as other DRM if not more so. Steam's benefits as a digital distributor don't negate its DRM because they don't allow the game to be played if the DRM prevents it. The benefits are worthless in that eventuality.

Steam is an acceptable compromise.

Steam isn't a compromise because it doesn't compromise on the DRM at all. In some ways Steam is more restrictive than any other DRM in use today because it is a single kill switch to all games which use it regardless of who made them or when they were purchased. Steam as a distribution service does offers some convenience benefits which relate to acquiring and maintaining games. However these aren't related to or necessitated by the DRM. And those benefits completely disappear if the DRM is enforced along with the ability to play the game. If you lose your Steam account, not only can you no longer download or update any of your games, but you can't play any of them either. That's not a compromise. What is being compromised there is the right of the customer to play the games for which he paid.

I doubt many people really think they're signing up and buying games on Steam so that they can have unlimited simultaneous logins and to share the games with their friends.

Given that the subject is addressed in the frequently-asked questions section of Steam's support website, it is obvious that many if not most people want to be able to do those things even though Steam doesn't allow them.

This comment was edited on May 7, 2010, 02:57.

JD wrote on May 6, 2010, 15:47:
Your entire post is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen written around here, and it clearly shows that you don't comprehend what you read.

Saying something is true isn't the same as it being true. Your continued insults and worthless snide remarks are wasted on me, I've been trolled by better

Read the sentence which precedes that statement of mine again because you obviously misunderstood it. If SEGA simply thought AvP didn't sell well because it was a crappy or mediocre game, it wouldn't be changing its DRM. What that means is not that I personally think that SEGA would in fact make better games, but rather that SEGA itself would see that making better games was the solution to its sales problem if it thought something was wrong with the game.

Uh, it's pretty obvious we all knew what you meant. If you had bother reading the text you quoted, you'd see the response in it for what "Sega thinks" and why your interpretation of Sega's thinking are potentially two very different things. Publishers often say one thing and do another. If Sega actually applied the kind of logic you're suggesting, it would have started "making better games" long ago to use your example. As I said, you're applying your personal interpretation of their action to the situation. You're assuming Sega would even be rational when in fact publishers are usually anything but when it comes to DRM.

That being said, obviously I think Uniloc is preferable to a 3 hash base SecuRom package but it doesn't get a pass from me for simply having a deauthorization tool and a friendly press release. DRM is DRM. I'm also well aware of Steam's disadvantages, I've argued them here many times in the past.

Since I obviously need to simplify it for you what that means and shows is that those consumers accepted the Internet activation and other restrictions of Steam's DRM on the game because they liked the game. Steam's benefits as a game distributor like unlimited downloads weren't the reason because they didn't use Steam as the game distributor. These PC gamers bought the game from retailers not from Steam.

You seem to want to separate consumer buying from the distribution when they are obviously entwined. One can only assume it's because it does not suit your argument because there is literally no other good reason. And again your entire argument sits on the precarious notion of a Sega PR statement and really, what publisher doesn't invalid claims about DRM? And as for PC gamers buying from retail, not Steam, they're all getting Uniloc regardless which is really the whole point of why we're discussing this in the first place.

First, you are confusing Steam as a game distribution service with Steam's DRM. Steam's DRM offers no benefits either only restrictions. Second, from its description Uniloc does offer tangible benefits over Steam's DRM as I mentioned below: simultaneous play on up to 5 PC's and the ability to sell or give away a game.

Steam itself is the DRM for all meaningful intents and purposes. Steam's actual DRM is nothing more than a simple executable wrapper that is easily defeated. Publishers do not approach Steam for simple product protection, Steam is a suite of services that have varying levels publishers can use. Name one Steamworks title that is not also distributed through Steam.

It's not a joke for those who like to sell, lend, or share their games with family and friends. Steam's restrictiveness in that regard is the real joke on consumers. There is simply no good reason not to allow it as this new Uniloc DRM does allow it. The reason that Valve forbids and prevents it on Steam is greed.

Regardless, people who want resale purchase at retail regardless because resale on digital distribution services is dead and quite frankly was never really alive in the first place. You claim consumers have accepted internet activation DRM, I don't really buy that. I think consumers have accepted Steam. It and perhaps Direct2Drive are the only two services I can think that can reasonably make the claim that their internet activation/DRM/etc are acceptable to the mass market PC consumer audience. Uniloc DRM and other internet based activation methods that use hardware hashes can't make that same claim. In fact most if not all have been met with resistance from consumers. Even a casual market title like Spore was met with serious press problems related to its hardware hash based DRM.

q[And, despite those features of Steam as a service, Steam's DRM can still prevent consumers from being able to play their purchased games how and when they want or even at all. It does no good to have unlimited downloads of a game you can't play.
I don't see how you can reasonably make this claim when any other DRM can and has had the same effect on the consumer. No one here is arguing that "DRM is good". Steam is an acceptable compromise. Retail internet DRM I'm not so sure about. In fact, I'd wager this game doesn't even make a blip on the retail charts anywhere but the consoles when it launches. You know where it will? Steam. All of those consumers will have two forms of DRM which again is why I am not a fan of Uniloc in this instance. One they made a reasonable choice about and the other they most likely won't know exists until they have an actual problem with it. I doubt many people really think they're signing up and buying games on Steam so that they can have unlimited simultaneous logins and to share the games with their friends.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2010, 21:52.

Verno wrote on May 6, 2010, 08:55:
Wow, that is probably the most naive thing I have ever heard uttered around here.

Your entire post is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen written around here, and it clearly shows that you don't comprehend what you read (not as if your previous replies to me in this thread weren't an indication).

Sega, the company responsible for some truly awful games in the past five years would suddenly "just make better games"?

Read the sentence which precedes that statement of mine again because you obviously misunderstood it. If SEGA simply thought AvP didn't sell well because it was a crappy or mediocre game, it wouldn't be changing its DRM. What that means is not that I personally think that SEGA would in fact make better games, but rather that SEGA itself would see that making better games was the solution to its sales problem if it thought something was wrong with the game. SEGA (not me) clearly does not think that the game's quality is a problem or at least the main problem because it is changing its DRM from Steam in response.

You claim no one cares about Steams benefits but 27 million accounts seem to disagree with you.

There you go again not reading. That is not what I claimed at all. I didn't claim that no one cares about the benefits of Steam. What I actually wrote is It can't be rationally claimed that these PC gamers accept Steam's DRM because of Steam's downloading benefits because they bought the game at retail. with "these PC gamers" specifically being "those who purchased CODMW2 at retail". Since I obviously need to simplify it for you what that means and shows is that those consumers accepted the Internet activation and other restrictions of Steam's DRM on the game because they liked the game. Steam's benefits as a game distributor like unlimited downloads weren't the reason because they didn't use Steam as the game distributor. These PC gamers bought the game from retailers not from Steam.

What benefits does Uniloc offer? Zero, zip, nadda, nothing.

First, you are confusing Steam as a game distribution service with Steam's DRM. Steam's DRM offers no benefits either only restrictions. Second, from its description Uniloc does offer tangible benefits over Steam's DRM as I mentioned below: simultaneous play on up to 5 PC's and the ability to sell or give away a game.

You can crow about resale but everyone knows thats a joke these days with zero day DLC

It's not a joke for those who like to sell, lend, or share their games with family and friends. Steam's restrictiveness in that regard is the real joke on consumers. There is simply no good reason not to allow it as this new Uniloc DRM does allow it. The reason that Valve forbids and prevents it on Steam is greed.

It's more hoops in exchange for......what exactly?

the ability to play the game

And, it's no more hoops than Steam's DRM or any other DRM. It can even be argued that it's fewer hoops than Steam since you don't have to deal with extra client software and online accounts and there are fewer restrictions in the DRM.

Steam while not perfect, offers tangible benefits.

Yes, but those benefits of Steam as a digital distributor aren't necessitated by its DRM restrictions. It's not a tradeoff required by necessity. It's like saying you can't pat someone on the back unless you also kick them in the balls. Steam doesn't have to be so restrictive in its DRM so that it can offer unlimited downloads, automatic updates, or social networking features. And, despite those features of Steam as a service, Steam's DRM can still prevent consumers from being able to play their purchased games how and when they want or even at all. It does no good to have unlimited downloads of a game you can't play.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2010, 20:48.

JD wrote on May 4, 2010, 18:10:
Your point was "the game being very mediocre didn't help either". If SEGA simply thought the game didn't sell well because it was a crappy or mediocre game, it wouldn't be changing its DRM. It would simply make a better game next time. SEGA obviously thinks that having poor DRM on the game caused it to be sell poorly. Otherwise there would be no reason to change DRM systems if what it already uses were effective.

Wow, that is probably the most naive thing I have ever heard uttered around here. Sega, the company responsible for some truly awful games in the past five years would suddenly "just make better games"? You're trying to apply human logic to a corporation. Sega is learning the hard way what other large publishers like EA have begun to understand - consumers don't like DRM.

You gloss over Steam on purpose because you know it defeats your entire argument. You claim no one cares about Steams benefits but 27 million accounts seem to disagree with you. In fact, consumers obviously care a great deal considering there are now 7 different DD services that they can choose amongst yet the vast majority continue to use Steam. What benefits does Uniloc offer? Zero, zip, nadda, nothing. You can crow about resale but everyone knows thats a joke these days with zero day DLC and account based services cropping up everywhere.

The fact is that most PC gamers who buy games don't care enough about Internet activation to avoid buying games which have such DRM.

Quite vague. Consumers care about DRM that hampers their ability to enjoy their purchase. Hardware hash activations are one such instance. There is no upside for the consumer, just for the publisher. It's more hoops in exchange for......what exactly? Steam while not perfect, offers tangible benefits.

double post srry.

yet another drm argument on bluesnews. how about this? you guys buy it if you dont mind drm and dont buy it if you do. everyone wins!

Verno wrote on May 4, 2010, 08:55:
The sales seem pretty relevant to me

I don't dispute that sales are relevant, but that's not what you wrote. Your point was "the game being very mediocre didn't help either". If SEGA simply thought the game didn't sell well because it was a crappy or mediocre game, it wouldn't be changing its DRM. It would simply make a better game next time. SEGA obviously thinks that having poor DRM on the game caused it to be sell poorly. Otherwise there would be no reason to change DRM systems if what it already uses were effective.

That doesn't mean they should shoot themselves in the foot with every other game launch....The year being 2010 does not mean consumers should have to internet activate their purchases.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this. How can SEGA be shooting itself in the foot by changing from Steam's DRM to this new DRM? Steam's DRM already is Internet activation, and it's even more restrictive than SEGA's new system. Steam doesn't allow simultaneous play of a game on more than one PC like this new DRM which allows up to 5, and Steam's activation is irrevokable and can't be transferred to another person later unlike this new DRM. Sure no DRM is best for the customer, but SEGA's new DRM beats Steam's DRM in flexibility and control for the customer. SEGA has obviously not reached the point where it will completely forego DRM.

In fact other industries tried and failed with that exact method of DRM.

But that is not relevant because PC game consumers obviously have been tolerant of Internet activation because it has been used on PC games for years including on successful games. If game sales were adversely affected in a significant way by this type of DRM, it wouldn't be used. The acceptance of Steam's DRM on retail games like CODMW2 has shown that PC gamers on a large scale will accept Internet activation of their games if they like the game. It can't be rationally claimed that these PC gamers accept Steam's DRM because of Steam's downloading benefits because they bought the game at retail. So, downloading the game isn't a meaningful benefit to them. And, Steam's other benefits like automatic updates and online leaderboards aren't relevant either because plenty of games have had automatic update and online score systems built right into the game. Consumers don't need to put up with Steam's DRM to get those features. The fact is that most PC gamers who buy games don't care enough about Internet activation to avoid buying games which have such DRM.

This comment was edited on May 4, 2010, 22:42.

JD wrote on May 3, 2010, 16:51:

Verno wrote on May 3, 2010, 09:38:
Of course the game being very mediocre didn't help either, it didn't exactly light the charts on fire on the consoles either. You failed to mention that

I failed to mention that because it is irrelevant. To SEGA the pirates obviously liked the game enough to play it for free, and the DRM didn't stop them. So it's changing the DRM for its future games.

Why don't we let Sega speak for Sega and JD can speak for JD? The sales seem pretty relevant to me and I don't recall seeing some torrentfreak article about how AvP was one of the most downloaded games of the year so far.

They made a mediocre game and got exactly what they deserved. That doesn't mean they should shoot themselves in the foot with every other game launch.

My point was, if they give you 5 machines, your scenario is not a problem.

Your point is meaningless, the number of activations is not the issue, it's the activation process itself. The year being 2010 does not mean consumers should have to internet activate their purchases. In fact other industries tried and failed with that exact method of DRM. Activation does not stop nor dissuade piracy and it offers no benefits so its existence is totally devoid of any value for the consumer.

Tumbler wrote on May 3, 2010, 16:35:

As far as I know all these activation schemes give you 3-5 concurrent activations, so I don't see what this long explanation has to do with anything, frankly.

...you said you didn't understand why someone would not be ok with these DRM scheme's...and I just told you. Doesn't matter if your scenario works fine, for me it doesn't.

My point was, if they give you 5 machines, your scenario is not a problem.

To SEGA the pirates obviously liked the game enough to play it for free, and the DRM didn't stop them. So it's changing the DRM for its future games.

Just wanted to point out that downloading a game for free does not establish whether or not the person actually enjoyed the game once they played it. It's like taking a food sample at a supermarket. You don't know if you like it until you try it. It's also free and requires minimal effort so why not?

The only issue I have with one-time activation DRM is having to crack games I bought someday if the servers go down. If they patch it out, as they promise, that becomes a non-issue.

I guess that's my biggest issue with it. Let's say that, hypothetically (very hypothetically), this DRM is completely successful and the game never gets cracked. Then one day, Sega goes out of business before they can release a patch to remove the DRM. Boom, now I can't install the game anymore. Is this a realistic scenario? No, because the game will inevitably be cracked. But when I have to break the law (cracks are a violation of the DMCA) to enjoy a game I've purchased, there's something very, very wrong.

And that's really the whole problem with DRM. It doesn't stop piracy and it punishes people who buy their games. Pirates should not be providing better service than publishers but that's exactly what they do (for free, no less).

This comment was edited on May 3, 2010, 23:22.

Verno wrote on May 3, 2010, 09:38:
Of course the game being very mediocre didn't help either, it didn't exactly light the charts on fire on the consoles either. You failed to mention that

I failed to mention that because it is irrelevant. To SEGA the pirates obviously liked the game enough to play it for free, and the DRM didn't stop them. So it's changing the DRM for its future games.

This comment was edited on May 3, 2010, 16:58.

Prez wrote on May 3, 2010, 08:58:
Yes, because all of the other DRM schemes have proven oh-so effective.

SEGA made the switch for a reason. I agree that historically DRM hasn't been effective, but someone in charge at SEGA and the other publishers obviously thinks that it should be.

As far as I know all these activation schemes give you 3-5 concurrent activations, so I don't see what this long explanation has to do with anything, frankly.

...you said you didn't understand why someone would not be ok with these DRM scheme's...and I just told you. Doesn't matter if your scenario works fine, for me it doesn't.

nin wrote on May 3, 2010, 14:31:
I look forward to picking this up, once said patch is released.

DRM or not, the combat in this game still looks tremendously shitty. The RPG aspects seem great, but the large majority of the game is spent running around like a headless chicken, shooting everything that moves in a very similar system to Mass Effect (the first one). And it didn't look particularly BETTER than Mass Effect either.

Not sure that that was such a great idea, to be honest.

Creston

I look forward to picking this up, once said patch is released.

Tumbler wrote on May 3, 2010, 13:34:

I just flat-out do not understand your issues. "OMG THEY WANT ME TO BE ONLINE WHEN I INSTALL????" Is this 2010 or 1995?

It would be easier to understand if you used multiple computers to run your software. I have a laptop and 2 desktops at home and depending on what I need to be doing during any given day I may need to install the game on each machine. And my desktop has 2 OS's running at the moment, XP and 7 so...

When I'm relaxing in the evening with the ms's I like being on my laptop so she can watch her shows on tivo. If she's busy or the baby's asleep I might get to play in my desktop pc in my office. Or I may be in our bedroom while she gets the baby ready for bed and I can play on that PC. ("hiding" in my cave on my PC really isn't an option much anymore)

I used to play all my games in one place...when I was single. Now I'm lucky if I can play for an hour in the same place. One of the most valuable services on steam is the ability to load games in multiple places with no hassles. With how these DRM schemes seem to be treating something like this I usually hold my breath when I install the same game on 3 different computers in the same day via steam because I am expecting to get punished for using the software too much. To my delight this has never happened!

Install limits activations like this are a brick wall for my money. I just won't put up with it.

As far as I know all these activation schemes give you 3-5 concurrent activations, so I don't see what this long explanation has to do with anything, frankly.

And I am far from single, but I only have one gaming PC. I bet 99% of people are the same, married with kids or not. My wife's laptop can barely play Peggle.

I just flat-out do not understand your issues. "OMG THEY WANT ME TO BE ONLINE WHEN I INSTALL????" Is this 2010 or 1995?

It would be easier to understand if you used multiple computers to run your software. I have a laptop and 2 desktops at home and depending on what I need to be doing during any given day I may need to install the game on each machine. And my desktop has 2 OS's running at the moment, XP and 7 so...

When I'm relaxing in the evening with the ms's I like being on my laptop so she can watch her shows on tivo. If she's busy or the baby's asleep I might get to play in my desktop pc in my office. Or I may be in our bedroom while she gets the baby ready for bed and I can play on that PC. ("hiding" in my cave on my PC really isn't an option much anymore)

I used to play all my games in one place...when I was single. Now I'm lucky if I can play for an hour in the same place. One of the most valuable services on steam is the ability to load games in multiple places with no hassles. With how these DRM schemes seem to be treating something like this I usually hold my breath when I install the same game on 3 different computers in the same day via steam because I am expecting to get punished for using the software too much. To my delight this has never happened!

Install limits activations like this are a brick wall for my money. I just won't put up with it.

RTSNut wrote on May 3, 2010, 09:52:
The idea that exclusivity online loses any sales is absolutely absurd. If it's in the brick and mortar retail world it makes sense, but does someones hand get too tired to type in a different URL? The idea that Direct2Drive has loyal customers is a joke

I think it'd actually be worse with online stores. It's another account you have to set up, another client or downloader you might need to install or have running, and possibly a different source for patches. With a brick and mortar store the only difference is what else they try to sell you when you buy the game.

RTSNut wrote on May 3, 2010, 09:52:
The idea that exclusivity online loses any sales is absolutely absurd. If it's in the brick and mortar retail world it makes sense, but does someones hand get too tired to type in a different URL? The idea that Direct2Drive has loyal customers is a joke.

Every PC game gets cracked. Every single one. There are only a couple ways around this...don't make PC games, or make it freaking annoying to crack over and over again (TF2).

A lot of people refuse to use Steam because of the client. I dislike Steam for their crappy service, communication and the fact they routinely disable accounts on sparse evidence.

I think it's a minority who care, your point is valid, but there are certainly differences between online stores and people who care about those differences.

Of course, I am one of the few and proud left who buy boxed copies when I can.