BioShock Activations Upped, Widescreen Patch Planned

The Cult of Rapture has word that a couple of BioShock topics that have been getting a lot of attention from the community are being addressed, as they are increasing the number of activations allowed by the SecuROM software from two (story) to five, and are at work on patch to address widescreen issues (story). They are also creating a revocation tool to deactivate a BioShock installation and have given SecuROM more leeway to directly assist customers with activation issues. Finally, they have posted a new technical FAQ covering these and other topics. Word is:
We have been reading and listening to your frustrations over SecuROM, PC activation problems, and technical support issues since BioShock launched on Tuesday, and we've devised a plan to help.

Starting immediately, we will be upping the activation count to a 5 by 5 plan. We will be raising the maximum amount of computers a user can have BioShock installed on simultaneously from 2 to 5, and allowing a user to reinstall BioShock on each of those computers from 3 times to 5 times. Also, we have in the works a revoke tool which you will be able to run on your machine if you want to free up that key and move it to to another computer (this works very much like Steam or iTunes system). We are also working with SecuROM and 2K customer service, so that when you do need to call in support problems, you get answers to your questions faster, without much waiting or being bounced around. SecuROM has been given much more autonomy to help fix your problems quickly and effectively. I am personally sorry for anyone who got bounced around in the past couple days (I even think I contributed to this problem) and we're going to make sure that does not happen in the future.

As for other technical issues, we are bringing on a team of tech support that will be on the 2K forums 24/7 to help people resolve their technical issues. Our QA guys are in the offices and on the forums, too, reproducing issues and looking for workarounds and compiling information that they can put towards making you a patch and updating the knowledge base.

Also, we are aware that our activation server went down last night, stopping some of you from finishing your installs. The server is up and running now and we have corrected the problem that caused that crash.

Finally, we have released a FAQ, which you can view in full below (and will also be posted on the 2K Forums in the Technical Support area) that will help clear up a lot of questions and misinformation that has been floating around about SecuROM and PC activation.

And as for widescreen, we also want to say we completely understand a user's desire to augment their FOV. BioShock is a harrowing experience, but we don't want anyone to feel limited (or motion sick!). So we are in the process of working on an official PC patch to give widescreen PC users a choice to expand their horizontal FOV, and are investigating creating a similar update for the 360.

And finally, I want to personally congratulate Racer_S from the Widescreen Gaming Forums, and his awesome user patch to expand the widescreen FOV in BioShock. I'm currently tracking him down via email, but hopefully, he'll accept my gratitude, and maybe an Nvidia 8800 to boot.

Read the full technical FAQ.
View : : :
144.
 
Re: ...
Aug 28, 2007, 22:53
>U
Re: ... Aug 28, 2007, 22:53
Aug 28, 2007, 22:53
>U
 
So Battlefield is an example of EA providing GOOD support?
I never claimed it was good. It just isn't "extremely poor" as Dagok claimed. EA did provide multiple updates and additional free content for Battlefield 2 after its release.

They still refuse to support widescreen monitors
Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer game and that feature would give an unfair advantage to those players. Plus it would be banned by Punkbuster anyway.

Battlefield 2 still has bugs that should have been simple to fix and the game is hugely unbalanced.
No game is ever perfect to every player. EA did provide additional updates and content for the game. That is better than some games from other publishers so I don't consider that "extremely poor" support. To me extremely poor support means no updates, and some games that have needed updating have gotten none.

Valve REPLACED WON with Steam
Valve should never have done that for older titles. WON support should have been left in place for those who didn't want to be force-fed Steam. But, Valve wrote Half-Life 1 so that when it pulled the plug on WON, multiplayer over the Internet would not function at all. So, it is either use Steam or don't play online.

it provides a better service
Steam does NOT provide better service unless by "better" you mean "more restrictive and less reliable."

You CANNOT come in here and say that EA offers good support
EA offers better than "extremely poor" support. Its customer service is better than average in my personal experience. Its long-term support of a game is average at best although it doesn't cripple its games by design to be able to deactivate them totally when it drops support as Valve has done.

(with a shit server browser)
I liked the server browser better when it was integrated in the game itself. The Steam versions of Valve's games put the server browser outside the game in the Steam client which sucks and should not be needed simply to run the game. A game doesn't need Steam to have a decent server browser in any case.

better update support.
Steam's update support is NOT better because it forces updates on the user whether he wants them or not. If a Counterstrike user doesn't the newer version with the in-game ads, it's tough shit for him because Steam forces the update on him. That is NOT "better" update support. At least EA did not force BF2142's in-game ads and tracking on BF2 users as Valve would have done because it could through forced updates.

So you post shit until no-one will even read your posts
If noone reads my posts, then why the hell do so many of you fools respond to them? It's like that hypocritical idiot NIN who claims he filters me out, yet somehow manages to read my posts enough to know common phrases I use.

If you needed a replacement key from Valve you would have been moaning your fucking ass off about how you shouldn't even need one in the first place
Now that you mention it, Valve really shouldn't still require CD keys for a game as old and successful as Half-Life is. It's not like Valve needs the revenue from it. But Valve is the company that still charges $10 for Ricochet on Steam, so I am not surprised.

You defend companies everyone here despise, like EA,
I defend EA only to point out your collective hypocrisy. I find EA to be an average publisher overall with above average customer service and good-to-great retail bundles of older game titles. You people think it is the devil and criticize it for crap that is as bad or worse than what other publishers like Valve do.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 23:02.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
2.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
5.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
6.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
   ouch
3.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
4.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
7.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
10.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
15.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
18.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
8.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
9.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
13.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
14.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
16.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
17.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
20.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
     Re: No subject
21.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
      Re: No subject
23.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
      Re: No subject
25.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
       Funny.
41.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
      Re: No subject
45.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
       Re: No subject
46.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
        Re: No subject
49.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: No subject
51.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
          Re: No subject
53.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
           Re: No subject
24.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
     Re: No subject
19.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
22.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
11.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
12.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
26.
Aug 23, 2007Aug 23 2007
27.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
28.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
29.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
31.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
79.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
83.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
88.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: No subject
128.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
      Re: No subject
30.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
32.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
33.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
34.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
39.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
59.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
   Re: So...
60.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: So...
85.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: So...
86.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: So...
90.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
      Re: So...
91.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
       Re: So...
92.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
        Re: So...
94.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: So...
98.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
          Re: So...
103.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
      Re: So...
87.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: So...
89.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: So...
127.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: So...
38.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
44.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
48.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
   Re: So...
57.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: So...
65.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
     Re: So...
68.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
      Re: So...
80.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
   Re: So...
82.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: So...
135.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
     Re: So...
35.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
37.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
43.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
55.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
56.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
58.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
61.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
62.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
64.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
66.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
67.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
69.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: Maybe research first.
72.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
74.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: Maybe research first.
63.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
71.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
73.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
76.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: Maybe research first.
75.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
77.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
         Re: Maybe research first.
78.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
          Re: Maybe research first.
81.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
           Re: Maybe research first.
84.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
            Re: Maybe research first.
125.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
             Re: Maybe research first.
36.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
40.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
42.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
47.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
50.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
52.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
54.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
70.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
93.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
95.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
108.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
114.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
116.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
   Re: ...
117.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: ...
96.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
97.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
99.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
101.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
102.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
104.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
105.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
106.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: Bioshock
115.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
123.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
124.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: Bioshock
126.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: Bioshock
100.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
129.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
 Re:
107.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
110.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
112.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
113.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
   Re: ...
131.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
    Re: ...
136.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
     Re: ...
138.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
      Re: ...
139.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
       Re: ...
140.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
        Re: ...
141.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
         Re: ...
142.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
        Re: ...
130.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
109.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
111.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
118.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
119.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
120.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
121.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
 Re:
122.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
132.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
133.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
134.
Aug 24, 2007Aug 24 2007
137.
Aug 25, 2007Aug 25 2007
143.
Aug 26, 2007Aug 26 2007
 144.
Aug 28, 2007Aug 28 2007
 Re: ...
145.
Aug 28, 2007Aug 28 2007
146.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
   Re: ...
147.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
   Re: ...
150.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
    Re: ...
152.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
     Re: ...
151.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
    Re: ...
148.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
153.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
155.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
149.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
154.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
161.
Aug 30, 2007Aug 30 2007
162.
Sep 2, 2007Sep 2 2007
156.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
157.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
158.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
159.
Aug 29, 2007Aug 29 2007
160.
Aug 30, 2007Aug 30 2007