Wille on 12/5/2011 at 07:19
Quote Posted by Phatose
With M&B, I'm assuming you mean autopatching causes issues when mods don't get updated?
This and if you make mods, multiple installations of M&B is pretty much mandatory.
EvaUnit02 on 12/5/2011 at 14:58
RE: M&B. Can you use keys supplied with Steam purchased versions to unlock the stand-alone trials?
van HellSing on 12/5/2011 at 18:22
Got my CE :cheeky:
The head is in terrible shape, and not just for me (there's already talks of replacements), but the rest looks fantastic, both the additional CE stuff and the basic premium content.
Pics coming.
steo on 13/5/2011 at 21:10
Here's a thought which somehow only just occurred to me - if GOG are selling the game DRM-free, it completely defeats the point in them putting DRM in the boxed copy - because the pirates are just going to share the GOG version on torrent sites.
This makes it pretty damn hard to argue that the DRM is going to stop any significant number of people from pirating the game, and instead only serves to annoy paying customers.
Sulphur on 13/5/2011 at 21:21
It's quite likely that the publishers mandated the DRM for the boxed/digital distro versions, which is what they usually do. CDPR would only have had the choice to go zero-DRM with their own, self-published release, which is exactly what the GOG.com version is.
DRM annoys paying customers regardless. The fact that CDPR is going out of their way to place their trust in their customers means something in this day and age (specifically: just because they're Polish doesn't mean they can't overcome being in the same country as Koki). I know I'm backing them.
steo on 13/5/2011 at 21:44
Well yes, I realise that and massive props to CD Projekt for doing it. My point was, given that the publisher knows that the game is getting released DRM-free anyway, how the hell do they justify putting DRM in their version of the release?
Matthew on 13/5/2011 at 22:00
IT'S POLICY
Sulphur on 13/5/2011 at 22:04
Security blanket? Lack of common sense? Refusal to abandon industry precedents? Attempting to allay stake/shareholder concerns however nonsensical such an attempt might be? Legal/contractual agreements? (Or... policy, like Matt says. :D)
The same argument applies for cracks, you know: there's almost always a zero-day (or week one, or whatever) PC crack available for just about every DRM scheme made in the past 15 years and beyond, but that hasn't stopped publishers from topping off their software with DRM anyway. It's the piracy vs. honest customers ratio argument all over again.
steo on 13/5/2011 at 22:39
The thing with cracks, though, is that while they're very good at keeping up with release dates, they're considerably worse at keeping up with patches. Which means for some games, the desire for a fully working, patched version of the game will lead to some very small number of people buying it rather than pirating it. I certainly agree that the argument for putting DRM in games to increase sales is completely spurious, but I don't see how they can justify releasing a version with DRM when there is a DRM-free version out there. Do they seriously think that piracy still amounts to people letting a friend install the game from their copy of the DVD? I guess I shouldn't really expect anything more from the businessmen who are so backward thinking that they thought DRM was a good idea in the first place...
