Shadowcat on 30/8/2008 at 13:48
Sorry to pick out just one thing, but...
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
I think what they meant was minimum requirements that worked for a large enough population and allowed them to run the game at about medium detail levels with average to good performance.
Anyone should expect that "minimum requirements" is going to necessitate "minimum detail settings". That much should be obvious. It should also mean at least average performance at that detail setting, but if you are happily playing at above-minimum detail then quite clearly you exceed the minimum requirements.
catbarf on 30/8/2008 at 14:28
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
True for the most part, however, I think what they meant was minimum requirements that worked for a large enough population and allowed them to run the game at about medium detail levels with average to good performance.
If it says minimum requirements, then that's the minimum to play the game at a playable framerate; it does not mean that it's the minimum for medium settings and you can get by on less.
EvaUnit02 on 30/8/2008 at 14:59
Quote Posted by Tonamel
Mass Effect is a good example of how horrible this can get.
Doesn't Mass Effect only phone home when you install, patch or uninstall it?
Gingerbread Man on 30/8/2008 at 15:18
Quote:
Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
YES PLEASE
Even if it doesn't REQUIRE to connect, the rigamarole and unnecessary option-clicking and end-run doing around the options and prompts is fucking ANNOY.
Zillameth on 30/8/2008 at 16:35
I don't like it when businessmen start being all ideological. This "Bill of Rights" is just Stardock's business model. Now they are trying to create an atmosphere where every company that has a different model is considered evil.
Some other people in this industry are even more ridiculous, for instance when some guy from EA starts talking about how second hand sales hurt them because games don't degrade with time. My books don't really degrade either, some of them are older than me, and who's going to remember Madden's NFL 2005 in thirty years' time?
I do agree that those recent DRM tricks are very dangerous. I really hate it when it turns out my copy of a game isn't mine anymore.
On the other hand, there are many real life situations when authorisation is considered obvious. No one complains when being asked to confirm their identity in bank, or at work. Logging in to some service is a minor inconvenience at its worst, and most problems (like not being able to connect) are purely technical. If I fall sick and go to hospital, I won't be able to withdraw money from my bank account either, but that doesn't mean my bank is evil.
Stardock can be all smart about not protecting their copies in any way, but that's easy when your devteam consists of nine people, and your game can be played forever. I mean, it takes some three hours to finish a very small scenario in Sins of a Solar Empire, and there are some thirty predefined scenarios of varying sizes, and then there is the random generator. Not every game has this kind of luxury. You can't create a random scenario for Call of Duty.
There is some point to complaints about CD keys and such, because this kind of protection simply doesn't work. It's an unnecessary inconvenience (but still a minor one).
Some other solutions, however, are just various kinds of a deal between a company and a customer. Consoles offer you a deal: in return for using a closed platform you no longer have to worry about the hardware or system. Steam requires their users to be online, but it offers instant updates, preloading, re-downloading your game on demand, all the community stuff, and a huge back catalog of old games that would be impossible with traditional retail. These are business offers. If you forgive me referring to the old "games vs. cars" analogy, nobody says a car manufacturer is evil when their cars are too expensive or too small, or have no automatic gearbox option. If their offer is not good enough, the consequence is simple: nobody uses their cars and they go bankrupt.
Same with games: if you don't like the offer, then just don't take it. Personally, I don't like the business model of consoles, so I've never bought one, nor am I going to. It means I'm probably never going to play Braid, but SO WHAT, I can just as well read a book or something. There are lots of good French or Indonesian books I'll never read because I don't speak proper languages, but it doesn't mean I can complain about the French being stupid for not writing in, say, English. Stardock are doing exactly that.
ZylonBane on 30/8/2008 at 17:18
Quote Posted by Zillameth
I don't like it when businessmen start being all ideological.
This is an astoundingly stupid sentiment. In this day and age, businesses are one of the few entities with any chance of actually enabling any sort of idealogical change.
Yes, the proprosed Gamer's Bill of Rights is uniquely warped around Stardock's business model. But most of the items listed are very real problems with the behavior of PC game publishers these days. Some of these behaviors are only going to get worse as broadband becomes ever more ubiquitous.
At the very least, the list has provided a focal point for discussion of these issues. That's a significant contribution right there.
Zillameth on 30/8/2008 at 17:59
Focal shmocal, people have been arguing about those for years. This list is harmful, because it presents some issues as problems, whereas they are actually tradeoffs. Stardock's model is a tradeoff, too, because they require you to register your copy before they let you download the patch. Instead of simply downloading the file, you have to set up an account and enter the CD key. Personally, I find this more inconvenient that the usual scheme, because usually I forget about the CD as soon as I insert it for installation, and then I'm good to go. Stardock's protection is just as futile as any other, because I could easily upload the patch somewhere and let everybody download it. Oh, and the patch makes your old savegames incompatible, just in case your pirate friend wanted to watch a replay of your playthrough.
There is a conflict of interest between business and ideology. First they convince you to switch to paper bags for the sake of ecology, then they open a paper bag factory. If ecology benefits in the process, it's just a coincidence. Sure, every ideology can be exploited, but it's not the same as having that exploitation written into your businessplan. That's why I don't have a console. Console manufacturers fill their customers with all kinds of lifestyle crap, brand awareness, slogans, fellowship symbols. Then they just sit down, enjoy the flamewars, and watch their dollar piles grow.
Businessmen have the advantage of often being very rich, so they do have a huge potential for charity work. And I don't have a problem with businessmen campaigning outside of their area of business. But that doesn't happen very often, surprisingly enough.
redrain85 on 30/8/2008 at 18:46
Quote Posted by Koki
Was there ever any case like this? Starforce asked me to install itself if I remember correctly.
Where's that airplane picture when you need it?
Don't tell me you completely missed the huge uproar surrounding Bioshock, and how 2K snuck Securom on people's systems without informing them in the packaging or during installation.
And Mass Effect very nearly came with a DRM measure that wanted to phone home every 10 days, or you wouldn't be able to run the game any more. Blocking the game in the firewall wouldn't help at all. Though, at least EA had the guts to announce this prior to the game's release.
Quote Posted by Zillameth
No one complains when being asked to confirm their identity in bank, or at work. Logging in to some service is a minor inconvenience at its worst, and most problems (like not being able to connect) are purely technical. If I fall sick and go to hospital, I won't be able to withdraw money from my bank account either, but that doesn't mean my bank is evil.
Sure. But the difference is, we're talking about games here. Entertainment. Why the hell should I have to go through authorization, and possibly even give up personal information, just to play a game? Why are games coming with security measures that are almost more convoluted than those for my online bank account? It's insane.
june gloom on 30/8/2008 at 19:04
Quote Posted by redrain85
Where's that airplane picture when you need it?
Don't worry, I'll put together a collection later and link to it in my sig or profile or something for people to take their pick from.
ZylonBane on 30/8/2008 at 19:10
Quote Posted by redrain85
Why are games coming with security measures that are almost more convoluted than those for my online bank account? It's insane.
And the glittering gem of irony here is that, thanks to all these intrusive anti-piracy measures, the people who do play cracked versions get a superior end-user experience to legitimate buyers.
