Far cry 2(bad news for pc)

[Splash]

If a rootkit were ever included as part of a license then I would read it, weigh up the pros and cons and decide whether the game was worth playing with the given license conditions. If it wasn't then I just wouldn't play it - it's hardly rocket science, nor is it going to change my life not to play a game.

...except that it's not always made clear (and by definition a rootkit is designed to be hidden, so how would you know?) before install that a rootkit is to be installed?

[shaithis]

I'm not familar with the term, sorry - can you explain it?

That's what I get for not proof-reading....

Typo + spellchecker = nonsense, although I am sure you could guess what I meant

Orwellian state.

[kalniel]

RE saracen's description of a darwinian state:
I see, no I don't then. Certainly not insofar as gaming markets are concerned.

I think they best work with the normal capitalist model of market forces. If you don't like a feature of a game (say DRM) then you won't buy it, but you might by competitors games without DRM. Market forces would distinguish the factors causing the DRM-less game to be more sucessful (in terms of profit) and the natural reaction would be to move towards DRM-free as a feature the market is willing to pay for.

That model assumes that that people are law-abiding, at least to the extend of affecting the market. If people pirate games with DRM then it skews the model - the companies see decreased revenue but competitors don't see increased revenue. There's no driving factor towards games that don't use DRM, instead companies see increased piracy and target that directly with stronger DRM.

[Hicks12]

The thing is it would only affect PC users, console users wouldnt get affected since ea(and others) would just move to console and concentrate soley on games for consoles. Leaving PC users with nothing apart from old games and the odd port, isnt worth screwing to much imo.

As long as there is a revoke system like fc2 is going to have then im 99% ok with it.

My FC2 has just been shipped so will give my opinion on it tomorrow or thursday.

[Olmy]

One thought I just had about activation. What happens 10 years down the line when a sudden feeling of nostalgia hits you and you want to install one of your old games, say Far Cry 2. If the activation server isn't available 10 years later, what then?

[kalniel]

Typo + spellchecker = nonsense, although I am sure you could guess what I meant

Orwellian state.

Sorry! I honestly didn't have a clue - even after googling

No, I don't like the idea of an orwellian state either - it certainly doesn't give market forces any room to influence decisions.

[kalniel]

One thought I just had about activation. What happens 10 years down the line when a sudden feeling of nostalgia hits you and you want to install one of your old games, say Far Cry 2. If the activation server isn't available 10 years later, what then?

That's a general worry about any form on online activation, be that stardock, steam, microsoft. It's certainly valid and the initial companies won't really care because it's not going to generate them any money. But every gap is an opportunity and I think there's always a business for someone - in this case you have the likes of CD Projekt with their GoG store selling old games without the DRM. I can see that happening more in the future where publishers legitimately obtain the licenses for these old games and provide you with a cheap means of playing them again.

As far as I'm concerned I'm making the decision to purchase a game based on the value I think I'll get out of it in the near future. If it has additional value to me in the future then I think I'd be quite happy to pay a nominal price to be able to continue playing it. The key thing is to base your valuation on the most likely value you will get out of the game, and not to play it if you think it's not going to give you your monies worth.

[Saracen]

A viewpoint similar to my own - but I'm ok as long as there is a working revoke system that I think will be ok for my type of use. I'm not so fussed about the type of scheme, only what affect it has on me regarding number of installs and revoke mechanism etc.

For me it would kind of depend on what you mean by DRM'd to the hilt. The actual DRM itself I wouldn't mind, but anything that would stop me from reasonably using the product in the way expressed to me in the license I would deem as breach of contract and take action - I don't think I'd take it into my own hands regarding piracy, but I would certainly be going to trading standards.

Where we differ, I suspect, is in what we find "reasonable".

Personally, I don't have any real problem with a CD check. It's a pain, but it doesn't bother me and wouldn't change my buying decision. But I won't accept a game that requires online activation, let alone periodic reactivation. One reason is that my games machine isn't necessarily connected to either my network or the internet. I'm not, for instance, at all interested in online gaming.

Similarly, I don't trust a revoke system. What happens with a hardware failure? What happens if the OS dies? What happens if I just forget, and reformat? If you've got a revoke system, it implies limited reinstalls without revocation, and that implies that if you exceed that limit (perhaps for the above reasons), you've then got to go cap-in-hand to the publisher asking, "please sir, can you reauthorise me", and justify why they should.

The hell with that.

As I said, I'm not a hardcore gamer. But I have been playing PC (well, personal computer) games since buying my first Apple II in the late 80s, and I do have dozens and dozens of boxes of games here. All legit. Actually, hundreds would probably be nearer to the mark. But despite that, I'm not hard-core, or certainly not these days. I still decide, periodically, to go back to an old game that I really enjoyed, reinstall and have a blast. That might be Quake (1), it might be Duke Nukem (original), or fairly recently, it was Thief 1. I even still intend, when I get a couple of spare hours, to get that old Apple II system back up and running and have another blast on the original Wizardry.

For me, a game isn't something I'll play for a few months then never look at again. If it's good, I'll come back to it when the inclination takes me. That's why I still have that old Apple, and it's one reason why I still have a couple of old PCs, even with either DOS or WfWG as the OS, dotted around the place. In the case of Wizardry, it'll be about 28 years after I first played it, as and when I get it out again.

So relying on a company either still being here to issue patches or reauthorise, or still having activation servers running, especially in the current economic climate when you never know at bedtime one night if major corporates will still exist at breakfast the following day, is not acceptable to me.

Any form of DRM that puts me to considerable inconvenience in the name of the companies fight against piracy is not "reasonable" to me. I have no problem with them protecting their IP, and they can prosecute all the pirates they can find, and I'll cheer them on. But when, as a legit buyer, I'm expected to put up with inconvenience, and especially when the pirates bypass such measures about 5 minutes after a games released (if not before it's released) is, to me, utterly unacceptable.

Someone said earlier that it was treating legit buyers like criminals. I don't think I'd go quite that far, but it is certainly treating us with utter disregard, even contempt. And if a company does that, they'll lose me with as a customer, unless it's a product I can't do without.

Some products, I need. I need Windows. I need Photoshop. I need Office. I don't need ANY game. I might want some, but I don't need them.

But DRM is one reason why I use XP not Vista. I'll upgrade to Vista if and when I need to, or when the benefit is such that it justifies it, but not before. Yet, I've got just about every version of DOS here, and every (useful) version of Windows from 2.x up to XP, and both NT4 and 2000 in both workstation and server versions. And every version of Photoshop from v3 to CS. Oh, and several versions of Office, up to XP. All legit, all boxed. All licensable.

Even for products like those, I won't upgrade to versions that use increasing levels of DRM until and unless I need to. As it happens, I'll probably upgrade Photoshop, because I can go from CS to CS4 for one upgrade fee, but when CS5 gets announced, I loose that upgrade path completely. CS4 has only just started shipping, so under the "3 version" rule, I've got until (but only until) CS5 ships to act. That is sufficient reason to upgrade, even though I don't really need to, but for a game? Nope, DRM that puts me to inconvenience isn't acceptable. I am, after all, a paying customer expecting to get a piece of software for my money, not to jump through hoops for the publisher because they're fighting pirates.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Saracen speaks the truth. almost flawless

[Platinum]

and you are an ignorant fool.

Explain

[Platinum]

Wow, I've never been called a pikey on a forum before - I didn't know that I had that heritage, thanks for letting me know! And what about justifying theft? What do you mean? I said I wouldn't buy the game, that does not mean I will pirate it.

I could have worded it better, What I ment was I think its the people who allready pirate trying to juistify it, I didnt mean people who dont buy the software full stop are pirates, I understand your just voting with your wallet.

[dangel]

I buy games and hate DRM - but i can't read your palm either..

[revol68]

I could have worded it better, What I ment was I think its the people who allready pirate trying to juistify it, I didnt mean people who dont buy the software full stop are pirates, I understand your just voting with your wallet.

I'd rather be a pirate than a bigot who uses anti traveler racism.

Insult pirates all you want but I do wonder if your contempt for games piracy also extends to tv shows, music, movies and e-books/pdfs? What about photocopying, ever copied more than 5% of a book or more than one chapter?

Game piracy through file sharing is simply making full use of productive forces, it does not deny anyone use of something (as is generally understood to be the reason for moral opposition to theft), on the contrary it allows more and more people to enjoy something with minimal material costs (in both labour, time and resources). Capitalism can't work with such an overabundance of something for little cost and so is forced to try and cripple the development of the productive forces. It's the same reason food mountains get dumped in the seas rather than distributed to the hungry, after all a market flooded with free food is not in the interests of capital.

[Platinum]

Game piracy through file sharing is simply making full use of productive forces, it does not deny anyone use of something (as is generally understood to be the reason for moral opposition to theft), on the contrary it allows more and more people to enjoy something with minimal material costs (in both labour, time and resources).

You keep telling yourself that mate..

[revol68]

You keep telling yourself that mate..

What an intelligent and insightful point you make, though I should hardly act surprised, after all your use of 'pikey' as an insulting term for pirates was of Wildian quality.

I also assume that your cerebral powers are only matched by your moral fortitude and you have no pirate music, movies, tv programmes or ebooks too.

[Hicks12]

So revol, you support piracy as a whole? And you think it has no impact on companies? Or have i mis read your post?