|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
Two Worlds II - DRM Details
September 2nd, 2010, 07:24
Two Worlds Vault is reporting DRM details for Two Worlds II, sourced from PC Games Hardware and Gamers Global:
More information.
According to what Mariusz Szaflik from RP confirmed and Zuxxez told earlier GamersGlobal.de, the title will rely on similar protection as its predecessor: you activate the game via the internet or telephone up to 3 times (subsequent reinstalls on different systems or rigs will require you to contact the publisher) and play. The game doesn't require DVD in your drive to be played and similarly will not rely on Steam connection (for Steam-distributed copies).Head over for the links, including Google translations of the original articles.
More information.
September 2nd, 2010, 07:24
Excellent…this will certainly stop the pirates, while at the same time I see no potential for this inconveniencing paying customers. DRM rules!
Kay
Kay
Watcher
September 2nd, 2010, 08:24
the title will rely on similar protection as its predecessor: you activate the game via the internet or telephone up to 3 times (subsequent reinstalls on different systems or rigs will require you to contact the publisher) and play. The game doesn't require DVD in your drive to be played and similarly will not rely on Steam connection (for Steam-distributed copies). King’s Bounty: Crossworlds Platinum Edition – contains King’s Bounty: Armored Princess, all the new content, plus the original King’s Bounty: The Legend.
Banned
September 2nd, 2010, 09:53
To be honest it worked quite well for the original Two Worlds… it won't stop the pirates from cracking the game, but that seems to be common these days
September 2nd, 2010, 10:19
Originally Posted by TragosThis.
Limited installs?
i am so gonna use a cracked exe
If I find myself interested enough in this game I'll buy it and then use a pirated version instead.
Originally Posted by DArtagnanThat makes perfect sense especially for expensive hyped games by big companies that need to cover their expenses on day 1. I'm just wondering though: wouldn't it be a much better idea for a smaller or indie company, that can't afford fancy marketing campaigns, to invest into something that will steadily gain support from 'word of mouth' (or its equivalent for internet forums) that would assure steady sales for an extensive time period?
The opening window is quite vital in preventing piracy, for a significant number of would-be pirates.
—
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
September 2nd, 2010, 10:32
Originally Posted by holerawI couldn't say, really.
That makes perfect sense especially for expensive hyped games by big companies that need to cover their expenses on day 1. I'm just wondering though: wouldn't it be a much better idea for a smaller or indie company, that can't afford fancy marketing campaigns, to invest into something that will steadily gain support from 'word of mouth' (or its equivalent for internet forums) that would assure steady sales for an extensive time period?
I suspect that VAST majority of gamers who say "DRM = I won't buy" are full of shit.
They want to play a good game as much as anyone, so only a tiny minority will follow through - IF they can't pirate it.
I think the primary problem is that people will feel entitled to pirate the game, which is why it's vital to not have that option during the first couple of weeks.
Then again, most sales will be on consoles anyway. So, I think it's a minor issue overall.
September 2nd, 2010, 11:11
Originally Posted by bemushroomedYou guess correctly.
It'll stop them for a week or two, if they're very very lucky. A day or a few hours if they're not so lucky. But i guess you werent serious after all..

I strongly dislike DRM. It is highly ineffective at fighting piracy, and generally creates nothing but trouble for paying customers. One thing I find especially stupid, is that DRM can actually make cracked versions universally useful, as you may end up needing them to play the games you have bought properly. I think this irony is lost on most publishers, though.
Kay
Watcher
September 2nd, 2010, 11:49
They should have came up with an alternative way of selling their product already.
The most interesting method I once read, which was about selling music - not software, was through sites where you would become a member by paying a small subscription and then being able to download anything you want without any limits or further charges. The income from the subscriptions would then be divided amongst the artists depending on the relative quantity of downloads of each one's work.
Well, at least that's how I remember it… I don't know how well it would work but the article I read was quite convincing. Of course I understand that would result in large companies getting less money while small ones get more… which sounds absolutely great to me but I can see why Warner and Sony would never want that to happen.
The most interesting method I once read, which was about selling music - not software, was through sites where you would become a member by paying a small subscription and then being able to download anything you want without any limits or further charges. The income from the subscriptions would then be divided amongst the artists depending on the relative quantity of downloads of each one's work.
Well, at least that's how I remember it… I don't know how well it would work but the article I read was quite convincing. Of course I understand that would result in large companies getting less money while small ones get more… which sounds absolutely great to me but I can see why Warner and Sony would never want that to happen.
—
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
September 2nd, 2010, 11:54
Originally Posted by holerawYup, greed prevents that from happening.
They should have came up with an alternative way of selling their product already.
The most interesting method I once read, which was about selling music - not software, was through sites where you would become a member by paying a small subscription and then being able to download anything you want without any limits or further charges. The income from the subscriptions would then be divided amongst the artists depending on the relative quantity of downloads of each one's work.
Well, at least that's how I remember it… I don't know how well it would work but the article I read was quite convincing. Of course I understand that would result in large companies getting less money while small ones get more… which sounds absolutely great to me but I can see why Warner and Sony would never want that to happen.
But it's the kind of system I've been advocating for a while - though I would prefer no monetary system at all.
That way, you ensure that a game is created for no other reason than to create a game.
September 2nd, 2010, 11:57
Originally Posted by DArtagnanAnd how would they fund these games then? In-game commercials comes to mind…
Yup, greed prevents that from happening.
But it's the kind of system I've been advocating for a while - though I would prefer no monetary system at all.
That way, you ensure that a game is created for no other reason than to create a game.
—
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
September 2nd, 2010, 12:06
Originally Posted by DArtagnanEither you have something on your mind that I'm not getting or you suggest people should make games exclusively as a hobby besides their paying job - which doesn't seem too appealing an idea to me because I expect we would end up playing nothing but short flash games.
They wouldn't "fund" them without funds
They would be assigned resources - if any were available.
—
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
September 2nd, 2010, 12:13
Originally Posted by holerawI have something on my mind, yeah
Either you have something on your mind that I'm not getting or you suggest people should make games exclusively as a hobby besides their paying job - which doesn't seem too appealing an idea to me because I expect we would end up playing nothing but short flash games.

A complete restructuring of the world and the world-society - so it's not like it will happen for hundreds of years.
Still, it'd be nice - I think!
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:56.

