Bioshock 2 - DRM Update @ Blues

Better but the GfWL is still a huge obstacle.

Elizabeth made it clear in a different post that 'logging in' doesn't mean being online, so that the crap with other games isn't true for Bioshock 2 - if you play offline, then go online it will replicate all of your data.

Of course, since GfWL has tended to be buggy bloated crap I anticipate that there will be problems.

I have to say I *do* have issues because 2K has implemented a game with *NO INHERENT ABILITY TO SAVE*! When was the last time THAT happened?

As for the question of limits: if I have a working Blu-Ray player in 30 years and disks in good shape, I'll be able to play just like I could now with an Apple ][+ with a working copy of Wolfenstein. Completely original, completely legal. Anything else is suggesting that we are not getting full rights to the product in the same way as was historically true.

I'd have been perfectly happy (well, happy enough) with SecuROM+ activations as that system simply does not work as a DRM measure. GfWL on the other hand is a simply dreadful piece of software- bloated, unreliable, badly coded, poorly supported, and most importantly utterly unnecessary- foisted on PC as an afterthought by a company that has, at best, an equivocal view of the PC as a gaming platform and would probably be happiest if everyone shifted to its own captive market on the console.

Originally Posted by fatBastard()
..I doubt a gaming verification service will shut down without releasing some kind of "universal unlocker"..

No, they will not do so. Either they've been sold or gone bankrupt, in which case releasing an asset (all those people tied into the system by activations or Steam style persistent monitoring most certainly do count as assets) is illegal, or they have to get permission for every single title from every single publisher whose games they have sold to alter the exe, permission which they have no reason to seek and the publisher has no reason to give, especially since it would be more work for them to remove the DRM; and all at a a time when they are presumably trying desperately to either get sold as a going concern or not go bankrupt, or shutting down their operation permanently for other reasons.

Originally Posted by Zygo
No, they will not do so. s.

Exactly … you would sooner get a check in the mail from Dreamcatcher for $40 for buying a second copy of Dungeon Lords than this would happen!

Buying a game with this kind of protection means you take a chance in terms of having permanent access to legally playing it.

Up to the individual whether it's worth it or not.

End of story.

Its insane that they even implement any sort of installation restrictions. Don't they think of games as culture? If this becomes a common trend, I no longer feel that such games are worth of collecting.

Besides its an unhealthy way to do business. If I were making games i'd try to increase the value of owning game as much as possible instead of spending so much money and resources on a war that cannot be won. Aren't games more than disposable entertaiment? I love replaying older games a lot so this is infact a remarkable issue for me.

what you mean "legally play it" ? you buy the right to use the software and this right never expires.

Originally Posted by txa1265
As for the question of limits: if I have a working Blu-Ray player in 30 years and disks in good shape, I'll be able to play just like I could now with an Apple ][+ with a working copy of Wolfenstein. Completely original, completely legal. Anything else is suggesting that we are not getting full rights to the product in the same way as was historically true.

However, unless you have an almost 20 years old computer that still works, there are several of my games that can *NOT* be played on a modern computer without circumventing the "restrictions" of that time, simply because it is no longer possible to free enough of the base 640K memory on modern machines to satisfy the requirement of the game.

At any rate, if you people want to miss out of potentially great games in order to parade around on your horse of principality then by all means go ahead. Me? I'm more into to gaming than complaining about trivialities … but then again I'll be the guy standing in the front row clapping and cheering when Big Brother is turned on

Originally Posted by Tragos
what you mean "legally play it" ? you buy the right to use the software and this right never expires.

I didn't say right, I said access.

If - in 10 years - you need to activate this again and their servers don't respond and they have no "unlocker" or similar in place, then you don't have access to playing it. You can't play it legally, in that case - but there are always illegal alternatives obviously.

I just wonder … Why implement that "live window" stuff at all ?

Why didn't they just leave it out ?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I just wonder … Why implement that "live window" stuff at all ?

Why didn't they just leave it out ?

Most likely, it's a deal with Microsoft based on it being a multi-platform title that also releases on Xbox 360.

But the Windows Live thing isn't a big deal, because you can do it offline as well. The issue is the activation DRM protection, which is supposed to counteract piracy and the reselling of games.

I can play 20 year old games on my computer that has Windows 7 with Dosbox and if you have linux you have a good chance of playing dos games on there with a default install since many of them include Wine which has support for dos programs. Most of the games coming out now won't run on systems 20 years from now even if something like dosbox or wine exists since you would have to circumvent the DRM for it to work which is illegal.

Originally Posted by guenthar
I can play 20 year old games on my computer that has Windows 7 with Dosbox and if you have linux you have a good chance of playing dos games on there with a default install since many of them include Wine which has support for dos programs. Most of the games coming out now won't run on systems 20 years from now even if something like dosbox or wine exists since you would have to circumvent the DRM for it to work which is illegal.

My point was that you HAVE to use an emulator like DOSBox to play your old games. Without it you can't. Do you think that if DOSBox had existed while DOS was still an active OS, that Microsoft wouldn't have been all over the creators of DOSBox?

Why is it so hard to imagine that if some authentication server used for current DRM systems is no longer active some 20 years down the line, that a tool similar to DOSBox (in the sense that it will allow you to play a game that can't otherwise be played) will exist?

Originally Posted by fatBastard()
Why is it so hard to imagine that if some authentication server used for current DRM systems is no longer active some 20 years down the line, that a tool similar to DOSBox (in the sense that it will allow you to play a game that can't otherwise be played) will exist?

It's not about what you can imagine, it's about what you can count on.

Sure, it's possible - but there's no guarentee, and that's essentially the issue. 20 years is an extreme. They might close shop in 6 months and their servers won't respond.

That can't be hard to understand, really.

Originally Posted by fatBastard()
Why is it so hard to imagine that if some authentication server used for current DRM systems is no longer active some 20 years down the line, that a tool similar to DOSBox (in the sense that it will allow you to play a game that can't otherwise be played) will exist?

Why is it so hard for you to admit that these companies are willing to treat all paying customers like thieves and that is inherently wrong, yet we all put up with it in order to play the games we want to … but feel the need to protest and voice our protest so that customers will listen to the *paying* customers?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I didn't say right, I said access.

If - in 10 years - you need to activate this again and their servers don't respond and they have no "unlocker" or similar in place, then you don't have access to playing it. You can't play it legally, in that case - but there are always illegal alternatives obviously.

I don't know if it is legal or not but i can not be charged of pirating games that i legally own for getting around the DRM by using a crack , either if i do it after 10 years or right now.

Originally Posted by Tragos
I don't know if it is legal or not but i can not be charged of pirating games that i legally own for getting around the DRM by using a crack , either if i do it after 10 years or right now.

No one is talking about being charged

Originally Posted by txa1265
Why is it so hard for you to admit that these companies are willing to treat all paying customers like thieves and that is inherently wrong, yet we all put up with it in order to play the games we want to … but feel the need to protest and voice our protest so that customers will listen to the *paying* customers?

Oh that's not hard. Of course they do. I do the same to my fellow citizen every time I put the second lock on my bicycle or wear my wallet in the inner pocket of my jacket (which has a zipper) or whatnot.

Mankind has proven over and over again that it can't be trusted. You can either do nothing and hope for the best (don't hold your breath) or attempt to find some way to stop people ripping you off. Until a totalitarian Big Brother system has been installed - where every and any violation is immediately registered and the proper punishment is set into effect just as quickly - we have to make do with more archaic and bothersome systems like the current DRM systems. Sure it would be nice not to have them but I can certainly understand why they're there and I wouldn't be surprised (especially considering the early leak of Mass Effect 2) if day 1 DLC's will very soon be the de facto standard for games. Mind you, I'm talking about a DLC that will allow you to actually start the game at all. With such a restriction in place early leaks of games will be useless until the company releaseds the needed "activation" software.

I have no issue with them including day 1 DLC as a means of enticing new sales, that is clearly a 'carrot' method.

In the US a store cannot force you to show a receipt when nleaving with merchandise, because of the supposition of innocence. They can put tags on products to maintain inventory, which are re,oved at purchase. The trick is bringing all that to the digital world.

fatBastard(): Just to let you know there is a big difference between Dosbox and a tool that would emulate the authentication server of modern games (or however else they do it) and that is Dosbox is legal and that would be circumventing the DRM which is illegal. Unless permission is given by the owners of the ip or they do it themselves any program that would allow you to play a game that requires online activation after the activation servers have been taken down would be illegal. People may not have problems using it but the people making the program run the risk of companies coming after them.