random n00b

Lol, yes. Guns don't kill people. Capitalism does. Gimme a break.

Yep.

That sounds nice and all, save for the fact that they did actually listen to the fans and got their act together regarding bugfixing in CS. You are not purchasing CS (yet) not because it's a terminally buggy product, which it isn't, or because the devs aren't fixing the issues it has, which they are, but simply because you have personal beefs with them. And that, no matter how you want to disguise it, is childish. It makes my presentation as weak as trying to paint yourself as holding some sort of high moral ground makes yours weak. "Making a statement" and "in good conscience" sure are impressive expressions and seem to add strength to whatever you are trying to say, but in this case, it's just a load of hot air.

This is true, and it's probably the crux of the matter. Because it's probably too early and not many people have suffered from inability to play games they paid for because of the DRM, yet. Remember Starforce and Ubi? That wasn't something that happened overnight, either.

Sure. They compensate by being extremely vocal, though. Wow, the "operation of a company"? Are they whipping their employees to death and using child labor or something? I mean, I could understand if you wanted to "make a statement" under those circumstances. But refusing to purchase a game you'd most likely enjoy because the devs are asses in their boards and previous products were buggy (hello, NWN2?) is not only spiteful - it's also childish. Of course, and that's a very laudable attitude. What I'm criticizing are the criteria you go by and the consistency with which you apply them.

So, "in good conscience" you are refusing to buy a game you know you'd like purely out of personal spite towards the devs. Go good conscience! Does it? Stalker is possibly an exception, and you have stated that you'll purchase it sooner or later. Perhaps you and I have a different notion of what constitutes failure. I was speaking generally, though, and the commercial performance of Oblivion proves my point. Fortunately, people operating on spite alone are relatively rare.

Yeah, not ANY game, just only those you're a "fan" of. And didn't you buy Oblivion, regardless? No. That's their call to make. They call the shots, they assume the risks. Isn't that how legends are built?

Right, because fans always make relevant, sensible, informed, intelligent... etc. criticism. And most importantly, they always offer feasible ways of doing things better, in less time, and with less use of resources! Silly devs. Lol, despite the general hatred that MW and Oblivion garner in these boards, they were both commercially very successful. I can add a corollary if you want, though: ignore the fans, because despite all the whining, they'll buy the game just the same.

Yeah, the RvR part definitely sounds like fun. I'll probably end up giving it a shot.

Because most folks would have ignored it. And we can't have that, now can we? Um, if you say so. I found it to be tenuous, possessed of awkward flow and pace and generally uninspiring. Maybe that's what you meant by "innovative"? I'm playing Clear Sky myself. There are a few design decisions I don't like much, and the game seems to be more focused on the various players around the Zone than the Zone itself, which makes it less interesting than the first game in my eyes. It's still good fun, though.

The only macros I've known were in UO, where skills improved with use. So macros existed to improve the character, skipping the painstakingly slow and tedious "training" process. I didn't like that game at all. I don't know about macros in modern games, or if that's what Kaftan is referring to. Wow, queuing? Maybe it works in the game and I'm wrong, but that's one of the possible timesinks I was asking about. I hate that sort of thing.

Don't you think you're generalising a bit? And oversimplifying, as well. RTSs are basically played exactly as you described (save for the macros). And I don't see you complaining about their lack of depth. Also, I haven't played AoC, but supposedly the combat was pretty engaging.

Allegations which you have done nothing to dispel. And you haven't answered my question, either. Did you have a specific reason for raining on this parade, or is it a bit of a tic of yours? In contrast, Kaftan isn't big on MMOs either, but at least he has arguments and an informed opinion. Stop disrupting the discussion, please.

How about instanced play, is there any of that? And, this is something I'm very interested in, how heavy is the game with plain, forced timesinks? Really? Care to explain why?

You have already made it clear that you don't like MMOs (despite strong indications that you have no clue what you're talking about). So, what then are you doing in a MMO thread? Other than trolling, that is. Anyhow, I've been considering getting WO. I've read it's heavily geared towards PvP, but how's the PvE aspect? And how long do you assume it would take to "mine" all the present content? How populated are the servers?

Heh. Obviously, regardless of plot depth and the way its details are conveyed, there's bound to be whining. If it's delivered by actors via voiced conversations, it's "OMG textwalls". If it's books or a codex left up to the players to read if they are interested, it's "OMG weak storytelling". Note to devs: ignore the fans.

Can I have "arch-capitalist" as my custom title? Pretty please?

I don't see where you get the conclusion that failure to produce Higgs bosons at LHC means they don't exist? Oh, I didn't mean it that way. I just think it's a pretty expensive way of proving a point, is all. I'm all for taxes money being spent in all sorts of huge ass scientific gimmicks. I didn't know about that. But since you brought up the Y2K thing, perhaps IPv4 running out won't be the end of the world either... I'm a bit skeptical about doomsdays, these days.

Wow, Asimov vibes? Not everyone in the particle physics community is so fond of the SM as it would appear. There's still a chance that it may be debunked by evidence - prof. Hawking would seem to agree. The luminiferous aether analogy is fitting... only they didn't spend billions to find out.

What exactly are you arguing, then? The thread is about how SecuROM is a step forward in pissing paying customers while still failing at deterring piracy. I don't think anyone has made the claim that it pisses off ALL paying customers, since some people may not even be aware of what they are installing. And then, there's people like you who just don't care as long as they can find a crack. Your whole discourse is, "I don't care, and for each of you who does, there's a thousand more who don't". I'm not saying you're not entitled to having your opinion and voicing it, but you seem to be trying to use it to somehow refute what we're saying - it doesn't. You are not getting a special version of the product without DRM, and even if you refuse to be bothered by it, you are still subject to its potential effects - denial of service, regardless of your ability to overcome it. It's fallacious to claim that people being bothered by DRM are inconsequential simply because there are people who don't have a problem with it. Taking the corporate stance that they aren't in numbers large enough to make a dent on sales doesn't change that either. That's essentially what you are doing. Games didn't have it before - that coupled to the fact that piracy hasn't been affected at all is enough proof that games don't need it. So, again, what are you trying to prove?

Really, they need to do away with this stupid quote limit. It's cramping my style! You are right. In hindsight, it doesn't even merit response. None of those are really in the same level as limited installs dependant on online activation. If you lose the manual, the CD, your head, or whatever, it's YOUR fault. If you keep everything and the publisher shuts down the authentication servers for whatever reason (or refuses to authorize further installs), it's them not providing the service you paid for. I didn't think it was so hard to understand? Other people brought it up in an attempt to make an analogy with SecuROM. It was a flawed argument, and it still is. Do you really want me to look up some numbers to show how the video game industry has become a billion dollar business since its inception? How the offer has grown and diversified? Anyway, I have no problem with you posting your irrelevant anecdotes, so long as you don't use them as basis for a reasoning whose conclusions you extend to everyone who disagrees with you. So, just because they think DRM works does it mean it actually works? Well, at different points in history, many things were considered solvent ideas, and with time they were debunked. Are company execs some sort of godly, omniscient beings not subject to error?

Huh? I'm just addressing his (unsubstantiated) statements, whereas you just point and laugh, rolleyes included. Actually, if instead of just reading the last post and then unleashing the ****ing fury you actually took the time to read the thread, perhaps you'd make less of a fool of yourself. Since you are obviously unable to read past the last page: Those are BOTH in this very thread. You are welcome to read the rest of the discussion and actually get a clue about the stances people actually have. THEN take your shots. Sure. Because I never use anecdotal evidence to illustrate anything because its value is nil. But it's not only that. You are also making the assumption that since you don't mind having the CD in, nobody should. Hello? There's a world out there with preferences, too. If it wasn't because broadband is dead cheap, you could still make money with piracy. What's the relevance of this, anyway? Wait, wait. So "HAHA" is how you initiate "interesting discussions"? My, my. Aren't you the master conversationalist!

Yay for quote limits. How about posting something consequential instead of trying to characterise those who don't think like you as pirates and spicing it up with lame one-liners? So, obviously, those that don't want to need the CD in the drive MUST be pirates, because of your particular experience and preferences. That's some serious deductive reasoning right there. So, you are just trolling. At least you're honest about it. I'm not even going to touch this one, lest I go back in probation. Only this thread in particular is about a conceptually different DRM which actually raises concerns about the viability of playing games you've paid for in the future. This is about SecuROM, not CD-checks. Refer to the thread title if in doubt. I didn't know the industry was being "****ed". It seems to be going fairly well...

Perhaps it's because it's simply not possible to accurately gauge lost sales because of this? Absence of proof cannot, in this case, be taken as proof of anything, either way. Oh, but you are: Agreed. That's not the same you said before, though. Yes, yes. DRM is certainly not an insurmountable barrier, but again, nobody has argued that. It is however an unnecessarily annoying extra thing you need to worry about with PC games. I guess that, by turning it into a black and white issue (can play vs cannot play whatsoever), the point is much easier to defeat. If it's posted after quoting me, I'm going to assume it's directed at me. They aren't only posting in message boards. They are also not buying the games. So?