[BREAKING NEWS: FALLOUT 3 TO FEATURE TEXT]

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.

[Did the Franchise Ever Explain]

GBX are taking the Bioweapons route

Do we know this, or...?

[US Presidential Elections]

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

 

Pretty please?

[Did the Franchise Ever Explain]

Damn straight. I wouldn't mind them playing on that theme, though - "Ancient Evil Ones" who are really a subset of "Mostly Neutral Ones With A Bit Of Evil And A Bit Of Good Ones"... y'know, in a way that makes them morally grey and hard to give an intuitively-comforting-but-intellectually-barren knee-jerk moral assignment - sort of like humans.

 

Either way, I love seeing ancient civilisations, ruins, technology and cultures in my fiction, so I'm all for it even if it is just the ancient evil clich

[Did the Franchise Ever Explain]

I don't think it's a ridiculous name, since it was never meant to be a in-universe denomination. For stage purposes it's fine I guess.

 

It's not an official name, but a nickname given by the crew of the first film. It's taken from the title of a Robert Heinlein short story. Giger called the creature "The Pilot".

 

Clearly your interest in this subject is unequivocal evidence of their presence in the Aliens RPG!

Yeah, that has potential. Anyway, if that's the case I only hope they don't revisit the done-to-death "Ancient Evil Ones" clich

[The Large Hadron Collider]

In fact, if all they find is nothing new, then that'd also make it worth it, since it implies no Higgs exists!

I don't see where you get the conclusion that failure to produce Higgs bosons at LHC means they don't exist?

 

 

It's funny because when people see the hugely wasteful wars in the Middle East costing way over $400 billion for the US alone in less than 10 years, they just shrug and say "What can you do?" yet when it comes to a ground-breaking atom smasher that provides timeless insight into our universe in a peaceful, collaborative manner, they're affronted by the notion that we might spend about $10 billion on it spread over several collaborating countries, spread again over 20 years.

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.

 

 

You want my opinion? The LHC has probably already paid for itself. Just like CERN created the World Wide Web to advance science of the day, the upgrades to the Internet required by the LHC at CERN spurred groundbreaking networks research and installation - an investment that will far out-live the LHC and add to the overall vitality of the Internet (and it needs it considering its growth rate - the IPv4 exhaustion problem will be bigger than anything the Y2K could have mustered and while it starts to hurt in about 1 year, and we've passed the point of fixing it without interruption, still nobody is paying any attention to it).

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.

[The Large Hadron Collider]

This is far more interesting

Wow, Asimov vibes?

 

 

Finding Higgs isn't "just" finding Higgs. finding it means figuring out why it has been so hard to find, it means closing the final gap in the Standard Model, it will probably shed some light on why there are so many particles in Quantum Physics, and hopefully, it will be the first experimental step towards finding evidence for supersymmetry.

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.

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

If people can continue to say they didn't buy a game because of DRM, then other people can continue to point out they've not had the problems the anti-DRM crowd complain about. See, anecdotal evidence works both ways. Your continued insistence that my individual experience isn't relevant is hypocritical when you don't also attempt to dismiss the individual experiences of the anti-DRM crowd.

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?

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Really, they need to do away with this stupid quote limit. It's cramping my style!

 

 

Then why quote it and mention it at all. In doing so you do touch it. But maybe if you tried posting something consequential instead of just using some sort of lame one liner.

You are right. In hindsight, it doesn't even merit response.

 

 

That just means the lyrics have been altered, not that the song is really any different. First people were upset when they had to pick the right word from the manual or whatever, because "what if I lose the manual or something? That sucks!" Then "WTF, a CD Key? That sucks for reinstalls in case I lose the manual....and now I can't play MP games with my friends as easily if we LAN!!!!" Then "Booo CD authentication." Now, "Boo online activation" and "boo DRM." Same ****, different pile. Been hearing it for years and years and years.

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?

 

 

Furthermore, I'm well aware of the title of the thread (and you accused me of trolling...but hey, at least I was honest about it), but other people discussed No CD checks in this thread, and given I was linking the current brouhaha for DRM to the similar brouhaha that people had about CD checks (and other cries), I figured it was obvious.

Other people brought it up in an attempt to make an analogy with SecuROM. It was a flawed argument, and it still is.

 

 

Wait, I thought crippling DRM was its downfall? (you're right, it's not ****ed, but the people that get all pissy about copy protection and anti-piracy measures sure like to paint that picture). Oh wait, this is where I demand that you post numbers proving that the PC industry is doing well, right? (don't ask me to support my claim that it's "****ed" since I'm being facetious right now, but I figured it might be important to spell it out, since it seems I have to start saying "in my opinion" or qualify something that is clearly anecdotal as anecdotal).

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.

 

 

Hell Kitty is correct in that for whatever reason, the suits at corporations think that their DRM implementations are effective in improving their sales numbers. As much as we bash executives for only being interested in making money and not worrying about innovative games and just making the same crap and sequelitis, it's funny that suddenly all of their profit driven greediness seems to go out the window when it comes to anti-piracy. I mean, they obviously do it because they like throwing money away into DRM without seeing any return on that investment.

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?

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

I will when you don't post ridiculously ironic and hypocritical statements. It's absurd to get pissed at Hell Kitty for stating his opinion (I can understand that it's his opinion, even if he doesn't explicitly say "in my opinion") about numbers, when the other people don't either.

Huh? I'm just addressing his (unsubstantiated) statements, whereas you just point and laugh, rolleyes included.

 

 

But hey, it's cool to get other people to do the work for you. The idea that DRM hurts sales is pretty clear in this thread and other threads, yet hasn't been substantiated either. Call them out on it too! Oh wait....you agree with them. Well that's not very scientific of you! Tsk tsk.

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:

Yeah, yeah. What's all this "PC gaming is dying" nonsense, anyway?

Has anyone actually made the claim that DRM actually causes significant loss of sales? I haven't seen that, myself, and personally I don't believe it does.

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.

 

 

No, but I'm talking anecdotally. I figured I no longer needed to state things such as "in my opinion" or state that an experience is anecdotal when it's obvious that it is. Everyone else does the same ****, but when it's someone that disagrees with you that does it, time to call them out on it. Nice.

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.

 

 

And what I am saying is that needing the media IN THE DRIVE has been a common occurrence in computer gaming since long before CDs were invented. There was a window where things could just be installed on HDs, but those were also the times when I found it easiest to pirate, and even made money off my piracy because it was so easy for me to do.

If it wasn't because broadband is dead cheap, you could still make money with piracy. What's the relevance of this, anyway?

 

 

I'm not trolling looking for a fight. I tend to pick the anti-global warming stance because it actually leads to interesting discussions about that topic, rather than just having a big agreement party with the people I hang out with. That's boring. Or, to use my original word, not fun. Call me crazy, but I like to enjoy life.

Wait, wait. So "HAHA" is how you initiate "interesting discussions"? My, my. Aren't you the master conversationalist!

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Yay for quote limits.

 

 

 

HAHA awesome.

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?

 

 

For some reason I seem to be one of the few people that doesn't mind when I need a CD in the drive...I mean, given I've been gaming on computers for years and years and years, where all games except a few exceptions have required me to have the CD in the drive, or the floppy disk in the drive, or whatever. In fact, the overwhelming majority of times I have played games without needing a CD or a floppy disk in the drive, were the times in my youth when I actively WAS pirating game software. Heck, I had a CD burner before people even knew what they were, and was pretty much a printing press for games. I even turned a profit!

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.

 

 

though probably more just because it's more fun

So, you are just trolling. At least you're honest about it.

 

 

and in general I think people are stupid

I'm not even going to touch this one, lest I go back in probation.

 

 

Furthermore, it annoys me when people have clearly made their point, yet continue to randomly chime in with "Boo DRM I no likey" type comments which interfere with discussion. At least this thread is actually about DRM, so it makes sense here.

 

My "arguments" against you and all those like you are that I have been hearing the same **** for years. Furthermore, it'd be a pretty ****ing boring topic if all it was was people going "OMG ya teh DRM is evil!!!!"

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.

 

 

No one side is ****ing over the industry. The tandem of both of them are IMO.

I didn't know the industry was being "****ed". It seems to be going fairly well...

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

No I don't know it's true, I'm simply making an assumption based on the fact there isn't any evidence that what the anti-DRM crowd claims is true, that DRM significantly hurts sales. They're the ones making the claim so they're the ones who need to provide the evidence.

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.

 

 

Why do I have to post numbers, I'm not the one making any definitive claims

Oh, but you are:

I'm saying the people it does break the deal for, well there simply aren't enough of them to matter, even though they might want to think otherwise.

 

 

There are people who don't buy particular games because they include DRM, no one is arguing that, what I'm arguing is that the anti-DRM crowd are as unable to prove that DRM significantly hurts sales as publishers are unable to prove that every pirated copy is a lost sale. And until either side is able to backup their claims I'm not going to worry about either of them.

Agreed. That's not the same you said before, though.

 

 

I've already pointed out that by saying I've never been affected by it I mean I've never had copy protection stop me from playing games I own, but I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that. Despite the anti-DRM crowd insisting that "it only hurts paying customers", I'm a paying customer who has never been hurt by it (apparently so is Hurlshot).

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.

 

 

This isn't a private conversation, and not everything I post is a direct response to you, rather it concerns the topic in general.

If it's posted after quoting me, I'm going to assume it's directed at me.

 

 

Exactly! What good are the people who claim to be protesting doing if they only post about it on internet message boards.

They aren't only posting in message boards. They are also not buying the games.

 

 

It does to them.

So?

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

EA has committed to DRM. They clearly aren't abandoning it. It is not a battle that a few people who haven't bought the product can win.

Because you say so. Ah, well, then.

 

Indeed, defeatism has never accomplished anything. But hey, don't let me stop you from purchasing a copy for yourself, one for your child, and one for your wife. Because that's the right thing to do.

 

 

The battle for better customer support is much more reasonable. Customers can win this battle. You have paid money for the game, you should expect a certain level of service. Companies don't like to see their paying customers deluging them with complaints. EA can change their customer support, it's a much simpler process than totally reworking their DRM policies.

Yes, you obviously know what you are talking about. Because that's exactly what happened with C&C:TFD; two years and a half after the release of the game, it's still bug-ridden, with EA openly stating they are focusing on other stuff. That is in spite of their boards (and customer support) being flooded with complaints. So yeah, they have shown to be sensitive to customer unhappiness.

 

 

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

I'd stop buying new games and stick to MMOs that don't need that kind of garbage. Oh, and... Steam.

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Yay, quote war.

 

I'm saying the people it does break the deal for, well there simply aren't enough of them to matter, even though they might want to think otherwise.

What? Suddenly you know this to be true? Whoa, where did the "we don't know either way" thing go?

 

I'm sure you can bring numbers up to back your assertions, then.

 

I agree with this, but if a game is selling well enough for publishers what reason do they have to change? Especially for a bunch of people who "never would have bought the game anyway"?

Because conformism isn't a good business philosophy. With that, we wouldn't have stuff like Steam.

 

 

Ineffective in stopping piracy sure, but we don't know what's effective or ineffective to the publisher. Like I said earlier, if no pirated copy available immediately or a pirated copy that's limited in some way convinces one person to buy a legit copy of the game, then perhaps that's enough to convince publishers that the copy protection is effective.

Sure, because publishers don't work with logic and numbers, and further, DRM suites are licensed for free. Thus, a single pirate forced to buy the game justifies the expense of putting DRM in. Eh, okay. You can really only stretch the "you don't know what publishers are thinking" argument so much.

 

 

Pissed off customers only matter if there are enough of them. The same people saying over and over "it doesn't work" and "it only hurts paying customers" isn't going to convince publishers of anything.

That's assuming every publisher in the sector implements DRM (SecuROM-like, as discussed in this thread), which is a fairly inaccurate assumption. And since we *don't* know how many those people are, this just holds no water.

 

 

Except I've never needed to do that, so no, it's not affecting me right there.

You've never had to search for a no-cd crack? What does that mean, that you always play with the CD in, or that you make your own no-CDs? I'd bow to your mad skillz, but then I remembered you wrote this:

but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

So, you're basically saying that you just put up with DRM, or that you have never encountered it, but you'd be able to get around it if you needed to. If the former, you are being affected by it. If the latter, you are obviously just lying, as evidenced by other posts in this thread, and in any case, you'd be affected in that instance.

 

 

I'm sure the companies that use DRM believe they have a good reason, and insisting they don't won't convince them otherwise.

Yes, your point? I already stated I'm not trying to convince companies. If I would, this wouldn't be the best place to do so, don't you think? And that they think they have a good reason doesn't make it a good reason. Yeah, the devil's advocate sure is fun to play, eh?

 

 

Things like limited activations and needing a connection to the internet to play are new, but jumping through hoops to play a game you've bought is unfortunately nothing new to PC gaming, and it's something PC gamers have shown they will put up with.

That's a (possibly intentionally?) misleading statement, but nice try. Are you saying that gamers have shown they'll go through the usual hassles to play games, or are you specifically referring to SecuROM? If the latter, that's strictly false, as at least one person hasn't bought Spore and MEPC based on it - me. Again, how this is significant depends on numbers. Numbers that I'm ardently waiting for you to post.

[Fear this milk]

EDIT: Schizokrezack?

 

in b4 30 minutes

Aw, snap!

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Just how undesirable does copy protection make a product? Just how many of the potential customers really care? Do PC games with DRM do worse than those without? This has been the entire point of my argument all along. Despite DRM and less than stellar reviews Spore is apparently selling really well. Publishers insist that piracy hurts PC gaming and gamers insist that DRM hurts PC gaming, and both sides assume it's an obvious fact, but neither side can offer any definitive proof and as such aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them. The reason people make comments like DRM causing people to avoid the game when they otherwise would have bought it is because they think it matters (by significantly lowering sales proving DRM hurts the game), but we seem to be in agreement that it doesn't.

Yes, it's very easy to debate somebody else's point when you take fragments of what they say out of context, and then misrepresent. I didn't say that SecuROM-like anti-copy systems (from here on simply DRM) make or break the deal for most people. My point was that perhaps aiming to encourage legit purchases would be a better way of getting some pirates to actually buy games, instead of implementing devices that are patently ineffective, and piss off *only* paying customers. In this context, a game without DRM is "less undesirable" than one with.

 

 

I agree with that, as do many others, but like I mentioned previously, what a publisher thinks makes copy protection worth it is likely to differ from what gamers think.

Indeed. Because while DRM does not stop piracy in the least, it does make things like lending and second-hand sales next to impossible.

 

 

Yes, it is true. When I say it doesn't affect me I mean copy protection has never stopped me from playing any game I own. Spending time finding third party nocd cracks for games with copy protection is no different to spending time finding them for games without copy protection, or time downloading patches or drivers, or time spent finding the ideal configuration, or even the time spent just installing the game. That's PC gaming, you can't stick the disc in the drive and begin playing straight away. The only game I've bought that required activation was Alone in the Dark. Entering the activation code was no different to entering registration codes for numerous games over the last couple decades. Doesn't require a cd so no time spent looking for a crack, and when uninstalling that game I revoked the license allowing me to reinstall later or sell the game. Not a problem.

Only spending time finding a solution for circumventing (and cleansing your system from) copy protection, which may or may not be as simple as finding a no-cd, is added on top of everything else you need to do to get the game working already. So it's affecting you right there.

 

And please, don't patronize about PC gaming. This is just some company that's decided to make things more difficult than they need to be for no good reason. It's not "how things are", as it's not a prevalent practice, and it's never been.

[Fear this milk]

Edit: I am not sure, but I think there was also something once about Spanish olive oil?

It wasn't olive oil, even though it was sold as such or as a perfectly valid substitute. It was actually processed rapeseed oil which apparently contained some toxic or another. Nasty business.

 

Worst of it is there's no way to avoid this kind of thing.

 

EDIT: Schizokrezack?

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

A different distribution model that is far less annoying that SecuROM, and infinitely more effective at preventing piracy?

 

If you don't accept it as a counterexample, I have another: Stardock.

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Spoofing means creating false pirate downloads as well as posting messages that such and such torrent file, crack, application doesn't work, on the major file sharing networks. It is usually not very effective. It's got nothing to do with a game connecting to the internet. Anyway, taken together, fear of lawsuits, spoofs, and the sheer size of dvd disk images all have an effect on the availability of pirated games. If you can't download a game you would have to order one instead. You get me.

No, not really. Fear of lawsuits isn't a factor at all, as far as I know, because of what I said before. Spoofing is a non-issue because there are reliable cracks sites that don't allow commenting and only post verified patches. Image size is the only valid argument, but it has no relation whatsoever to DRM.

 

 

It's not a battle the companies are winning mind you, but if they gave up control completely they would lose more money. It's not like there is an alternative to trying to protect their work anyway, so inertia in relation to what.

Counterexample: Steam. There IS an alternative. Laziness, lack of business creativity and most importantly, inertia with regards to established practices prevent any other alternatives from being explored.

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

Companies can control access by actively spoofing pirated copies, and bringing lawsuits against repeat offenders.

Um, no, they can't. Blocking the game from connecting to the Internet is as simple as Zonealarm. And they can't bring any lawsuits against you if it's not illegal in your jurisdiction to download games (and, in many jurisdictions outside the US, it's not). Not only that, but the little fish are just too many and too insignificant to go after.

 

 

Also not everyone has the internet connection to download 4-6 gb disk images that often. Obviously these things have an effect on availability or they wouldn't do it. It's not a free for all, especially if you live on campus, or at your parent's, and could get in serious trouble as a result of one of those warning letters.

Not having broadband has nothing to do with this, as in any case, you wouldn't be able to download it, regardless of anti-copy. If the best argument you can think of for companies still using DRM is "well, they must have a reason, they can't be THAT stupid, right?", then I'll simply refer you to the reason behind it. As one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe, it's not something to be taken lightly.

 

As I said, only those with active consciences pay for games.

 

And, as for SecuROM not being "all that draconian", I guess I just have a very low tolerance for bull****.

[The Large Hadron Collider]

No, your point being? If you and everything else was all in my head, then why can't I control it? That's the biggest reason why I don't believe in solipsism. In fact if it weren't for hearing about the belief in the first place I may never have even considered that my life is an illusion, anyway, which goes to show that not all thoughts are my own.

Perhaps you just haven't learned how? You couldn't walk, talk, or do math at certain points in your life, but you can now. And the fact that solipsist ideas hadn't occurred to you before you heard them does not preclude the possibility that with time, you could have thought of it on your own. The only way that argument could work is if you could somehow prove that there is some piece of knowledge or idea that is impossible (and I mean it literally) for your mind to comprehend, but not to other people. And there is simply no way of reliably demonstrating that... because the opposite is not falsifiable.

 

The game analogy was meant to illustrate that just because it's an artificial reality, a constructed environment, godlike abilities aren't guaranteed to the actors within. In fact, it is the very fact that human beings are inherently finite that makes the whole notion of solipsism "plausible". If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing entity encompassing all of reality, you would be, by definition, able to tell whether the universe is a fabrication or not. Otherwise, you wouldn't really be "godlike".

 

 

And what, you are?

Your failure to appreciate that would hurt me deeply... if I wasn't already above such things.

 

Seriously though, would you really want that? How boring!

[EA Sticking With SecuROM]

I assume every time anyone says something like "People who would have otherwise bought the game now think twice" they are suggesting those lost sales are significant, otherwise why even mention it?

I don't know. Because it's true? There may not be many of us (probably not enough to make a dent in sales overall), but that doesn't mean we don't exist.

 

People weren't too aware of spywares and adwares say, ten years ago, but they are now. Word of mouth is a powerful thing, and perhaps if the real deal behind DRM gets more exposure, it WILL be enough of a problem for companies. Even EA changed their corporate policy regarding acquired studios, and I don't think it took anything more than a lot of badmouthing from fans.

 

 

To the publisher, is "I won't buy this game because of DRM" any different to "I won't buy this game because it's a console port" or "I won't buy this game because it's buggy" or "I won't buy this game because I don't like it"? How is "I'll pirate this game because I don't like DRM" different to "I'll pirate this game because I don't like the developer" or "I'll pirate this game because I can't afford it" or "I'll pirate this game because I never intend to buy it"? That's why pirating or avoiding buying a game as a form of protest is pointless.

Yeah, silent protest in that vein is totally pointless.

 

However, the rest of that paragraph doesn't make much sense, from a business perspective at least. Sure, the publisher can find any number of excuses to dismiss lost sales as "they would have pirated it anyway", and then justify the implementation of obnoxious DRM systems, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still lost sales, and that's bad for them, and for them alone. Buggy games are a cause of concern due to potential lost sales, but DRM shouldn't be subject to the same kind of scrutiny? That's a fairly self-defeating approach to it, inventing excuses to explain lost sales rather than making the product as desirable a purchase as possible, don't you think?

 

Further, that's the exact reverse of the argument often used by pirates that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". The difference is that pirates aren't in to make a living. But I can see where you're coming from.

 

 

Publishers will continue to use copy protection as long as they think it works. If no pirated copy available or a pirated copy that's limited in some way convinces one person to buy a legit copy of the game, then perhaps that's enough to convince publishers that copy protection works. Whereas one person not buying a copy because of the protection it uses seems to be enough to prove to gamers that DRM is a terrible, immoral waste of money.

I really can't see how it is *not* a waste of money - illegally acquiring games couldn't be any easier or quicker.

 

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of games installing hidden protection systems without my knowledge, but the reality is that is doesn't really affect me so I don't care. Which translates to I'm not going to avoid buying a game I want because of the copy protection it uses. I really don't like the idea of limited installs or being connected to the internet to play, but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

This simply isn't true. While you may be able to circumvent copy protection in the games you legally own, it doesn't mean you are unaffected by it. For one, you are being forced to spend more time searching for a solution that isn't always drag-'n-drop, this also forces you to depend on third parties to enjoy something you have paid for. But since you are taking a purely practical approach, this isn't much of a problem. But the worse comes with the fact that sidestepping the protection with a no-CD fix doesn't prevent the malware from being installed to begin with. Again, you are forced to remove it manually, which may or may not cause more problems.

[The Large Hadron Collider]

Also, if the universe was a product of my consciousness and not the other way around, I'd be omnipotent, but I'm not.

This isn't really evidence either way. Have you ever tried going through walls in a game in which no "noclip" codes exist?

 

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

 

[US Presidential Elections]

as if favoring one's heritage were an abomination

Racism is racism, regardless of the rhetoric you wrap it in. If I was a white person openly claiming I'm voting for McCain solely on the basis that he's white, do you really believe I wouldn't be labeled a racist? And why should it be any different for blacks? The minority excuse is disingenuous and a flimsy cover for revanchist racism. Positive discrimination is bull****, and good only for causing social friction.

 

 

Now whether or not it's going to influence the election is the question. I just assume it will.

Yes, that's what I was interested in as it's what pertains to the thread. And it's not surprising you assume it will, given your opinions on the issue.

 

 

I did mention the push polling in North Carolina against McCain in '00, alleging that McCain had fathered a bastard black child. The day those calls went out he had a 5 point lead, and he lost the state soon after. As with ~Di's 70-80% figure up there, there might be a more plausible explanation, but negative campaigning really seems to work, and in that case it contained racist propaganda. The racist factor will be a marginal effect, hopefully, but the margins will really matter this November.

I don't like the light you are presenting the McCain thing under, but as I lack all the facts, all I'm going to do is venture a guess that allegations of illegitimate (lawl) children simply cast a shadow on any politician's honesty.

 

At any rate, it's a nice perspective that it's the racist cranks that'll ultimately decide who gets to be Prez. Reassuring, really.

[Star Wars: The Force Unleashed]

Where's the next Jedi Knight game, freaking Lucasarts? I'll KILL YOU!!

I could do without your finger in the wound. Thank you.