The summary says the link is an unbiased review, but I pulled this gem from the review:
OnLive is piracy-proof because no game code ever leaves the datacentres housing their servers - great for the publishers and developers, but perhaps not so appealing to the customer.
That is very loaded/biased language. I think I'll use this as an example in my next class (as a good example of biased language).
Or, Steam could tell me that's an option. How in the hell am I supposed to know? I just assumed it wouldn't work without a connection. Call me a cynic.
I was trying to play Half Life 2, from the same people who make Steam, from a CD I bought before there ever was a Steam (on my computer at least, maybe it was out when HL2 came out on day 1, but I can't remember), and Steam wouldn't let me play it offline.
If the dealer gave me an inexpensive seat cushion that fixed the pressure on the left half of the seat, I wouldn't have a problem with it...as long as the car was as kick ass as promised (like CR says about the phone).
How about their consistent ratings of anything Honda/Toyota over superior engineered German offerings? How about the fact the consistently rate Honda/Toyota with superior long-term reliability on new models that have no long-term history? How about how they fall in love with shitty Honda products because they say Honda and at the same time rip the Isuzu model that is a mechanical clone, just because it says Isuzu?
How about the fact that some people buy a car for things other than mpg, sticker price, stereo quality, cargo space and number of cup holders--all things that CR over-values compared to things that matter to some of us, like acceleration, braking, and handling. It's because of CR's total devaluation for the engineering aspect of vehicle design that America in general loves such shitty cars. Ooh, look 58.7 cu. ft. of trunk storage! So what if it only has 58 hp and take 310 feet to stop from 60-0!
Dear game companies, when you make a game worth paying for, people will stop pirating it.
=
That's just stupid. The playability of a game is dictated by its cost? A game is more or less fun depending on if it costs $60 or $30?
You'd play a pirated version of a $60 game that wasn't worth paying for? If it wasn't worth paying for, then why would you waste your time playing it in the first place???
Actually, I wouldn't feel that bad if I were to get the PC version off of a torrent, because I already own the PS3 version. Not saying it's right, just feels less wrong.
As usual, he should look at what Valve is doing. They are doing it (mostly) right, and always have.
Ironically enough, when my internet went out last week, I was unable to play Half Life 2, because it couldn't connect via steam. But I bought the game on cd and installed it from that. I shouldn't have to have a steam check. So if that's "good" drm, I don't want to see bad drm.
The Valve episodic content works (for me) because it is cheap. Maybe prices were higher when they were new, but I just bought episode 1 and 2 for something like $9.99 combined. I'll buy the next one as soon as it comes out.
I think working adults can appreciate episodic content as well, since we don't often have 8 hours blocks we can devote to plowing through a full game.
1)Decide to pay for it. 2)Decide to pirate it. (they'll probably take #2)
They can:
2) Decide to pirate it 3) Decide to not play it. (either one, the company makes no money)
In both cases, a game company makes very little money. The only money they make are from honest people, or people who don't know how to acquire pirated copies.
I think the business logic is, by adding DRM, you theoretically make it harder to pirate, leaving only the following options:
1) Decide to pay for it 3) Decide to not play it
The chances that somebody will pick #1 are now much higher than the other two scenarios. The trick is in balancing how many people you will put off with the DRM scheme and how hard it is to crack. If it's hard to crack, but interferes with legal ownership, that sucks. If it doesn't interfere with legal ownership, but is easy to crack, then there's no point.
Back then, we had to wait a month for a magazine review, and then make a decision to spend our paperboy money on a game. Now, I can get metascores for any game on any platform ever, which lowers the likelihood of wasting money on a bad game.
All software ships with bugs. The question is how severe are they? In 25 years of gaming, I can't think of a single game I've played that was so bug-riddled that it was unplayable. Wait, never mind, I just remembered ET for the Atari 2600.
Ah yes, Steam. That program that wouldn't let me play Half-Life 2 when my Internet was out. Mind you, I purchased the CD version, installed it from the CDs, and yet Steam felt compelled to not let me play it because it couldn't verify I owned it over the Internet. So I uninstalled Steam and played Half Life 2.
Who says the primary function of an iPhone is to make calls? I know people who have the phone with no voice plan. I would guess my iPhone gets about 5% use as a phone.
I use the cup holder analogy because its a long running joke with supporters of Consumer Reports. They have actually lambasted cars in the past for their lack of cup holders (sports cars specifically). It's the same thing at work here...Consumer Reports is telling YOU what is important, not letting you decide what you need out of the iPhone.
My problem is that they let one issue be a show stopper, when they otherwise like the phone. Maybe that one problem isn't a show stopper for other people, so they shouldn't base their entire "cannot recommend" based on one issue (that is apparently fixable by adding a case, or, as Steve would say, not holding it like that).
How about they say, "this is a great phone, but you may want to take the antenna issue into account when deciding to purchase one or not."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's different now, but when I lived in the UK (2005-2008) my provider had no bandwidth cap. Perhaps you should shop around?
The summary says the link is an unbiased review, but I pulled this gem from the review:
OnLive is piracy-proof because no game code ever leaves the datacentres housing their servers - great for the publishers and developers, but perhaps not so appealing to the customer.
That is very loaded/biased language. I think I'll use this as an example in my next class (as a good example of biased language).
I'm an Apple fan and thought your post was pretty funny and shouldn't be modded troll.
Oh yes, now I remember! I remember it took like 6 hours to update and authenticate before I could play it. Thanks for the (unpleasant) memory.
I like Steam now...wish they had more demo downloads though.
Or, Steam could tell me that's an option. How in the hell am I supposed to know? I just assumed it wouldn't work without a connection. Call me a cynic.
I was trying to play Half Life 2, from the same people who make Steam, from a CD I bought before there ever was a Steam (on my computer at least, maybe it was out when HL2 came out on day 1, but I can't remember), and Steam wouldn't let me play it offline.
If the dealer gave me an inexpensive seat cushion that fixed the pressure on the left half of the seat, I wouldn't have a problem with it...as long as the car was as kick ass as promised (like CR says about the phone).
They do put out updates a lot though, and they do add server-side events around holidays and other times.
The third expansion is due sometime soon.
Your guess is wrong. I drive a Mazdaspeed 3. Made in Japan (not some Ford clone).
How about their consistent ratings of anything Honda/Toyota over superior engineered German offerings? How about the fact the consistently rate Honda/Toyota with superior long-term reliability on new models that have no long-term history? How about how they fall in love with shitty Honda products because they say Honda and at the same time rip the Isuzu model that is a mechanical clone, just because it says Isuzu?
How about the fact that some people buy a car for things other than mpg, sticker price, stereo quality, cargo space and number of cup holders--all things that CR over-values compared to things that matter to some of us, like acceleration, braking, and handling. It's because of CR's total devaluation for the engineering aspect of vehicle design that America in general loves such shitty cars. Ooh, look 58.7 cu. ft. of trunk storage! So what if it only has 58 hp and take 310 feet to stop from 60-0!
Dear game companies, when you make a game worth paying for, people will stop pirating it.
=
That's just stupid. The playability of a game is dictated by its cost? A game is more or less fun depending on if it costs $60 or $30?
You'd play a pirated version of a $60 game that wasn't worth paying for? If it wasn't worth paying for, then why would you waste your time playing it in the first place???
Actually, I wouldn't feel that bad if I were to get the PC version off of a torrent, because I already own the PS3 version. Not saying it's right, just feels less wrong.
As usual, he should look at what Valve is doing. They are doing it (mostly) right, and always have.
Ironically enough, when my internet went out last week, I was unable to play Half Life 2, because it couldn't connect via steam. But I bought the game on cd and installed it from that. I shouldn't have to have a steam check. So if that's "good" drm, I don't want to see bad drm.
If they never finished STALKER, then why would anybody have bought STALKER 2? /rhetorical
The Valve episodic content works (for me) because it is cheap. Maybe prices were higher when they were new, but I just bought episode 1 and 2 for something like $9.99 combined. I'll buy the next one as soon as it comes out.
I think working adults can appreciate episodic content as well, since we don't often have 8 hours blocks we can devote to plowing through a full game.
They can:
1)Decide to pay for it.
2)Decide to pirate it.
(they'll probably take #2)
They can:
2) Decide to pirate it
3) Decide to not play it.
(either one, the company makes no money)
In both cases, a game company makes very little money. The only money they make are from honest people, or people who don't know how to acquire pirated copies.
I think the business logic is, by adding DRM, you theoretically make it harder to pirate, leaving only the following options:
1) Decide to pay for it
3) Decide to not play it
The chances that somebody will pick #1 are now much higher than the other two scenarios. The trick is in balancing how many people you will put off with the DRM scheme and how hard it is to crack. If it's hard to crack, but interferes with legal ownership, that sucks. If it doesn't interfere with legal ownership, but is easy to crack, then there's no point.
Back then, we had to wait a month for a magazine review, and then make a decision to spend our paperboy money on a game. Now, I can get metascores for any game on any platform ever, which lowers the likelihood of wasting money on a bad game.
Why is it that none of these solutions involve making a product that people are happy/willing to pay for to begin with?
Because there is a douchy segment of society who have terabytes of cracked/pirated software that they'll never use anyway.
There have only been two expansion packs for WoW in six years. It's not like they are cranking out "a couple more new ones each year to stay current".
All software ships with bugs. The question is how severe are they? In 25 years of gaming, I can't think of a single game I've played that was so bug-riddled that it was unplayable. Wait, never mind, I just remembered ET for the Atari 2600.
$60 is WAY too much for a console game.
That's why I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins now. $19, as opposed to $60 when it came out.
Ah yes, Steam. That program that wouldn't let me play Half-Life 2 when my Internet was out. Mind you, I purchased the CD version, installed it from the CDs, and yet Steam felt compelled to not let me play it because it couldn't verify I owned it over the Internet. So I uninstalled Steam and played Half Life 2.
Stewbacca is my real name.
Who says the primary function of an iPhone is to make calls? I know people who have the phone with no voice plan. I would guess my iPhone gets about 5% use as a phone.
I use the cup holder analogy because its a long running joke with supporters of Consumer Reports. They have actually lambasted cars in the past for their lack of cup holders (sports cars specifically). It's the same thing at work here...Consumer Reports is telling YOU what is important, not letting you decide what you need out of the iPhone.
I can sell a hell of a lot more subscriptions saying what people want to believe as opposed to reality...that's all.
My problem is that they let one issue be a show stopper, when they otherwise like the phone. Maybe that one problem isn't a show stopper for other people, so they shouldn't base their entire "cannot recommend" based on one issue (that is apparently fixable by adding a case, or, as Steve would say, not holding it like that).
How about they say, "this is a great phone, but you may want to take the antenna issue into account when deciding to purchase one or not."