Gamestop offered $5 off pre-ordered Orange boxes. I'm not sure how much Valve was charging for the "orange box" online, but I imagine it was MSRP. Actually, the discount was was Valve's idea, and was on Steam, too. That, and if you pre-order on Steam, you can download the game (encrypted) before it's officially released, so you can save on installation time.
You're completely missing the point, AGAIN. Let me put it in large, bold letters for you:
EVERY TIME A NEW RECORDABLE MEDIA FORMAT HAS SHOWN UP, THEY HAVE FOUGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL.
When cassette tapes showed up on the scene, they didn't like that. When Betamax showed up, they fought that. Neither one introduced widespread copying. So when you said
There was no copy protection on Records, tapes, or even early video cassettes and software. It was not until unauthorized copying and distribution became mainstream that companies felt they needed to add copy protection to their products. I don't know if eliminating unauthorized copying would allow companies to go back to unprotected content or not, but I'm sure they companies would like to be able to remove the cost of added copy protection.
it shows that you're completely uninformed on the subject. They didn't have copy protection 'cause they COULDN'T. Now that they CAN, they DO. Not because of piracy, but because they want to make people pay more than they are now, for the right to do same things you can do now.
Gee Wiz, I almost gave credence to your comments, but then I realized you don't even understand the basics of greed.
Your entire argument was based around the MAFIAA only putting in copy-protection to stop piracy, and stated that they might be willing to remove such restrictions if piracy was eliminated.
The TV, music, and movie industries have shown time and time again that they want to charge you over and over again for the same content. If they remove the copy protection, they couldn't force you to do that.
DRM doesn't exist because of piracy. It exists because of overly greedy corporations that want to sell you the same stuff over and over again. Sadly, when a fake article popped up about the MPAA wanting to charge people for watching movies together on a home theater system, many people fell for it simply because it was close enough to what they've already said to have an air of truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios
Here's a little fact that's become blindingly clear; they don't WANT you to have ANY rights when it comes to their "content (if you can even call it that). They want to be able to make you pay for the content as many times as possible. Heck,/. even linked something recently wherein someone from Sony BMG said that they consider ripping your own CDs stealing.
Face facts: the music and movie industry don't care about you. They care about their own pocket books.
That said, given that the reviewer was focusing on the 360 release, the DRM might have been a bit off-topic. I'm betting he reviewed only the 360 version. Combine the lack of DRM references with mention of upcoming titles like Halo 3 and Mass Effect, both 360-only titles, and I think that it's a safe bet that he never touched the PC version.
Actually, if they used a stock version of DOSBox, it wouldn't have changed a thing; it would have been just as readily available. Instead, they went out of their to add a copy protect system that:
A. Just doesn't work.
and
B. Could potentially be a violation of the GPL.
Well, I COULD buy the 80GB model... OR I could spend less money, sacrifice 20GB which I may or may not need (and can upgrade later if I so choose), and guarantee the best level of backwards compatibility...
The lack of hardware-compatibility isn't exactly the end of the world, but when comparing the 80GB side-by-side with the 60GB, the 60GB wins, by that feature alone.
In order to reduce manufacturing costs, the Emotion Engine (EE) and Graphics Synthesizer (GS) are not included in PAL or South Korean consoles. The new 80 GB model released in North America will also lack hardware support for legacy titles.
The cost of ramping up production of the discontinued GS chip and incorporating it into the design of the PS3 would have been higher than the cost of just keeping the EE/GS chip in the first place. So no, it's not "software assisted", it's straight-up emulation. The only saving grace is that Sony has had a tech-spec document in place since the days of the PS1 that programmers were supposed to abide by if they wanted to ensure that the game would work in future systems. Something like that helps keep out the odd tricks devs pull off for performance reasons that tend to screw with emulation. If M$ had something like that, the 360's backwards compatibility would likely be in a much better state...
Actually, Steam isn't even doing THAT much; it's protecting the DOSBox executable, which you can easily get a non-DRM'd version of. The game executable is DRM-free...
Actually, Valve put a wrappper around the DOSBox executable, making it so that it wouldn't run if Steam wasn't present. Underneath that was an unmodified version of DOSBox, but there's still some users on the DOSBox forums claiming that this still constitutes a "modification" to it, and requires that they release the source to it, as well as the program that "links" to it, aka, STEAM.
Of course, since the senior DOSBox staff seems content with this, it doesn't look like this will come to anything more than a bunch of whiners spamming forums 'cause they think they've been "wronged"...
Well, yeah, they can. That's my point; the data's all there, and nothing's stopping anyone from using a port, or evening replacing the Steam version of DOSBox with the official one. In this particular case, Steam's copy protection as absolutely meaningless, which kinda makes it's inclusion a little silly; prompting possible legal issues on account of protection that doesn't protect anything? Why even bother?
Aye, I've heard the same; which, of course, seems just a tad silly, 'cause I can turn around and download the REAL DOSBox for free, and play without Steam... Or better yet, grab one of the COUNTLESS engine ports/updates for Wolf3d/Doom and play a BETTER version of the games...
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Copying a DVD is a bit different from breaking other forms of DRM, because programs to crack CSS are so common, that many, MANY of the less tech-inclined people out there are aware of programs to do so. CSS is a failure, pure and simple.
Other forms of DRM, however, don't have cracks with NEARLY the same level of public awareness as CSS, so they DO, in fact, deter "casual copying".
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, you mean if we're comparing the latest beta version of Internet Explorer against Firefox, we should compare it to Firefox's latest beta?
Madness!
I choose option 3: fire the crappy band that can only make one good song for every nine bad songs.
No, God hates people who claim that God hates someone.
Er, wait a second...
Actually, you're missing the point. He called all anime "porn" not because it's actually pornographic, but because it's such a popular bandwidth hog.
PC, 360, and PS3, actually.
Oh, please, that game is a TRAVESTY. Any game where Mario can contend with Sonic in the speed department is just plain STUPID.
Never mind; lack of sleep made me mis-read the thread... Carry on.
We're talking about a game where you win by knocking an opponent off of the screen. Dr. Freeman would be an auto-win with the gravity gun.
EVERY TIME A NEW RECORDABLE MEDIA FORMAT HAS SHOWN UP, THEY HAVE FOUGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL.
When cassette tapes showed up on the scene, they didn't like that. When Betamax showed up, they fought that. Neither one introduced widespread copying. So when you said it shows that you're completely uninformed on the subject. They didn't have copy protection 'cause they COULDN'T. Now that they CAN, they DO. Not because of piracy, but because they want to make people pay more than they are now, for the right to do same things you can do now.
Gee Wiz, I almost gave credence to your comments, but then I realized you don't even understand the basics of greed.
Your entire argument was based around the MAFIAA only putting in copy-protection to stop piracy, and stated that they might be willing to remove such restrictions if piracy was eliminated.
The TV, music, and movie industries have shown time and time again that they want to charge you over and over again for the same content. If they remove the copy protection, they couldn't force you to do that.
DRM doesn't exist because of piracy. It exists because of overly greedy corporations that want to sell you the same stuff over and over again. Sadly, when a fake article popped up about the MPAA wanting to charge people for watching movies together on a home theater system, many people fell for it simply because it was close enough to what they've already said to have an air of truth.
Right, because you KNOW that they didn't care...
/. even linked something recently wherein someone from Sony BMG said that they consider ripping your own CDs stealing.
Wait, what's THIS then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios Here's a little fact that's become blindingly clear; they don't WANT you to have ANY rights when it comes to their "content (if you can even call it that). They want to be able to make you pay for the content as many times as possible. Heck,
Face facts: the music and movie industry don't care about you. They care about their own pocket books.
So I shouldn't clear my calendar, then?
Not to mention the fact that they recently made it dirt simple to get into "offline" mode... Even if you ARE connected to the net.
And I'm sure you've been a dutiful fanboi and bought BOTH good games for it, too.
Actually, if they used a stock version of DOSBox, it wouldn't have changed a thing; it would have been just as readily available. Instead, they went out of their to add a copy protect system that:
A. Just doesn't work.
and
B. Could potentially be a violation of the GPL.
Oh, Oblivion? That game where the developers had to put the data on the disc twice, 'cause Blu-Ray's seek times are so damn shitty?
Nice try there, skippy. Try getting in touch with reality next time.
The lack of hardware-compatibility isn't exactly the end of the world, but when comparing the 80GB side-by-side with the 60GB, the 60GB wins, by that feature alone.
And so far as the GS part of the chip... You might want to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3#Remova
Actually, Steam isn't even doing THAT much; it's protecting the DOSBox executable, which you can easily get a non-DRM'd version of. The game executable is DRM-free...
Aye, that it does.
Actually, Valve put a wrappper around the DOSBox executable, making it so that it wouldn't run if Steam wasn't present. Underneath that was an unmodified version of DOSBox, but there's still some users on the DOSBox forums claiming that this still constitutes a "modification" to it, and requires that they release the source to it, as well as the program that "links" to it, aka, STEAM.
Of course, since the senior DOSBox staff seems content with this, it doesn't look like this will come to anything more than a bunch of whiners spamming forums 'cause they think they've been "wronged"...
Well, yeah, they can. That's my point; the data's all there, and nothing's stopping anyone from using a port, or evening replacing the Steam version of DOSBox with the official one. In this particular case, Steam's copy protection as absolutely meaningless, which kinda makes it's inclusion a little silly; prompting possible legal issues on account of protection that doesn't protect anything? Why even bother?
Aye, I've heard the same; which, of course, seems just a tad silly, 'cause I can turn around and download the REAL DOSBox for free, and play without Steam... Or better yet, grab one of the COUNTLESS engine ports/updates for Wolf3d/Doom and play a BETTER version of the games...
Copying a DVD is a bit different from breaking other forms of DRM, because programs to crack CSS are so common, that many, MANY of the less tech-inclined people out there are aware of programs to do so. CSS is a failure, pure and simple.
Other forms of DRM, however, don't have cracks with NEARLY the same level of public awareness as CSS, so they DO, in fact, deter "casual copying".