It makes me puke.... [Archive] - Splash Damage Forums

Sebultura

27th February 2006, 11:08

Yeah, really, 'cause if it's what we'll get, then I'll be really disgusted by future mainstream games...

Concerned quote :
"What developers and publishers need to do is come up with distribution plans and new copy protection plans," he said. "When you see a game that requires you to be online to play, people can't steal that game."

That's the plan for id's upcoming title, "Enemy Territory: Quake Wars," developed in association with longtime partners Activision and Splash Damage Games.

Full article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/videogames/260447_pcgaming.html?source=rss

Strid

27th February 2006, 11:30

???

its a multiplayer only game, that means u need to be online in order to play it...

Joe999

27th February 2006, 11:34

i don't think about that too bad, in QW i have to be online anyway. but that's different to half life 2 which makes me puke. i absolutely don't have to be online for that game, it's only for authentication. so this was the last "steam-powered" game i bought. valve won't get any money from me again.

what concerns me more in that article is "He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay." ... well said, but after i have paid i have no chance to get my money back like e.g. in quake 4. no demo ... that was very wise. i would have never bought the game if i would have played a demo first, Q4 is too boring, i stopped playing it somewhere in the middle, don't even care to continue. i bought it blindfold, i won't do that with the next id game, ET:QW is the exception of course.

back to HL2 ... i've paid and what happened? the messed up copy protection permantently crashed my computer, i could even prove it. money back? no way! they got my money and i got troubles for that. they could have even easily given me the money back and locked the account! but they didn't bother ... neither will i in the future.

Sebultura

27th February 2006, 11:54

And another quote here, by Todd Hollenshead (sorry admins for big messages):

Valve is at the point with Steam where they may not even believe they need or want a publisher for their next game. I'm reasonably certain that Gabe sees Steam as a future primary distribution channel not only for Valve but for their licensees as well. There's a strong case that could be made that companies like Valve, Epic, 3D Realms, and id, among others, no longer even need publishers for PC titles.

Consoles are a different matter for the foreseeable future, but there could be huge changes with the consoles over the next couple of generations. Look at the success of Xbox Live Arcade. Microsoft says it's totally blown away their expectations so far. Personally, I'm not that surprised by it. I mean it's pretty simple: you quickly download a game demo, if you like it, you pay a reasonable amount of money to fairly quickly download the full game and in a few minutes, you're playing it. The day is coming when the majority of game purchases will happen this way.

And full article here:

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=32219

GlobalWar

27th February 2006, 12:03

I really dont mind if they remove the old fashion publisher/distributor. It only costs you money. Steam is not superb at the moment but its a good method of distributing games.

Joe999

27th February 2006, 12:06

i've read that article before. funny thing: you would want to assume that downloaded content is cheaper than retail one which needs cds, booklet, stock space, and of course copy protection which costs money. but this wasn't the case, at least when valve was invovled.

leifhv

27th February 2006, 12:06

Don't use one poor implementation (Steam) to write off the whole concept of online distribution and authentication! It's very much possible to come up with a better system than Steam. In addition I'd like to mention that Steam has performed great for me...I understand that others have had problems but that goes for allmost any complex application and game out there.

Also, arguing against systems like Steam is pretty short sighted IMO...either we come up with something good here or all major games will be released on consoles only in a few years time. The old way of distributing/authenticating PC games will not survive no matter how much you whine and complain about Steam and other online auth. systems.

Enemy Territory 2 (and I'm not talking about ETQW here) on XBox 360 only...?

kamikazee

27th February 2006, 12:27

Enemy Territory 2 (and I'm not talking about ETQW here) on XBox 360 only...?Do you mean RTCW2?
AFAIK there's no "Enemy Territory 1".

leifhv

27th February 2006, 12:51

Do you mean RTCW2? AFAIK there's no "Enemy Territory 1".

No, I'm talking about the unknown game that will come out after ETQW, RTCW2 and <the game ID is working on now>. ID seems to be releasing one game each year now (Doom3 ->2004, Quake 4 ->2005, ETQW->2006, RTCW2->2007?, New IP Game->2008?, ET2->2009?). It doesn't really matter...what matters is solving the PC piracy problem before it's too late.

Joe999

27th February 2006, 13:29

what matters is solving the PC piracy problem before it's too late.

that's an easy one: quality. and with quality i don't mean the graphics.

has anyone ever checked the games lately, especially the EA games? quantity instead of quality.

has anyone ever asked why so many people are playing WoW? and why they are willing to pay 40 euro for a game and 10 euro each month in order to be able to play the game? i do ask that myself as i don't like that kind of games, but my answer is: there's quality behind that.

some companies have seen this and now flood the same market with their low quality trash only to get a piece of the cake.

and as it's mentioned that often: BF2. anyone asked why so many people hate BF2? have you seen the commercials? who gives a $*** if a rocket can fly through an open-door helicopter. where's the quality in that when the gameplay is c***?

RosOne

27th February 2006, 13:48

I really dont mind if they remove the old fashion publisher/distributor. It only costs you money. Steam is not superb at the moment but its a good method of distributing games.

It's a great way to distribute games, but the prices aren't ok. You can't really expect to have the same price tag for a global market. Often smaller prices means more sales since more people buy it. I've bought 3 copies of Painkiller when it came out just to support them and thank them for an incredible price of $6. I don't think buying Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for just $20 was a waste even though I never finished it. Same for Trackmania - $20 + huge free expansion. I wish ET:QW would cost those $30 less than it does.

Sebultura

27th February 2006, 14:19

Dazzamac

27th February 2006, 14:29

You can't have a LAN party every day of the week now can you? I'm lucky if I get one every 2 months. n another note, I've played HL2 whilst on a network that wasn't connected to the internet, its only for verification the first time which I don't see a problem with if you cough up for the game.

leifhv

27th February 2006, 15:11

I'm totally against games that can' t be played without internet connexion.

What if the alternative is that the major games aren't released on the PC at all? Because that's the reality of the situation even if alot of you refuse to see that.

Sebultura

27th February 2006, 15:43

thepiman

27th February 2006, 16:16

Adobe ‘s copy protection software works and allows you to reinstall the program with out contacting them :clap: and also allows you to use the program with out an internet connection. What game developers need to do is steal their idea and have games register with a hard drive serial number. (Allowing the user to uninstall the user to uninstall and reinstall to a different driver if need be) .

Every time I reinstall windows I spend an hour on the phone with Microsoft and others trying to get them to reactivate my cd keys. :banghead: Adobe Photoshop on the other hand checks my hard drive serial number and activates with out a problem.

If game developers used the same technology not only would do away with inserting the CD to play but it would make it harder to crack games.

leifhv

27th February 2006, 17:32

The only reality that I see today is people trying to take us more money everyday by selling worse games & saying that all this is due to piracy. Same shitty arguments as Valve, and as a programmer myself (which is my fulltime job) and on a freedom point of view, I can't accept that.

I you think the games are getting worse you have nothing to worry about...just continue playing your old and good games!

Anyway, you didn't answer my question...choose one:

1. Online authentication of PC games
2. Less (or no) major games released on the PC

?

leifhv

27th February 2006, 17:34

Adobe ‘s copy protection software works and allows you to reinstall the program with out contacting them...

Schemes like this have been used for decades now...it's just not good enough and gets cracked after a few days (or a few hours even).

Lanz

27th February 2006, 18:53

???

its a multiplayer only game, that means u need to be online in order to play it...

Well, multiplayer doesn't mean "online only": what about a simple LAN party with your friends ???

Again, I may repeat myself (and I'm sorry for that, but I need to see the people's reactions, 'cause I don't find it acceptable) I'm totally against games that can' t be played without internet connexion.

This is nothing new, id has used this method since the release of Q3 and it haven't stoped you from arranging a LAN party in any way. You set up the server for LAN and start playing.

kamikazee

27th February 2006, 18:57

All things can be cracked given enough time and resources.
I'd rather have it like RTCW did it: validate the key online. Of course, there's a small chance to generate a valid key and a larger chance that someone copies your cd key. Still, this seems fair as you could host a local server without an internet connection, but not play the game online with 2 same keys.

baff

27th February 2006, 20:21

For online distribution systems I am a big fan of of Direct2Drive.
You need a new email address for each copy you wish to download which is a pain, but otherwise it works fine. Once you have paid for it, you can re download it as often as you like.

Anti piracy for these kinds of games is easier as it includes no cd checker nonsense.

I can and often do have a LAN party everyday. Games with online key checkers are inherantly less value than others without as I must then buy a seperate copy for each terminal.
Spawn copies for LAN as you used to see in the Delta Force, Rainbow six or Diablo series games for example are much better. Games that provide more than one CD key per box (such as City of Heroes) are also well recieved.
The thought of having to buy 6-8 copies to play over LAN (Steam stylee) is financially off putting to say the least. And even having to buy 6-8 copies to play online still isn't a purchase to be considered in any way lightly.

I have had less technical problems with online key checking than I have with softwares such as Securerom, which frequently block me from playing my legally owned games.
In the end my gut feeling towards Anti Piracy is that it's sole purpose is to force me to buy extra copies of the game.
I usually require pirated versions to make it playable anyway. From now on if the AP forces me to uses cracks or workarounds I shall be returning the games. enough is enough.
The idea of paying to use pirate software is a little too rich.

Dazzamac

27th February 2006, 21:35

I believe we've been over the point of buying multiple copies before. By law, if you have friends round and install the games on their machines you need a multi user license for the game. I assume direct2Drive don't intend the multiple downloads for multiple users. Therefore installing the game on multiple machines without paying for the multiple installs is piracy. So yes in your case, anti-piracy is there to make you buy extra copies of the game, In everyone elses case its to ensure they buy the game in the first place instead of freeloading it off someone else.

27th February 2006, 22:34

I hope "id" strays away from any similarity to 'Steam', because 'Steam' is annoying and downright annoyingly annoying. :bash:

-I am all for the copyright protection in every facit.

SniperSteve

28th February 2006, 00:13

I do not use Steam. I Hate Steam.

I Do not own/use HL or HL2 or any of the Steam Games/Mods.

This is all because I hate steam. I want to put in my stinking CD, (If I have to) hit my desktop icon, and have the game launch. If they want to have a login think like BF2 does, thats not soo bad. But having this other crappy program running in the background just annoying me to death for no good reason is uncool.

This is why I will never buy a steam game untill I have no other choice, and then I will be forced to hack the software so I can run the game without steam. So yeah, Steam can die in fire.

/end rant.

Oh yes I also am for copywright protection, find some other more efficent way to do it that doesn't sit there and annoy me, and I'm all for it. :D

SCDS_reyalP

28th February 2006, 00:36

AFIAK, previous id games default to allowing you to play if the server can't contact the CD key auth server. That means (among other things) you can play on LANs that can't access the internet. Of course, there is not guarantee that ET:QW will do the same, but it is a logical solution. It still prevents large scale piracy, because the vast majority of internet servers will be in touch with the master.

IMO, online distribution is the only thing that makes sense for PC games, and using online accounts is one of the few forms of copy protection that can actually work.

Just because steam sucks doesn't mean the whole idea sucks.

baff

28th February 2006, 03:30

believe we've been over the point of buying multiple copies before. By law, if you have friends round and install the games on their machines you need a multi user license for the game. I assume direct2Drive don't intend the multiple downloads for multiple users. Therefore installing the game on multiple machines without paying for the multiple installs is piracy. So yes in your case, anti-piracy is there to make you buy extra copies of the game, In everyone elses case its to ensure they buy the game in the first place instead of freeloading it off someone else.

_________________

For what it's worth my friends don't bring their PC's round, I have enough to go round.
The software I buy is for my own personal use.
I do not distribute copies to other people.

Nice of you to assume I am a software pirate though. Says more about you than it does me I believe

I kind of feel much like Sniper Steve the concept of copywright protection is good as long as it doesn't annoy me. Find a good way of doing it and I'm up for it too.

Nail

28th February 2006, 04:10

IMO, online distribution is the only thing that makes sense for PC games, and using online accounts is one of the few forms of copy protection that can actually work..

This seems to be Microsofts plan for the future, Bill Gates has said for a while online distribution, with client and server side software is the way they're headed. All programs run on servers and people have a client interface for them, I'm pretty sure Adobe et all will follow suit

Joe999

28th February 2006, 06:13

For what it's worth my friends don't bring their PC's round, I have enough to go round.
The software I buy is for my own personal use.
I do not distribute copies to other people.

you aren't allowed to do that either. you can install it on one pc at a time and you alone can play it there. but in the case that your friends come by and you all play then the situation is different. then it's no longer for your own personal use. theoretically you need to buy licenses for all your friends. so in that case: yes, what you're doing is piracy :D

i bet it's somewhere in the disclaimer. anyone read the half life 2 disclaimer? i did, the only thing i missed was "your soul belongs to us". they even write that i'm not allowed to sell the game to a friend. erm ... what if i don't like it? there was no demo ... lol?

i add one to piracy: guess what all the germans do when they are forced to see green blood and disabled ragdoll physics ...

baff

28th February 2006, 13:18

you aren't allowed to do that either. you can install it on one pc at a time and you alone can play it there.

Er righto, so you think it is illegal for someone else to use windows on your computer?

Show me the law.

i bet it's somewhere in the disclaimer

What disclaimer? They haven't even made the game.

Creating a copy and selling it. This is the act most people refer to as software piracy. This is copyright infringement in most countries and is unlikely to be fair use or fair dealing if the work remains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy

Piracy is distributing software illegally.

Allowing a friend to use your computer is not distributing software.

"do you mind if I use your computer to checkout ebay?"
"hang on I just need to buy a new lisence for Windows for you."

really.

NB

If you own a software, you may install it on as many machines as you wish for your own personal use.
You may not, install it on someone elses computer. You may not copy and sell it. You may not copy and rent it out. You may not copy and give it away.

Ownership of a computer is not defined by who is currently operating it.
In the case of friends using your computer, the computer and all the software on it, still belongs to you.

If you lisence a software you may use that software as per the lisence agreement. Remembering that Fair use laws still apply and supercede any lisence agreement.
Lisencing a software is not the same as buying a software. I have never heard of anyone lisencing a computer game. (Maybe rental companies?)
In order to lisence a software an agreement must be signed between the two parties, before the bill of sale.

Clicking I agree halfway through an installation of a game you already own, is not lisencing a software. (Fair Use laws for those in the U.S., The unfair Contract Act for those in the EU).

Unsurprsingly playing Halflife 2 does not mean that Valve owns everything except your soul. And you are allowed to sell the game.

Reselling the original software.
Licenses often say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition.

leifhv

28th February 2006, 14:09

Piracy is distributing software illegally.

Allowing a friend to use your computer is not distributing software.

Well, noboyd said it was. What is not allowed is to buy one copy of a game, install it on 100 computers and let 99 of your friends play it at the same time as you. Who owns the computer if of no consequence. If your going to arrange a LAN and own 10 computers you'll most likely have to buy 10 copies of the game (depending on the licence of course...some games might allow simultanous use but most don't afaik).

You can whine and stamp your foot all you want but online authentication is the furture for PC games, and if it in any way can hinder games piracy I welcome it...and so should you unless consoles are your preferred plattform.

Whats much worse is that there are people out there that wants hardware DRM on the PC plattform which _might_ in effect turn the PC into a glorified console where you need to have every application signed by MS/Intel before it will run. This should give us pretty good protection against piracy but would also kill 'hobby'/Open source/small scale development.

28th February 2006, 14:31

http://enemy-territory.4players.de:1041/modules/Forums/images/smiles/popcorn2.gif

Joe999

28th February 2006, 14:51

If you own a software, you may install it on as many machines as you wish for your own personal use.

not really. best example: windows. or why do you think the license is bound to the hardware so that you have to activate it on every machine?

say, do you have a licensed copy for each of your machines?

according to what you write i think: no. :D

and you can dream of whatever you want. you aren't allowed to let your friends play the games for which you paid only one license.

and besides: EB, this icon is awesome. short and it says it all :)

baff

28th February 2006, 17:14

my windows is not hardware bound.

i have made no lisence agreement with microsoft, and neither have you.

I've pointed you in the direction of the relevant laws in your country.
The rest is up to you. If you wish to continue to be a "consumer victim" thats your affair.

baff

28th February 2006, 17:24

What is not allowed is to buy one copy of a game, install it on 100 computers and let 99 of your friends play it at the same time as you. Who owns the computer if of no consequence. If your going to arrange a LAN and own 10 computers you'll most likely have to buy 10 copies of the game (depending on the licence of course...some games might allow simultanous use but most don't afaik

please Re-read

In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses,

there is no lisence agreement.

In the EU? please refer to the Unfair Contract Act

clicking "I agree" to a EULA agreement is not the same thing as lisencing a software.

a lisencing agreement is made between two parties in person before any bill of sale.

Dazzamac

28th February 2006, 17:26

Technically you are wrong. It is a licence agreement. You buy a peice of software you are buying the licence to use it. I will not speak further on this as it is more fun to do this :banghead:

leifhv

28th February 2006, 17:38

baff

28th February 2006, 17:45

In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses,

How many times do you need to read this to understand it Dazz? I don't make the laws, games manufacturers don't make the laws. You don't make the laws. Congress and Parliaments make the laws.

This is the law. Denying it won't make it go away.

@ lief my point is the same as others in this thread, I don't want any kind of software protection that interferes with my usage of a game.
in order for this to be a better product, I have identified some of the more frequent problems that I hope can be avoided and offered practical workarounds that have been successful with other titles in the past.

FYI Where I come from the PC game market isn't in any trouble. It is a growth industry. Year upon year. But I suppose you will dispute that too, rather than actually looking it up. You mind seems especially resistant to gaining knowledge.

Nail

28th February 2006, 18:04

Short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes (e.g., most EULA’s of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else).

Not every EULA is the same. Some contracts stipulate acceptance of the agreement simply by opening the shrink-wrapped package; some require the user to mail back to the manufacturer a signed agreement or acceptance card; some require the user to accept the agreement after the application is installed by clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user’s monitor.

:|

Joe999

28th February 2006, 19:57

lol baff, weren't you the one who insisted so much on bots in QW? this brings up a whole new light on the thing. you want bots so that you and your friends can play the game locally while you only pay the price of one single license.

and please, don't tell me you would buy the game for every computer you have.

baff

28th February 2006, 20:21

Some contracts stipulate acceptance of the agreement simply by opening the shrink-wrapped package; some require the user to mail back to the manufacturer a signed agreement or acceptance card; some require the user to accept the agreement after the application is installed by clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user’s monitor.

But the only one that is legally binding is the one that you agree to before you hand over your money.

A contract enacted after the bill of sale is considered to be under "duress".
You are not agreeing to it out of deliberation but merely because you have to in order to get your legally owned product to function.

This is covered in the EU by The Unfair Contract Act 1977 and 1999 regulations.

A contract my "stipulate" what it likes, but anything it stipulates beyond the law is not binding.
This does not mean all subjects covered by a EULA are not legally binding.

Lets use your example.
(e.g., most EULA’s of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else

This is legally binding, not because you clicked "I agree" or opened the shrink wrap, but because it is international Copywright Law. regardless of any EULA it is illegal to do this with a copywright protected software.

baff

28th February 2006, 20:22

@ joe that's exactly why I want bots.

I have numerous copies of several games for my LAN, Ravenshield 5, Hidden and Dangerous2 6 and Battlefield2 5 and Joint operations 2, Planetside 6, City of Heroes 4, and WOW 3 for example.

I have to say, this really bites, as mentioned in my above posts this is new element in games purchsing that wasn't always the case. Older games specifically catered to my needs by providing "Spawn" games. And certain recent game manufacturers (notably Ascarion) have gone as far as to patch the games to enable Lan play from one disc on request by their customers. It's a question of value for money and customer satisfaction in my eyes. I buy games. I have money. Who wants it?

Ravenshield and Hidden and Dangerous 2 failed to work. With Ravenshield the cd key checker was unable to work with a NAT. And with Hidden And Dangerous 2 the game did not route nicely.

In these 2 cases having spent an outlay of over a hundred pounds I was very irked that the games did not function nicely. It might not surprise you that I now alert manufacturers of games I wish to play to these issues well in advance of their release.

The next purchase for me is Red Orchestra another online WW2 shooter. This game includes bots and is available for only $25 next month through Steam. I think it's like a realism/simulation version of ET with decent graphics. This will be my first outting with Steam, and I am intrested to see what problems it will bring.
I will at least buy 1 copy of this game for the bots. If the online is any good, I may buy more.

Obviously I would much prefer it if the game worked online without a CD key like my last purchase "The Regiment" a week ago. This is a much better value purchase as all of my computers are able to play online at the same time for £18 and instead of £146 and I recommend it highly as a worthwhile budget title.

Value for money is a factor in my purchasing decisions. The sums are pretty large and I cannot afford not to take it seriously.

In all honesty you are right, after BF2, I will not be buying one copy of this game for each of my PC's. I'm not that excited by it. I would definitely buy at least one, if it had bots. I have mentally booked myself in for an addiction to Huxley roundabout the same time as this game releases. I don't guarentee buying it all.

SniperSteve

28th February 2006, 20:38

Call me old fashioned, but I like to have something physical when I buy a game.

For example: I bought FarCry Online at D2D but It's going to be a pain to find my login onfo, then DL the thing all over again and figure out what the CD key is. If its even possible to do. (I'm sure it is) But when I go to my local BestBuy and pick up a game there, its something I can feel and look at, its physical and I enjoy buying something physical over something virtual. And then I dont need to worry about passwords and customer support, I pull out my game box pop in the CD/DVD and away I go.

Online purchasing for software is cool, and if you need it right away, its a great idea, but I still prefer going out and returning with my game box. :D
And you know how many people have lan parties and share software there. Allot heh. :P Though, I still buy my own software, and dont let my friends use mine. Having a master server is really all you need IMO, It doesn't help for lan parties, but it does for pubbing, and thats really the main thing.