I played the Age of Conan (AoC) technical beta tests. They sucked. I lost all faith in the game. I understand that technical beta tests are not for my enjoyment. I understand beta testing. I submitted the information they requested for feedback. I still lost all interest in the game. There wasn't even a sliver of hope that the game would be enjoyable in the long run and would most likely crash horribly at launch.
The game hasn't officially launched, but open beta ended successfully from all accounts, aside from obvious FFA PvP server rules. Now, the early access period is in full swing and going well. Supposedly a Miracle Patch occurred between the late stages of beta and the live version of AoC.
Of course, I'm not playing and didn't play in open beta, so I can't really confirm or deny it. However, over a decade of online gaming has taught me that Mircale Patches do not exist. If Funcom pulled something off that fixed the majority of crashes that plagued beta, all while adding the entirety of their high level content in a bug-free way, and without so much as a bleep as to why it took so long, then I will simply eat crow and silence myself.
But I'll wait for the "real" launch and subsequent launch reviews to occur before I make any official calls. Regardless, I'm not starting at level one again for the promise of end-game PvP anytime soon. Either a game gives me what I want from the start or I'm voting a big zero dollars down.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Failure To Understand DRM
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices.
A World of Warcraft account is NOT DRM. Tobold argues otherwise, but fails to use harsh language. An account to an online game is simply a means of accessing a service. When a player decides to play an MMO they do so fully understanding they are purchasing access to a service. If they don't, they should quickly learn.
An MMO, without DRM, can be pirated. Illegal servers can be brought up to provide the service portion "for free". Someone, who has stolen the game, could then easily log onto the illegal server and play. Requiring an account for the official service does not in any way stop piracy of an MMO and therefore the account CAN NOT be considered a form of DRM.
DRM, if it exists for an MMO, would be placed on top of the requirement to have an account to access the official service. For example: the game requires having the physical media in a drive while playing, or non-account-related authentication of the files installed on the computer. This is why I've commented before that online, subscription-based games somewhat defeat piracy in the first place by selling a SERVICE, not a "pile of code".
It is not a lack of understanding about DRM. It is an unwillingness to spend money, in essence voting, for a "pile of code" that is reliant upon a remote source for local authentication before it will run. It is complete bullshit and I will continue the harsh language and posture towards it until I see fit that it is not a detriment to LEGITIMATE purchasers.
In the case of Spore, where access to online content is a feature, the tried and true system of having an account to access the online service is the perfect solution. One purchase = one access key = money earned by EA/Maxis. I don't see how they would even think of using another system, especially with their plans to rank content and allow players to vote for their favorites. Mark my words: there will be some sort of control, outside of the DRM, to access online content. Therefore, the DRM is serving a POINTLESS role while accessing online content.
The accounts system is not perfect. Accounts can be shared, stolen, etc. etc. However, it ensures at some point that a copy was purchased and that players looking to play legitimately. Plus, with current technology, it is not difficult to sniff out and stomp out shared accounts. Sure, it takes effort, but so does maintaining an authentication server for years. Not to mention the ass whooping customer service will receive if that authentication server goes tits up on launch day.
This leaves only the initial installation DRM, which will be cracked within days of release. Personally, I have no problem with installation DRM that authenticates remotely or does some magic to ensure I have purchased a legitimate copy. Steam is a great example of properly implemented and friendly DRM, coupled with an account system to manage access to the digital distribution service.
DRM can exist peacefully, but it is obvious that is not the goal for EA. EA is trying very hard to present a show of force against the evil pirates. Unfortunately, it is resulting in further alienation of an already alienated PC gaming playerbase.
NOTES for Tobold: I do not play MMOs all the time. I play games all the time, MMOs some of that time. I just talk about MMOs more.
Spore can be installed three times total. Good luck having it installed on multiple machines for any length of time.
A World of Warcraft account is NOT DRM. Tobold argues otherwise, but fails to use harsh language. An account to an online game is simply a means of accessing a service. When a player decides to play an MMO they do so fully understanding they are purchasing access to a service. If they don't, they should quickly learn.
An MMO, without DRM, can be pirated. Illegal servers can be brought up to provide the service portion "for free". Someone, who has stolen the game, could then easily log onto the illegal server and play. Requiring an account for the official service does not in any way stop piracy of an MMO and therefore the account CAN NOT be considered a form of DRM.
DRM, if it exists for an MMO, would be placed on top of the requirement to have an account to access the official service. For example: the game requires having the physical media in a drive while playing, or non-account-related authentication of the files installed on the computer. This is why I've commented before that online, subscription-based games somewhat defeat piracy in the first place by selling a SERVICE, not a "pile of code".
It is not a lack of understanding about DRM. It is an unwillingness to spend money, in essence voting, for a "pile of code" that is reliant upon a remote source for local authentication before it will run. It is complete bullshit and I will continue the harsh language and posture towards it until I see fit that it is not a detriment to LEGITIMATE purchasers.
In the case of Spore, where access to online content is a feature, the tried and true system of having an account to access the online service is the perfect solution. One purchase = one access key = money earned by EA/Maxis. I don't see how they would even think of using another system, especially with their plans to rank content and allow players to vote for their favorites. Mark my words: there will be some sort of control, outside of the DRM, to access online content. Therefore, the DRM is serving a POINTLESS role while accessing online content.
The accounts system is not perfect. Accounts can be shared, stolen, etc. etc. However, it ensures at some point that a copy was purchased and that players looking to play legitimately. Plus, with current technology, it is not difficult to sniff out and stomp out shared accounts. Sure, it takes effort, but so does maintaining an authentication server for years. Not to mention the ass whooping customer service will receive if that authentication server goes tits up on launch day.
This leaves only the initial installation DRM, which will be cracked within days of release. Personally, I have no problem with installation DRM that authenticates remotely or does some magic to ensure I have purchased a legitimate copy. Steam is a great example of properly implemented and friendly DRM, coupled with an account system to manage access to the digital distribution service.
DRM can exist peacefully, but it is obvious that is not the goal for EA. EA is trying very hard to present a show of force against the evil pirates. Unfortunately, it is resulting in further alienation of an already alienated PC gaming playerbase.
NOTES for Tobold: I do not play MMOs all the time. I play games all the time, MMOs some of that time. I just talk about MMOs more.
Spore can be installed three times total. Good luck having it installed on multiple machines for any length of time.
Tags:
DRM,
EA,
Gaming News,
Gaming Opinion,
Spore,
Steam
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Fuck, Fuck, Fuck
I've talked up Spore around the Internet as possibly one of the most defining games of all time for the PC. My bravado for the game has taken a -50 DKP hit today with the following announcement:
My stance on Spore, as a game, is taking a sudden back seat to this DRM issue. I will most likely NOT BUY the game if this DRM makes it through to the final release and there are no alternative ways, such as Steam, to purchase the game.
So, as my title states, fuck.
All it’s taken is one little post and a landslide of others follow. At least that’s what’s happened when Bioware’s Derek French reveals that Mass Effect and Spore will be coming with a fairly hefty piece of DRM attached. It won’t just activate online when you first install the game - it’ll also have to check in to the server regularly to continue working. If ten days go by without a check-in working, the game stops working. In other words, major lengthy internet outage, no playage. Since RPS-comrade Rossignol is going to be having that kinda length of time offline shortly, this has to be frowned at.DRM kills games for me. I have avoided weighty DRM, and promoted avoiding it, for a long time. I simply refuse to buy games tied down by DRM. What the fuck is EA thinking? DRM that checks in repeatedly, not just upon installation?
My stance on Spore, as a game, is taking a sudden back seat to this DRM issue. I will most likely NOT BUY the game if this DRM makes it through to the final release and there are no alternative ways, such as Steam, to purchase the game.
So, as my title states, fuck.
Tags:
DRM,
EA,
Gaming News,
Gaming Opinion,
Mass Effect,
Spore,
Steam
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Making Assumptions Makes You an Ass
TG Daily has an article up detailing billions of dollars in lost revenue for Epic and Crytek due to the pirating of their games.
The fact of the matter is, that it has NEVER and WILL NEVER be shown that people who steal a copy of a game (referred to as pirating in the article) are willing to pay for it in the first place.
Unfortunately, the truth for both Epic and Crytek, is that they built games far above the power curve. The paying consumer base voted with their wallets and told Epic and Crytek that no, we don't like paying $1,000 for PC upgrades just to play your games. Sadly, they then assumed everyone that stole a copy (not pirated) would of been glad to pony up $60 and now we're here.
What's truly sad is that both games, Crysis and UT3, actually did end up selling above average for each company after slow starts, but since they jumped on the OMGZ pirateZ train early, they can't simply jump off now without looking the part of an ass.
I can't wait for Epic and Crytek to become console exclusive and suddenly realize that when they make a shitty game, no one buys it and no one steals it, which means no one plays it, no one talks about it, and it becomes another $10 wonder in the bargain bin of GameStop.
This statement confirms the attitude a lot of game developers discussed earlier this year at the 2008 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, CA. We spoke with Mark Rein, VP of Epic Games, and learned that the Unreal Tournament 3 servers received over 40 million attempts at illegitimate access using pirate keys. That number is huge, and the real magnitude comes when you calculate the retail price of $49.99 (59.99 for Collector's Edition).This is almost as fun as saying World of Warcraft has 10 million subscribers, so 10 million x $15 a month = $150,000,000 a month in revenue! It is just simply wrong, just like saying that 40 million attempts to join an Unreal Tournament III server with a pirated key is equal to $2 billion dollars in lost revenue. Yippee for broad assumptions!
If those 40 million players actually paid the full price, it would have been nearly $2 billion more in Epic’s pocket book. That is more than the quarterly sales results from Nvidia or AMD. To add another perspective, the government lost out as well, because no sales tax is earned on pirated copies.
The fact of the matter is, that it has NEVER and WILL NEVER be shown that people who steal a copy of a game (referred to as pirating in the article) are willing to pay for it in the first place.
Unfortunately, the truth for both Epic and Crytek, is that they built games far above the power curve. The paying consumer base voted with their wallets and told Epic and Crytek that no, we don't like paying $1,000 for PC upgrades just to play your games. Sadly, they then assumed everyone that stole a copy (not pirated) would of been glad to pony up $60 and now we're here.
What's truly sad is that both games, Crysis and UT3, actually did end up selling above average for each company after slow starts, but since they jumped on the OMGZ pirateZ train early, they can't simply jump off now without looking the part of an ass.
I can't wait for Epic and Crytek to become console exclusive and suddenly realize that when they make a shitty game, no one buys it and no one steals it, which means no one plays it, no one talks about it, and it becomes another $10 wonder in the bargain bin of GameStop.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Battlefield Heroes Beta Sign-ups Soon
Battlefield Heroes, a free-to-play WWII shooter due out later this year, will soon be opening its doors for beta.
Battlefield Heroes is one of those titles that easily crosses a few genres. There's no question, however, that the game has a good chunk of free-to-play MMO shoved within its most gooiest bits.Just for history's sake, this will most likely be the third Battlefield game I will play. What's funny about that is the fact that I skip every other one. I played Battlefield 1942, skipped Battlefield Vietnam, played Battlefield 2, skipped Battlefield 2142, and will probably be playing Battlefield Heroes.
Eurogamer has the news that sign-ups will be handled over on the official website on May 6th for anyone interested in playing this quirky-go-lucky online shooter. If you somehow haven't seen this inspiring trailer, you really need to check it out. The character screen features plenty of hard-points for character clothing options and the required level/experience-to-next-level indicator that completes the MMO addiction trifecta.
It goes without saying that we'll be tossing our hats into the beta ring. The gameplay looks exactly how you would imagine a WWII-cartoon-styled persistent online first person shooter -- or WW2CSPOFPS if you love acronyms -- would look like; strangely awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)