BioShock in for a bumpy release

Looks like Cult Of Rapture provided an update:

They're working on the WS FOV issue.

They've changed the number of simultaneous installs from 2 to 5.

Working with SecuRom to address resolving issues quicker.

Providing a "revoke" tool that will allow a given key to become available for usage again.
 
I was considering Bioshock because of the great reviews.

However, because of the activation limit (don't care if its 2 or 20) and the questionable widescreen implementation, I will not ever buy Bioshock. This is not the first game I would not buy because of excessive copy protection -- probably not the last.

My next new title is "Two Worlds" medieval type crpg -- on preorder. Liked the demo a lot -- we'll see about the whole game :question:
 
It seems that the activation server is down again, so people who bought the game and need to register it can't do so and can't actually play the game.
 
Pope Viper said:
Perhaps, I'm just a little fed up with the thought that the developer should have everything fixed within 1.5-2 days.
Click to expand...

I agree on this. The developers should have everything fixed before the game hits the streets. I know that's a tall order in PC Gaming Land, but they should give it their best shot. The only thing that's worse than sloppy developers/publishers are the people that are OK with it.

(The only thing that's worse than that are the people that buy the hype. When a game scores 100% or 10/10 in reviews, the bullshit alarm should be going off in your head.)

Almost everything I've heard about this game can be summed up in one word: Deception. It's scary, and it reminds you of System Shock 2. Those facts are true, and barely little else.
 
Allen63 said:
However, because of the activation limit (don't care if its 2 or 20) and the questionable widescreen implementation, I will not ever buy Bioshock. This is not the first game I would not buy because of excessive copy protection -- probably not the last.
Click to expand...

I wish more people would do like you. All they seem to do is furiously complain and cry... yet they buy the product and support the company. Exactly same will happen in the Fallout fanbase too when F3 hits the shelves and Bethesda will not learn.

All kind of an limits and Internet access required for activations or downloading half of the content (like in Half-Life 2) in single player games makes me sick. Luckily they don't make good games anymore nowdays so I don't have to worry about that! :D

I was looking forward this game as it was hyped as successor for System Shock 2. However it seems it is just an another console FPS game. No thanks. Buying it of course advocates for doing more joint developed PC/console games.
 
gah i'm not buying the game anymore thanks to the 5 activation limit first and securom . its like it has an expiring date :(

i will either buy the 360 version and play it at a friends or just wait for him to buy it wait some more and after he's finnished play it ... i'm really pissed about this...

i hope a patch comes out removing the activation limit alltogether so i can actually buy the PC version ...
 
Meh said:
Allen63 said:
However, because of the activation limit (don't care if its 2 or 20) and the questionable widescreen implementation, I will not ever buy Bioshock. This is not the first game I would not buy because of excessive copy protection -- probably not the last.
Click to expand...

I wish more people would do like you. All they seem to do is furiously complain and cry... yet they buy the product and support the company. Exactly same will happen in the Fallout fanbase too when F3 hits the shelves and Bethesda will not learn.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the main problem - a lot of gamers are addicts and it's unthinkable for them to not buy a game.
If more people would take responsibility, the DRM would stop exist long ago.
 
i just got my copy now :mrgreen:
i had to search everywhere for it, anyone else have trouble finding it on release day? PC World didn't have it(anywhere in yorkshire apparantly), WH Smiths didn't have it, Game had it of course but it was like the last one.

all this activation stuff is bollocks, they keep testing and trying all this stuff and using gamers as lab mice. the fact is there are enough smart people in the world to crack ANYTHING they come up with, penalising people who go out and buy the thng just pisses everyone off.

oh lastly, 10/10? 100/100? no game deserves that, aren't there any journalists left that will give games a fair and proportionate guess. because at the end of the day it is just a guess.
 
:shrug:

If you use more than 5 activations, you probably are pirating or lending the game to several of your friends. But hell, it's your choice not to buy the product. While 100/100 is botched, the game is relatively a 100/100 due to other shit-tastic games like Oblivion getting 95/100.
 
Makagulfazel said:
:shrug:

If you use more than 5 activations, you probably are pirating or lending the game to several of your friends.
Click to expand...
Nah, activations aren't needed for pirating, because one uses torrents for pirating - lending isn't an option too, because of torrents.
People used more activations because of reinstalls, reinstalls of system, etc.

The truth is that they can't do anything to stop pirates. The main problem is that they can't accept it, but feel a weird compulsion to "protect" their games, which is irrational in itself because pirates crack games anyway.
That compulsion is a lot more important to them than honest people that actually buy their games.
 
Makagulfazel said:
While 100/100 is botched, the game is relatively a 100/100 due to other shit-tastic games like Oblivion getting 95/100.
Click to expand...

spot on but, if the baseline for big budget games is 90, then why not have /10. i usually ignore the score because they are like, ok so we are getting xx,000 for writing about it, so thats 80, the graphics are good so thats +15, hey i like the way the water is cool +5. well ok maybe they aren't that dumb :P

and after my last post i really did go away and play it for 2 hours, and now im back.. i actually made the decision that i have better things to do, not a good sign by any length. its a pretty good game, they did a great job, but, i feel like i was expecting more somehow.
 
Sander said:
Yes, that's it. You have no reason to feel burned whatsoever. It says very clearly, everywhere, *requires* Shader Model 3.0. If you don't have that, then you can't run that. It's your own fault, and not 2K's in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No, I have every reason to feel burned. Whenever I bought a game it ran, ether it ran choppy or it looked ugly, or it hardly ran at all. If my system did not meet the specs it requires.

At no time have I ever seen a game which did not give me a software mode or some sort of comprimise for such a thing like a missing pixel shader component. This is the developers being just lazy. Or meeting a deadline and not attempting to cover all bases.

And NO it does not say one damn thing about pixel shader 3.0 on the box. I dunno what your version of everywhere is, but its definitly not infront of anything I could see.

I never felt I needed to do any fact checking online. Nor did I need to even read the box. Even when I did rea d the box which ONLY says this for the graphics card requirements:

Minimum: yadda yadda: Video Card: Direct X 9.0c complient videocard with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATIX1550

Ok so reading that, that means to me: hmm I got DX9 just fine, but my cards a little older. its prolly gonna not be so pretty running on my machine.

It did not say on the box Unless your card supports Pixel shader 3.0 your totally fucked. If that were more of a prudent requirement listing. Then I'd maybe give them credit here. But it did not, did it? It may have said it somewhere in a forum or somewhere in a listing. But again it boils down to the idea "ohh my system will run it it just will not look as pretty as they intended." As was my thinking.
 
Installed and played the demo. On my way underwater i got a BSOD! I downloaded the Nvidia beta driver 163, and everything worked great. The demo was pretty cool. I still dont know if I'm about to jump up and down at the moment but it looks pretty cool so far.
 
[smug talk]

Well considering I didn't bother and walked past the PC shelves and bought it on Xbox360, this game has run perfectly, with very little framerate issues and the like...

Makes me glad Ibought it :D

[/smug talk]
 
Zero Pike said:
No, I have every reason to feel burned. Whenever I bought a game it ran, ether it ran choppy or it looked ugly, or it hardly ran at all. If my system did not meet the specs it requires.

At no time have I ever seen a game which did not give me a software mode or some sort of comprimise for such a thing like a missing pixel shader component.
Click to expand...
Since 1996 or so I've seen that constantly. Software mode has been non-existent for the past, well, almost a decade now.
The difference for you is that in this case, you get burned by it.
Zero Pike said:
This is the developers being just lazy. Or meeting a deadline and not attempting to cover all bases.
Click to expand...
Horseshit. They decided to develop, from the beginning, for SM 3.0. SM 3.0 is *not* backwards compatible. And frankly, the reason they're not making it backwards compatible is that most cards that cannot run SM 3.0 aren't powerful enough to properly run Bioshock anyway.
Shader Model 3.0 means they get to use vertices to a much greater degree, which can be a humongous advantage. But when they decide to fully utilise that, they cannot support SM2.0 at the same time, without spending a very large amount of time on it, even though only a small percentage of people will actually be using SM2.0.
They could've chosen to stick with SM2.0, but then everyone else would've gone 'Why didn't they go with SM3.0?? Those bastards!'
They chose one way, they clearly told you, but you failed to pick up on it due to your *own* ignorance. You simply can't rightfully fault them for that.
Zero Pixer said:
And NO it does not say one damn thing about pixel shader 3.0 on the box. I dunno what your version of everywhere is, but its definitly not infront of anything I could see.
I never felt I needed to do any fact checking online. Nor did I need to even read the box. Even when I did rea d the box which ONLY says this for the graphics card requirements:

Minimum: yadda yadda: Video Card: Direct X 9.0c complient videocard with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATIX1550

Ok so reading that, that means to me: hmm I got DX9 just fine, but my cards a little older. its prolly gonna not be so pretty running on my machine.

It did not say on the box Unless your card supports Pixel shader 3.0 your totally fucked. If that were more of a prudent requirement listing. Then I'd maybe give them credit here. But it did not, did it? It may have said it somewhere in a forum or somewhere in a listing. But again it boils down to the idea "ohh my system will run it it just will not look as pretty as they intended." As was my thinking.
Click to expand...
Directx 9.0c *compatible* means that it must support SM3.0. NVidia did this from the 6600 series onward, ATI from the X1300 series onward. You did not meet the *required* system specs, took the risk of buying the game anyway and then complained when it didn't work. There's a reason those minimum system requirements exist. 2K games can't do anything about your past experiences with minimum system requirements, and past saying 'this game *requires* x', they can't do much more.
 
Well I knew about the couple games that required 3.0 and the only way I found out about it was by this little wonder of an event of hitting the 2K forums and reading other peoples posts defending the 2.0 PS problem. So don't give me that bs line of 'educate yourself more' when you honestly have no clue about what I do or do not know based on absolutly nothing I actually said.

Well I dunno about that line 2.0 shaders can't handle Bioshock. The 2K forums got quite a few people who would disagree with you, and show you work in progress screenshots of there PS 2.0 mod to make the game work.

If somebody can mod the game in there spare time and for free, to run on old PS2.0 cards. Then I really think Bioshock can be handled.

And with out being able to find a link of my own there is the posts about Unreal engine, the same engine Bioshock was made on is compatible with 2.0 shaders. The programmers ether avoided the idea of compatibility, or they didn't have time to incorporate it.

If a modder can make the game run, be it still alpha work arounds, then I'm left to wonder why it wasn't just done to begin with. As such my coveted burned feeling.

Which also, it doesn't matter if I justify it to you or anybody else for that matter. I mean honestly, I don't need approval for how I feel. If I wanna feel burned about when I bought my truck. Hell I will, even though I got a great deal and the tranny hasn't fallin out yet. Still got a burning senstation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top