BioShock requirements

We don't allow conversations about piracy at NMA. All discussions of cracks and the like will cease now, or there will be repercussions.
 
Vault 69er said:
Of course, Starforce was run by total asses; they would post links to torrents of games who's developers refused to deal with them.
Really? I heard of this once, but was led to believe it was a disinformation.

Edit: just saw the post above, hope it doesn't affect this post...
 
lisac2k said:
:revolution: Right. Boycott of the Starforce protected games and the worldwide campaign against it DID something in our favour. The game companies think twice before implementing it in their games now.
Heh :) .
The Starforce was an easy case :) . I bought a game infested with it and as soon as I saw a starting screen with "Starforce: restart the computer to be able to play the game" I felt that something is wrong. I searched the net to see what the hell is Starforce and I uninstalled the game. Next day I returned it to the store.
I didn't even know about the boycott :D .

Only a supreme sacrifice can help to defeat the foul DRMists and their false "protections". I don't want games that I buy to be protecting themselves from being installed or backed up.
The only real protection from piracy is our honesty. They can't stand the honesty because it reminds them about their moral weakness.
They treat gamers like shit, because they are pieces of shit themselves and they can't imagine that real people are honest and want to pay for their games.

Hey, they can want to prefer to have pirates as their clients instead of real honest people, but they'll should have to pay a price for that affront.
 
In other words, vote with your wallet if stuff like internet activation pisses you off. If you still buy games like this anyway, you lose your right to complain.

Think my PC's a bit under the recommended specs for this game. I'll probably wait and buy it for 360, if I ever own one.
 
lisac2k said:
Really? I heard of this once, but was led to believe it was a disinformation.

Edit: just saw the post above, hope it doesn't affect this post...
Nope, it is quite true, though it was only a forum moderator who did so.

Complaining about Starforce or what they have done is fine. SuAside and SpeaK are the ones who are pushing the line on this topic.
 
Per said:
Sorrow said:
It's funny how the victim mentality of developers allow them to think they should be able to ask money for a work product instead of handing it out for free to lazy-ass trash with entitlement issues who'd sooner revile them than toss them a dime for their effort.

O rly.
I'm spending all my fucking money on music and games, so cut that "you don't support DRM so you are a pirate" crap. Most of DRM haters are honest people who expect to deal with honest people, not with paranoid scum.
 
I dislike DRM, but I still buy music, movies and games that use it, so I generally don't bitch about it. The alternative is not being able to enjoy myself without a whole lot of hassle.
 
Heh :) . I enjoy myself without giving money to DRM loving scum - I simply shift my buying priorities to better products.
 
i'd be curious to know how much of people who buy a game or would buy a game know how to use cracks and no-cds.

because i'm willing to bet a hefty 75% of buyers dont know about cracks and no-cds in the west - and as such copy protection is a viable choice to get people to get their own copies or prevent multiple people running the game (internet activation)...

i think its more of an anti-friendly protection - to keep people from directly sharing the games with friends .... at least in the west.
 
Heh :) ...
I know about cracks and no-cds and I don't borrow my games to anyone.
I think that everyone who has an access to internet knows about them.

Also, I don't care about their motivation. They should pay for that affront anyway :twisted: .
 
Not gonna buy it... my PC is a little slow :( And if i'm going to buy a shooter for PS3 it will probably be Killzone 2 or Unreal (unfortunately Fallout 3 in this form is on the end of the line) so Be.Soft. is not getting any money from me...
 
I guess my compy would be able to run this game but meh, i got too much used to my win2k to change to xp or vista just to play it :irked:
 
I had problems with installing XP/Vista games on my Win2k, too. Then I heard about the unofficial SP5.1, more info about it here. Basically, you'll update your security holes, improve stability and compatibility with the new(est) software.

Only game not working so far is the "Company of Heroes", but I guess I can live without it...
 
well ,i have an 8800 ultra , 2 gb ram and a Intel Core 2 duo E6600 processor .so i guess it will do.but it somehow scares me !
i mean i just bought my pc about 2 weeks ago and i wonder if i can play the coming games like crysis with a high resolution and such .
 
Sorrow said:
It's funny how the victim mentality of developers allow them to treat clients like shit and be proud of it.

Bahahah. "Victim mentality"?

The pot calling the kettle.

Also, for some reason, I've started to read your posts as if they were read by some sort of uber-deep, evil transformer voice. The effect on a voice synthesizer is hilarious, especially when you talk about The Holy Crusade To Cleanse Filth.
 
Vault 69er said:
At the very least, developers like Stardock and Valve provide excellent patch and game download support along with their compulsory registration,

Are you kidding me? IF what you meant is that Valve FINISHES their game while its already out then I agree. Counter Strike Source is the prime example. I've played the game since its beta, sometime in October 2004, and trust me, when the game came out it was far from even being finished. Very Very few maps, 1 character model/skin, interpolation problems, broken hit boxes, crashes etc. The game was not finished and unplayable on competitive level. They only 100% completed the game little under 2 years after its official release.

little off topic, but I thought i'll give my 2 cents on how valve does things.
 
Back
Top