dududf said:
The Title was my thoughts exactly when I saw the article.
They do all of this to avoid pirating... but frankly, all I'm seeing is more and more reason to pirate.
They do all of this... always inconveniencing the customer, never the pirate. I've only bought games with reasonable DRM. I bought Bioshock TWICE (when the DRM was sort of removed), I've bought STALKER shadow of chernobyl atleast 4 times, I bought Fallout 3, Supcom, many many more. But these titles the horrid DRM? None of them. I had a pre-order for Bioshock 2, when I found out about the DRM I cancelled my pre-order and searched for a couple of good torrent sites.
The whole "Loss of potential profit" thing is bullshit as is. Nor is it an excuse for such horrible DRM. Face it companies, if someone has never bought a game before, they wouldn't have payed for your game either way, even if pirating was impossible.
And then THIS, where they try to make it look like they're "Caving in" when they are actually just putting the blame on some one else... I'm never buying another 2K game because of this bullshit.
2K is now up there with Ubisoft, and EA.
[sub]shit at this rate I'm going to run out of game companies.[/sub]
That's a false assumption. If someone is interested in playing the game, three things can happen:
1. They buy the game.
2. They pirate the game.
3. They go without the game.
Let's assume there's an even distribution, so 1/3 buy, 1/3 pirate, and 1/3 go without. Do you really believe that all of the 1/3 who pirate would go without if pirating were unavailable?
Do we really honestly believe that the people who pirate games are too poor (or don't like games enough) to buy the games if they had to?
Some portion of pirates would buy the games if they had to. That means that the existence of pirating does eliminate some stream of income for the company. QED.