I'm not trying to justify their reasoning, I was just pointing out what their focus is, or at least what they claim their focus is. This system isn't necessary, especially since you are correct in saying that people will still find a way to cheat and more than that they will still find a way to pirate it. For example a hack was made for SecuROM on Crysis on the day it was released, anything created by a human can be circumvented by a human.Credge said:Yeah, that still doesn't really make any sense.KSarty said:They mentioned in one of their earlier press releases that this also works as an anti-cheater system. Making people stay online in order to progress their character guarantees that they progressed their character legitimately, and not just through some form of editor.
Why do I need to be connected online if all I do is play single player? Why do they care if I cheated in single player? That's just absurd.
If you're going to create a system, create it right. Have two types of servers: Closed and open. Closed only allows you to play 'characters' created online and open allows you to bring your single player character online. The two will not mingle and would be done exactly like Diablo 2.
Of course, you'll still be able to cheat. People do it all the time. All this is is just a different form of DRM that is acceptable. They know how much people hate the DRM they've used in the past and they've been doing research on other acceptable ways to do it and this is it.
Oh God, that's all we need. Another under informed petition that gets everyone to jump on the dumbwagon.Keane Ng said:Maybe somebody should start a petition.
No, SecuROM originally validated the game's authenticity online constantly. They changed it because that was one of the larger complaints about the system. This system at least doesn't limit your number of concurrent or total installs.Nutcase said:Huh? This is a lot worse than SecuROM ever was. At least SecuROM only required you to be online while installing the game you bought.KSarty said:I can see how this would annoy people, but it is a much more agreeable anti-piracy measure than secuROM ever was. And who knows, they could make it in some way that you can play online, but you don't get credit for any of your player-progression when in offline mode or something along those lines.
Fortunately everything points to the game throwing its PC gaming roots away, and descending to the shitter to compete directly with Halo Wars (all-in-one base) and MMORPGs (grinding), so nothing lost by just leaving it on the shelf.
The past few C&C games have been released on 360 and PS3 relatively quickly.MR T3D said:why are people complaining about XBL fees?
isn't this a PC game?
or am i missing something being an XP ludite...like all PC games on vista need XBL shit or something
If you're not doing online multiplayer, then it will probably simply require silver membership for single player. Which is free.Zirat said:This is going to cost a fortune in Xbox Live membership fees. Considering the game will be sold at the usual rate of $60.00 USD coupled with the fact that the Membership cards usually cost around $20 for about 3 months and $50 for a year (not including taxes in either) in the end you are looking at a pretty expensive game right there.
It just does not look worth the money.
Command & Conquer 4 [a href='http://www.pcworld.com/article/168251/ea_says_command_and_conquer_4_windows_exclusive.html/']is only being released on PC's[/a] - there is no console version.Angron said:am i to presume u will need xbox live gold to play this? pass then
NM, I posted before you put in the link, and I stand corrected.Virgil said:Command and Conquer 4 is only being released on PC's - there is no console version.Angron said:am i to presume u will need xbox live gold to play this? pass then
Even if it were a console game, requiring a connection to Live is not the same thing as requiring a Gold membership. The only thing generally limited to gold members is playing online multiplayer - transmitting stats or other updates can happen regardless of the account type.
I'm with you there, my connection is spotty at best, and it will usually disconnect if more than 1 person is online. So I'm pretty much screwed when it comes to this game. Guess I'll have to stick with C&C3 for now. Hopefully they add in an offline option or something.Sevre90210 said:No. Not cool. I don't have constant internet connection and I'm sure others don't either and I'm sure a lot of people don't want some crappy experience system sucking on their bandwith.
fair enough, not bad then, id prefer it on PC anyway, i didt have a clue what this was on cause ive only just found out its been announcedVirgil said:Command & Conquer 4 [a href='http://www.pcworld.com/article/168251/ea_says_command_and_conquer_4_windows_exclusive.html/']is only being released on PC's[/a] - there is no console version.Angron said:am i to presume u will need xbox live gold to play this? pass then
Even if it were a console game, requiring a connection to Live is not the same thing as requiring a Gold membership. The only thing generally limited to gold members is playing online multiplayer - transmitting stats or other updates can happen regardless of the account type.
I may need to get five dollars back from GameStop now. Thankyou.Virgil said:Command & Conquer 4 [a href='http://www.pcworld.com/article/168251/ea_says_command_and_conquer_4_windows_exclusive.html/']is only being released on PC's[/a] - there is no console version.
Securom : Copy Protection Product that actively resists attempts to pirate/copy games.scifidownbeat said:<---noob
SecuROM? DRM? err... is this PC terminology? Because I don't follow...