🚀 go-pugleaf

pc games <pcgame...@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xocyll wrote:
>
>> You just don't get it do you.  It had BAD protection, so bad that it
>> wasn't simply a cd-check when you start the game, it did something more,
>> something that caused a HUGE performance drop, making the game pretty
>> much unplayable on low end machines and slow on even the best.
>
>Ok, you are right it created serious problems and become only a
>inconvenience
>Nevertheless the "inconvenience" is still there and hasn't been
>removed

No-cd patches were available on gamecopyworld practically from day 1.

>>> id and Epic remove the STUPID disk check from their old games which is
>>> a sign of "class", Bethesda doesn't which shows they don't have it
>> 
>> And they did this "class" move how long after the games came out?
>
>Epic released last year Unreal Anthology with every copy-protection
>removed and the more recent title included is that compilation is
>UT2K4 which was released in 2004

So their "class move" was to pull the protection from games they no
longer sold in their original form?

>With id the official patches for DOOM 3 that removed copy-protection
>from the game were released 6 months after the game was out
>With Quake 4 it was even faster... it was done right in the first
>patch and that was out 1 month after release
>
>> And you're going to spend money on a crap game just because it has no
>> cd-check - that's insanity.  You are quite literally throwing away that
>
>Better that than spend a dime with a STEAM INFECTED game.

No not at all.  You may not like steam, but the various products sold
over it are quality games by all accounts.

>Btw what I will do with "The Mark" I did exactly the same one year ago
>with a game coincidently also from Bethesda called "Call of Cthulhu"
>So I rewarded Bethesda when they respected my FREEDOM and my consumer
>rights.

>> All you might do, if enough people followed your lead, is to keep a BAD
>> game studio, without the ability to design and implement a good game,
>> alive for a little bit longer.
>
>Better that than rewarding those ABUSING my consumer rights and
>letting them stay alive for a little bit longer

And selling you a crap game isn't "abuse"?

>My message to developers and publishers is clear, I will only buy a PC
>Game if it respectes my consumer rights and that will never change no
>matter what quality the game has
>You can try selling me the best PC Game ever made but if its against
>my consumer rights I WILL NOT BUY IT. PERIOD

Well my consumer rights insist on the game _working_ and living up to
it's hype (including the hype on the box), I could give a shit what copy
protection scheme it has as long as it functions and doesn't cripple the
game (as the one for Morrowind did.)

I don't own a tv, but I do own a shitload of dvds I watch on the
computer, so having a game in the combo drive is even more annoying to
me since I use the drive for movies _daily_.

Most games I can get a no-cd/no-dvd patch/crack from gamecopyworld - end
of problem.
Gamecopyworld can't provide me with patches to fix buggy, piece of shit,
bargain bin games that should never have been released in the first
place.

>> All that's likely to do is waste resources that could have gone to
>> talented game designers instead.
>
>I only reward those who are talented but at the same time respect my
>consumer rights
>Valve can be very talented but they are ABUSIVE, so no money for them.

So what you're saying is you have no respect for the talented, only the
"talented" who don't use any kind of copy protection.

It never occurred to you why games like The Mark have no copy protection
of any kind did it.
Because these days developers don't "roll their own" they use one of the
various COMMERCIAL protection schemes out there.

A game like the Mark, which _starts_ in the bargain bin, isn't going to
make enough money to pay for using a protection scheme.

I've snagged several games from the bargain bin - like Pariah or
Psychotoxic which cost all of $5-$10, and were overpriced at that.

Psychotoxic in particular managed to corrupt ALL the saves after the
third mission.

Psychotoxic had some real talent for the various "dream" levels, but as
a commercial product it was barely an Alpha in quality, much less a
finished game.

That company deserves to die, and hopefully the guy who made the good
levels can get hired by a reputable company and create good levels for a
game that actually has some talent behind it.

This is exactly what I meant about talent - by keeping a company like
that alive, the one talented guy of the group stays with his friends and
company mates and his quality is buried in shit.

Whereas if the company dies, he moves on and joins another company where
his talent is used in conjunction with other talent to make a good game.

>Bottom line, the talent should be used for Good not for Evil

Evil?  You've gone right over the edge.

>> And for what, the lack of a cd-check - have you no care at all for the
>> quality of a game?
>
>Of course I care about quality, but look at HL2... everyone considers
>it having great quality yet the AGGRESSIVE copy-protection used leaves
>me out
>So what if it has high quality when I'm not actually able to play it?

>High quality has to come hand in hand with consumer rights
>If you disrespect consumer rights like STEAM does, then there is no
>quality that can hide that or change it and make me buy it

Steam isn't a game, it's a delivery system, and by all accounts quite a
good one.

>And in HL2 there is even another situation... a PC Gamer without net
>connection... what good is high quality in HL2 if he can't play the
>game due to a gratuitous imposition by Valve to force single-player
>games to have internet connection?

Wouldn't know - didn't care for the steam thing since I'm on dialup so I
skipped HL2, but at the same time I don't feel the need to announce it
every day.

Steam does nothing to me, nor can it do anything to me.

Xocyll