a) Getting products free from the internet does not make one a "pirate". The term has been perverted by a-holes in the legal profession. It's actually called filesharing, warez, and it has nothing to do with piracy. Actual piracy happens on the sea, where pirates steal actual products and valuables. When translated into the computer business, piracy is when someone sells copies of a product for their own profit.
When filesharing takes place, the original owner of the product loses absolutely nothing, not even profit in most cases, even though they very much like to think so, since they live in a fantasy world.
b) 99.999% of DRM don't stop warez. They're pointless.
c) 99.999% of people have no clue as to what the difference between filesharing and piracy is, nor do they care, nor would they be able to learn the difference if they were educated in it.
d) I'm all for the artists getting their fair share and their due. I don't give a rats ass about production companies. May they die in hellfire.
When filesharing takes place, the original owner of the product loses absolutely nothing, not even profit in most cases, even though they very much like to think so, since they live in a fantasy world.
b) 99.999% of DRM don't stop warez. They're pointless.
c) 99.999% of people have no clue as to what the difference between filesharing and piracy is, nor do they care, nor would they be able to learn the difference if they were educated in it.
d) I'm all for the artists getting their fair share and their due. I don't give a rats ass about production companies. May they die in hellfire.
Remarkable. An always-online thread conducted with civility. Mention of piracy and still little to no flaming or ad hominem. Well done, gang. Well done indeed.
Of course, I cannot stand this. Macleod, <fundamental disagreement laced with racist/homophobic hints and references to vague statistics supporting my point>. So there. Ownt, I should say. Ownt!
Anyway. I don't think the always online model is inevitable. It may even be a passing phase. You laugh, ( or don't), but consider that this year sees multiple turn-based isometric single player RPGS coming out or in development.
Do you know something? I don't think I'm playing a single multi-player game right now. I was mucking around with The Old Republic, but that got dull. So that's it.
Weird. A few years ago, everything I played had multiplayer, with maybe one or two exceptions a year. The era of MMO, BFBC, CoD and so on. I actually wondered if I was done with traditional single-player games.
Now I wonder what multi-player holds for me, other than perhaps a small co-op function. You never can tell.
Of course, I cannot stand this. Macleod, <fundamental disagreement laced with racist/homophobic hints and references to vague statistics supporting my point>. So there. Ownt, I should say. Ownt!
Anyway. I don't think the always online model is inevitable. It may even be a passing phase. You laugh, ( or don't), but consider that this year sees multiple turn-based isometric single player RPGS coming out or in development.
Do you know something? I don't think I'm playing a single multi-player game right now. I was mucking around with The Old Republic, but that got dull. So that's it.
Weird. A few years ago, everything I played had multiplayer, with maybe one or two exceptions a year. The era of MMO, BFBC, CoD and so on. I actually wondered if I was done with traditional single-player games.
Now I wonder what multi-player holds for me, other than perhaps a small co-op function. You never can tell.
I'd agree with 227 that this is unlikely. Internet service/connection providers want everyone to BUY their service, but they don't need or require you to actually USE it. The exception is those places where the ISPs still impose bandwidth caps, and, as 227 said, this is usually because they don't/can't invest in the infrastructure, ISPs like that usually seem to discourage "unlimited" plans.
I'm pretty much reserving any aerial attack for personal use. You're free to use any ground-based attack mechanism though.
On a serious note, it's given us the opportunity to spell out CDPR's views on the matter, so not totally pointless.
(And it's also given me a craving for roast suckling pig, thus answering my "what to have for Sunday Lunch" question for this week)
Well, duh. Of course it is. And the EA thread's that way --------->
The primary reason I'm seriously considering switching back to Sony for this console cycle. Or just building out a beast-mode PC for games like this.
I have to say, dude, I don't know where you live, but the internet isn't nearly as reliable where I'm from. The infrastructure of America's Deep South is still woefully behind the times. Broadband internet was already replacing everything by the time we managed 56k phone speeds here in Louisiana. When the wind blows hard, and SuddenLink's internet craps out on me, I want to know I can still play the games I paid for while I wait for them to get it together. Feel me? This isn't about piracy. It's about respecting the business relationship between your company and loyal customers who are willing to argue about a game 2 years before it's possible release. CDPR understands this, which is why they are my new favorite company. (Sorry, Ubisoft, it just wasn't working out. I'll always love you, though....)
That xbox rumor is a dubious one. MS would be shooting themselves in the foot going that route. And as for CDPR doing it...when pigs can fly.
The rumors you make up are more entertaining. If we can't have a cyberpunk future, I'll settle for apocalyptic machine war where Eric Stoltz turns into Bruce Wayne and gives up his whole failing-at-life schtick.
My PC's always online too. That doesn't mean that the games have to be.
I'm totally losing track here. Sarah Connor is a mandatory feature of all Xboxes? Is that the latest rumour?