I'm mostly just obsessed with those Matsuda 2809 sunglasses she had in that movie. I've always wanted a pair, and eBay can provide them for the low low price of one arm, one leg, and your soul.
Also, DRM is terrible. /backontopic
I'm mostly just obsessed with those Matsuda 2809 sunglasses she had in that movie. I've always wanted a pair, and eBay can provide them for the low low price of one arm, one leg, and your soul.
Also, DRM is terrible. /backontopic
Just a patethic try of mine to make a bit of comic relief between Sard and Easy, comparing Xboxes, robots, and rumors, you know.
Anyway, it's closer to a vampire : if you allow one home, it will destroy everything you love and feast on your soul ...
Poor Sard, he was really looking forward to it. Sarah Connor, that is - I don't know his views on having a vampire feasting on his soul.
I'm mostly just obsessed with those Matsuda 2809 sunglasses she had in that movie. I've always wanted a pair, and eBay can provide them for the low low price of one arm, one leg, and your soul.
Also, DRM is terrible. /backontopic
Hell no. What Floaty Firebreather said. This topic is so done. This is a MUCH more interesting mutation.
And look how gorgeous this is!
View attachment 686
If I -had- a soul, I assure you, it would be an easy trade!
Attachments
-
sarah-connor-sunglasses.jpg
Attachments
-
young_sean.jpg
Came to this thread expecting serious flamewars and a lock sometime soon. Pleasantly Surprised.
I haven't even played TW or TW2. I need to. I really do. But college and lack of money has restricted me so.
And DRM and stuff.. yeah.. it's bad. But CDPR won't do it so no worries on this boat.
I would choose the railguns on the ground.
I haven't even played TW or TW2. I need to. I really do. But college and lack of money has restricted me so.
And DRM and stuff.. yeah.. it's bad. But CDPR won't do it so no worries on this boat.
I would choose the railguns on the ground.
The Witcher is pretty cheap. $10 on Gog for 60-100 hours of fun. http://www.gog.com/gamecard/the_witcher
And I still prefer W1 to W2. I found the gameplay and RPG elements stronger.
Anyway, def. check out W1 for 10 dollars.
And I still prefer W1 to W2. I found the gameplay and RPG elements stronger.
Anyway, def. check out W1 for 10 dollars.
.
Yes, but better looking in soirées. Never thought Rambo-like girls were good partners in social events...
You can judge by my english, im from a 3world country and leave near brazilian pantanal ( google it .), a always online drm wuld make me suberbly mad about the game.
The internet conection i have, isnt that bad, but some times there are no conection at all, and this is the times that i play most.
The internet conection i have, isnt that bad, but some times there are no conection at all, and this is the times that i play most.
I think that making the game online only will have the same issues as any online only games have.
Upon launch every online-only game has broken, from WoW to SWTOR and Diablo 3. Ultimately SimCity is the greatest flagship of always online DRM failing catastrophically, it is simply a math that can only make sense when explained by a bunch of beancounters in a meeting room but it is, in the end, flawed. The solely expense on authentication servers (clusters, racks, network, bandwidth, redundancy, etc...) to hold millions of registering users at the same time can be the same value of estimated loss by piracy. The investment required to do a launch "right" where no one has to wait is prohibitive as the servers will hold way more load than they will usually have after the first week. So making a huge investment for day one to have it idle on the rest of the days isn't financially smart. And in the end we have hundreds of thousands of customers looking at queues and counters when the game launches.
It is a big balancing problem, does the company invest millions on a system to help them increase their profit by another millions? Will that math even go into the black? If you invest N thousands/millions to save you from potentially losing N thousands/millions don't you, in fact, made no money? That decision will have them lose customers that don't want to play a single player game online all the time. While others will want to play it for decades and if the authentication server goes offline they'll be losing their dear game... And at that point does your purchase becomes a rental? Should you pay less for a game that is only available to you when the company decides it will be? Where do the rights of the consumer go over a decision to limit the use of the game they acquired legally in an attempt to avoid piracy?
I don't think that paying consumers should have their experience hindered in any way due to a tactic to restrict piracy. As most people said: piracy will happen anyway. So instead of restricting the legitimate user's experience, why not go the other way around? Instead of always-on, do something that incentive people to purchase the game: lower prices, free patches to registered game owners, add-ons every so often... And most importantly treat your customers properly.
Upon launch every online-only game has broken, from WoW to SWTOR and Diablo 3. Ultimately SimCity is the greatest flagship of always online DRM failing catastrophically, it is simply a math that can only make sense when explained by a bunch of beancounters in a meeting room but it is, in the end, flawed. The solely expense on authentication servers (clusters, racks, network, bandwidth, redundancy, etc...) to hold millions of registering users at the same time can be the same value of estimated loss by piracy. The investment required to do a launch "right" where no one has to wait is prohibitive as the servers will hold way more load than they will usually have after the first week. So making a huge investment for day one to have it idle on the rest of the days isn't financially smart. And in the end we have hundreds of thousands of customers looking at queues and counters when the game launches.
It is a big balancing problem, does the company invest millions on a system to help them increase their profit by another millions? Will that math even go into the black? If you invest N thousands/millions to save you from potentially losing N thousands/millions don't you, in fact, made no money? That decision will have them lose customers that don't want to play a single player game online all the time. While others will want to play it for decades and if the authentication server goes offline they'll be losing their dear game... And at that point does your purchase becomes a rental? Should you pay less for a game that is only available to you when the company decides it will be? Where do the rights of the consumer go over a decision to limit the use of the game they acquired legally in an attempt to avoid piracy?
I don't think that paying consumers should have their experience hindered in any way due to a tactic to restrict piracy. As most people said: piracy will happen anyway. So instead of restricting the legitimate user's experience, why not go the other way around? Instead of always-on, do something that incentive people to purchase the game: lower prices, free patches to registered game owners, add-ons every so often... And most importantly treat your customers properly.
