Big Daddy Is Watching You: Bioshock 2 DRM

By Kieron Gillen on January 20th, 2010 at 7:37 pm.

BACK! DRM! BACK! DON'T TOUCH ME! I WILL FIGHT YOU I WILL... oh no. You are too strong. You have defeated me.

Okay. Let’s keep this just the facts, as everyone knows what they mean. The tech specs for Bioshock 2 are out. They’re reasonable enough. There’s also some fun DRM. Online verification via SecuRom, with an install limit (15 machines, admittedly). To save the game or play online, you need to be logged into Games for Window Live. This still applies on Steam – so SecuRom and Games For Windows Live are needed in addition to the Steam client. Hmm.

UPDATE: 2K Community Manager Elizabeth elaborates over at the forums. In short, it will be doing the standard Games for Windows Live activation – as in, you can play and save games offline without achievements. SecuROM is only a disc-check method for the retail copy. While final details of Steam are forthcoming, that may imply it won’t be there. Hmm.

Comments thread… go. Let me and Edwin Starr provide the soundtrack.

PDATE:

__________________

« | »

, , , .

326 Comments »

  1. Lewis says:

    I suspect a lot of people who play multiplatform will be forking out an extra tenner for one of the console versions…

    • Y3k-Bug says:

      Good guess, I just shelled out for the PS3 version.

    • Richeh says:

      Which thinking about it, is probably playing right to Microsoft. I wouldn’t imagine they want people playing games on Windows, they want them buying their proprietal system.

      I wonder if GFWL is designed to specifically scupper the PC as a mainstream gaming platform?

  2. Red Avatar says:

    *sighs* 15 is better but it still doesn’t remove my main worry: that in 5 years, Securom will say “screw the old activation servers” and suddenly several of our games will refuse to install because this crap DRM. Look at Starforce games: they were bad enough at the time, wrecking CD/DVD drives left and right, but the moment you go to a 64 bit OS, you’ll find the games refuse to run because there’s no 64 bit Starforce drivers. Most games that didn’t work in Vista were exactly Starforce games. I guess they don’t care once they got our money …

  3. CMaster says:

    Why do publishers hate the people who buy their games?
    They know GFWL is unpopular, but use it over popular steamworks.
    They know that pirated versions just remove all the DRM, but distribute with it anyway (although the worst experience I’ve had so far was with Fallout 3. It insisted I had CD mounting software running (I did – it’s called Windows XP as it comes with built in ISO mounting) and hence wouldn’t install. I had to download a seperate installer exe from a website. Irritating, but hardly a disaster (for me. For a lot of people, it would be “right, back to the 360 then!”).

    Seriously, I don’t understand all this shooting self in foot business.

    • dancingcrab says:

      I’m going to defend Fallout 3 here if only because they at least tried to do the right thing (obviously you had a back experience and that sucks): Fallout 3 only shipped (at least in the UK) with a basic disc check, and even then it only checked the disc when launching the ‘launcher’ – if you lauched the fallout3.exe manually, no disc check. It is truly sweet.

      This applies to both the original release and GotY edition (owned both).

    • Y3k-Bug says:

      I think Steamworks is way better than GFWL, but it is in no way more popular.

      Also, there are things like server matchmaking that Steamworks doesn’t do yet.

  4. Drexer says:

    Bioshock 2 was actually on the top of my wanted games for the beginning of this year. Now I guess I can wait some months.

  5. Gpig says:

    I wouldn’t worry, 2Kgames can still backtrack on this later unlike players in the game.

  6. Wilson says:

    Games for Windows Live is a pain. When they say you need to be logged in, do they mean you actually need to be logged in and online, or just that you need an offline account? Since Dawn of War II uses GFWL, but you don’t need an online account unless you want to play online, which is just about acceptable. If you have to be logged in to the latest version of GFWL though, I very much doubt I’ll bother with this, though I liked the first one.

  7. Arsewisely says:

    GFWL eh? At the risk of sounding lackadaisical – oh well, fuck it then.

  8. Azradesh says:

    Sigh

  9. Wooly says:

    15 activations seems pretty reasonable to me, but if you’re going to give the copy to 14 other friends, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of limiting its activations?

    The activation limits aren’t what bugs me. It’s GFWL!! Not necessary on top of steam and securom!

  10. Velvet Fist, Iron Glove says:

    SecuROM and GFWL? It seems Bioshock 2 has just fallen down to my “I’ll get it if it’s a fiver or less” list. GFWL is stupid and useless to me as a player, SecuROM an inconvenience at its best. Do not want.

    Red Avatar said, “I guess they don’t care once they got our money”, so they won’t be getting my money for a long time, and not much even then.

    My GWFL “gamertag” is GFWLSUCKSARSE. Read into that what you will.

  11. Drakkheim says:

    ah.. man .. dangit I wanted to play this. but seeing as we’re living off of netflix on the 360 and GFWL for all the tv we watch, the fact that I cant be signed on the pc & 360 at once kills this.

    pity, it looked interesting.

  12. jsutcliffe says:

    I have strongly disliked SecuROM since I discovered it was responsible for killing my Windows right-click context menu (which would kill explorer). That said, I also lack the willpower to do without a game I really want even if it uses SecuROM.

    Fortunately I’m not all that excited about Bioshock 2, but this news has changed it from a maybe-purchase to a non-purchase.

  13. Vinraith says:

    GfWL having control of my save games is reason enough to stay away, I already lost 10 hours of Red Faction: Guerrilla progress to that stupid system. The install limit thing is obviously also unacceptable, and the two together make this a definite no-buy, despite the fact that I was looking forward to it. If they drop the install limit down the road (as Bioshock did) and if, say, xliveless is updated to work for it, then I might buy it for cheap. If not, not.

    Speaking of xliveless, for anyone that doesn’t know:

    http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=388658

    The xlive.dll file, placed in the base game directory, disables GfWL integration and leaves you free of the nonsense. Right now it only works on GTA 4 and RFG, but I’m hoping it’ll continue to get updated to work with more games. Personally, after the mess GfWL caused with my Red Faction saves, I wouldn’t play a GfWL game without it.

    • Edawan says:

      “GfWL having control of my save games”

      So that’s where my GTA4 saves were !
      I had backed up every folder that looked even slightly related to it when I formated my PC, but when I reinstalled was unable restore my progress.
      I never finished the game because of that.
      Not a big loss…

  14. Archonsod says:

    Activation limits don’t bother me. I’d be fooling myself to even pretend I’d have any interest in playing Bioshock 2 in five years (I played through Bioshock once, never really went back. Didn’t seem to be any point).
    The idiocy of requiring GFWL login to save does piss me off however. For that reason alone, I’ve demoted it from “maybe if I’ve got nothing better to spend the money on” to “maybe if it’s in a really good weekend deal”. Yeah, can’t say I was that excited by it in the first place.

  15. Makam says:

    Im a bit unsure about the bit which says “Ability to save game, earn achievements, receive title updates and online play requires log-in to Games for Windows LIVE; “, in particular the save game part. Does that mean you need to be online with GfWL, or can you have an offline account, like on xbl? Can anyone clear that up for me, cos im currently wondering if i should cancel my pre-order.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Makam

      If you have an offline account, make very sure you never create an online one, that was my mistake. Creation of an online account DELETES ACCESS TO YOUR OFFLINE ACCOUNT , which has the effect of locking you out of any save games associated with said offline account.

      Better IMO to just steer clear of GfWL entirely, or disable it with xlive.

    • Blather Blob says:

      Yeah, it probably means the standard GFWL online/offline dichotomy. Apparently it’s possible to import offline saves into an online profile by copying the save files around, but not the other way around, not at all. So if you want to be able to play multiplayer, you’ll need to use an online account, and if you use an online account you must always use that online account to get at your save games.

      The annoying part is it isn’t even backing up your save game to their servers when online or anything, it’s just putting some weak “encryption” on them so you have to always use the same online account in order to be allowed to load them, and can’t ever switch back to an offline profile, not without losing your saved game. Unless, as Vinraith says, xliveless gets Bioshock 2 support.

    • Jad says:

      Apparently it’s possible to import offline saves into an online profile by copying the save files around, but not the other way around, not at all.

      That doesn’t even make sense. I can understand why they would want save files encrypted and linked to a single online account, so as to protect the integrity of those oh-so-important achievements and that vital XBL gamerscore. But if what you say is true, then it doesn’t even do that! This would mean I could still get 100% complete save file from a friend’s offline account and then load it onto my online account, right? Or do offline-to-online saves not add to your achievements?

      Vinraith: thanks for that explanation. Now I know why I lost my Gears of War saves after attempting to set up an online GFWL account. I was having other issues with my computer at the time, and I figured I just somehow erased them.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Blather Blob

      “Apparently it’s possible to import offline saves into an online profile by copying the save files around”

      Sometimes, it seems to depend on the game and some other unknown circumstances. I know in the case of my RFG saves that trick didn’t work.

    • dancingcrab says:

      I generally haven’t been bothered by GfWL, except with Gears Of War – it completely obliterated all traces of my progress upon updating.

      Fail.

    • Urthman says:

      Keeping your GFWL in offline mode is all fine and good until they release the inevitable DLC expansion pack which requires you to go into online mode to download and install it, which will probably screw up access to your save games.

      That’s the problem people reported with Fallout 3.

  16. Rocky says:

    I could deal with Steam and Securom, but for the love of god not GFWL!

  17. Jacques says:

    Guess I’ll be buying it for the cheap in a couple of years and playing a pirated copy until then.

  18. Jon says:

    Good grief. Somehow you’d like to think that game developers who presumably understand the game industry would be smarter than this.

    GFWL *and* SecurROM even via Steam?!?!! I suppose why put one nail in the coffin when you can use two? That’s a deal-breaker for me. But I’m sure enough will buy it despite this stupidity which will of course just egg them on to continue this unbelievably irritating behavior.

    Sigh and double sigh… :-(

  19. Lightbulb says:

    Buy and pirate – the convenient way to play PC games.

    Hmmm theres a flaw in that… Why bother to give someone £5 for a second hand copy in 2 years time (netting the dev a grand total of £0) when i can just pirate it now (and give the dev the same amount – £0?)

    Its not gonna stop piracy. Its gonna piss people off. Why bother?

  20. Stupoider says:

    Uh oh. This might start a.. y’know.. the ‘b’ word?

  21. Duncanthrax says:

    Sounds like a strong bittorrent candidate.

  22. Calabi says:

    I bet the reason GFWL is used because Microsoft keep paying them, or some kind of behind the scenes delio’s are going on.

    Microsoft will rule by hook or by crowbar.

    • Velvet Fist, Iron Glove says:

      @Calabi by crowbar? I sure hope Microsoft never get their hooks deep into Valve.

    • DeepSleeper says:

      Microsoft pay -them- for GFWL? I’m pretty sure THEY pay Microsoft for it.

      I like GFWL, but I support being able to get rid of it if you don’t want achievement tracking and that sort of thing. I like the program, don’t like that it’s mandatory.

    • Bret says:

      And I once again remember Valve’s response to rumors of an EA buyout.

      I don’t think Valve wants to own Microsoft either.

  23. Joey says:

    *mistake

  24. Joey says:

    I really enjoyed the first game, I was saddened when they decided to add multiplayer (thinking it was a crappy way to ensure people bought the game). Love the world they created, but I’m thinking I’m finally going to pass on this one. 15 install limits seems ok, but everything else makes me want to puke. As someone who used to pirate games but in recent years has decided that pirating games just makes fewer pc titles, it makes me sad that I am getting punished for purchasing my games. It just seems illogical at this point. I guess I’ll just stick to gog and replay some classics I’ve been meaning to.

  25. itchyeyes says:

    This still applies on Steam – so SecuRom and Games For Windows Live are needed in addition to the Steam client.

    This is the part I just don’t get. I mean, I can understand that developers are wary to just put their product out there without any protection at all. That’s fair, it’s their product and I can make a few concessions if it means they stay in business and keep making money. Fine. But not one, not two, but three methods of online authentication? Are you f***ing s***ing me? Do you really hate your customers so much?

    I’m not usually one for boycotts, but this pretty much seals it that I won’t be buying Bioshock 2. I have enough headaches just getting STEAM and GFWL to play nice together half the time. No way I’m going to spend money on a product that’s only going to add to my frustration, especially when there are so many other publishers/developers out there making products that don’t include these kinds of hurdles.

  26. Dean says:

    Yeah, it’s utterly mental.

    I’m not hugely anti-DRM, I get annoyed at the idea I might not be able to play a game in five years time but then I know realistically there will always be a crack out by then.

    The problem is when buying the game gives a worse experience than pirating it. GfWL is seen by the entire PC gaming community as an inconvenience. Not one person in this thread is going to say “Ooh, GfWL, cool, I’ll get achievements and gamer points”. But for some reason some developers still think GfWL is value-add, rather than something that will put people off.

    • Jad says:

      @Dean

      Well, no one in this thread is going to say that, but believe me there is a surprisingly large number of XBL gamerscore-obsessed people out there who will get all the achievements for the game their 360 and then go buy the PC version so they can farm them all over again. Simply putting “GFWL” on the box will net you tens of thousands of extra sales. It might lose you some sales from the well-informed PC enthusiasts, but with all the other garbage Take-Two is throwing into this package, they clearly gave up on that market long ago.

  27. Taillefer says:

    Hurrah! I love all of those things!

  28. VHATI says:

    GFWL is ther because of DLC.

    I would rather have GFWL than Steamworks. We all know which one is online more consistantly. I see Steam authorization servers go down on a daily basis.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      I’ve only ever had a problem with Steam during a big sale. Like I bought The Witcher this Christmas and it took me ages to download it. Had the same problem when I bought Stalker last year too.

      You don’t need GFWL for DLC. That’s bullshit. Multiple games on Steam have DLC and don’t need this ridiculous Microsoft malware to handle it. I own quite a few games that have had DLC released.

      Steam is a perfectly acceptable platform. GFWL has no reason to exist.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “I see Steam authorization servers go down on a daily basis.”

      Fix your internet.

  29. Tei says:

    I made this 26000x3053px image about the topic.
    http://zerror.com/zoo/fuck4.png

    This is the low-resolution version. My computer is still proccesing the high resolution one.

  30. Pardoz says:

    Securom + GFWL? Just moved it from a ‘maybe consider if when Steam offers it for a fiver’ to ‘not if they pay me to install it’.

  31. fishyjoes says:

    Lets someone positiv: Thank for reminding me of that great song.

  32. redrain85 says:

    Precisely when many of the publishers were starting to abandon SecuROM, Take-Two turns around and starts embracing it again.

    Good show, Take-Two. No, really. What a brilliant way to guarantee lost sales. Then add mandatory GfWL live, and the fact that all of this is still included in the Steam version . . .

    Did they not learn a thing from GTA IV?

  33. J0J0 says:

    they can go …. themselves. I ain’t getting this game.

  34. Shadowmancer says:

    I’ll wait till its pirated, at least STALKER; Call Of Prypiat should be fun this year.

  35. ChrisAsmadi says:

    According to the Steam store page, it’s a five machine activation limit, which is even worse.

    Well, that’s a no buy for me.

  36. bookwormat says:

    If this offer is good or bad heavily depends on the price they are going to charge. If the game is as good as its predecessor, I would personally gladly buy the 15 activations for 10 Euro. A single activation for 5 bucks sounds like a good deal too.

    Game quality, Digital Rights Management and service agreements are only interesting in context with the price.

  37. pignoli says:

    Maybe the idea here is that there is ‘no bad publicity’ and they’re hoping the inevitable shitstorm over this will lead to increased sales? Unlikely, I know, but it’s hard to come up with rational explainations for some of this crap.

  38. Dave says:

    ROFL EPIC WINRAR

    XD

  39. clippa says:

    HATE GFWL but all the rest doesn’t bother me.

  40. Walsh says:

    GFWL isn’t that bad.

  41. Vinraith says:

    Well, since Bioshock 2 is a wash, anyone know what the DRM is going to be like on Mass Effect 2?

    • Azradesh says:

      Just a keycode and disc check according to PC Gamer UK.

    • Azhrarn says:

      That’s something to be found on the ME2 forums if I recall correctly, just a disc-check for the game itself.
      Although for the DLC you will need a Bioware account, just like Dragon Age used.

      So technically there is an online check, since the DLC will probably use authentication like DA:O does.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Azradesh and Azhrarn

      Thanks, I appreciate the info. While I’m not wild about Bioware’s DLC system, if the game itself only has a straightforward disc check that sounds like good reason to go ahead and order a boxed copy.

      Does anyone know if ME1′s boxed copies ever got rid of the limited install thing? It’d be nice to have a non-Steam version of that one.

    • dancingcrab says:

      They didn’t get rid of it, per se, but they released a tool to ‘deauthenticate’ an installed copy from your hardware. This happened after my first round on my old PC, so I’ve permenantly lost one of my five activiations, but have since happily installeld, activated, played, deactivated, moved on.

      http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize/

      Interestingly, they list Dragon Age in the titles you can deauthenticate… despite it alledgedly only using a disc-check. Must be something to do with the DRM.

      http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize/games.html

    • Vinraith says:

      @dancingcrab

      Thanks. Well, I’ll see if I can find a copy of the first one for cheap, then. I really hate having a game I might actually want to replay tied to Steam.

  42. wyrmsine says:

    Damnit. GFWL-required saving puts this on my “Do not buy” list. I’d really, really like to know why publishers are using that system, on top of SecuROM and (possibly) Steam. Any (rational) ideas?

    • Tei says:

      I suppose that Microsoft want to push GFWL to dominate the digital shop market on the PC.
      In one word: Corruption.

      Microsoft bribe these people to put the garbage that is GFWL in his games. He…. disclosed documents shows that Bill Gates calls these things “donations”.

      Is disgusting that these people (MS) has soo much influence on the software market.

    • Walsh says:

      I seriously do not understand the whining about GFWL saves. It messed me up one time in Fallout 3 and I learned not to login to GFWL since I had started the game with an ‘offline’ profile. Later I started a new game and used my GFWL for the achievement tracking.

      It worked fine in Dawn Of War 2 and Battlestations Pacific. I don’t understand the crying about signing into GFWL when other plenty of other games require you to sign in first to their proprietary system.

      The only real issue with GFWL is it looks like crap and the extra features that exist on XBOX Live are nonexistent.

      BTW Who seriously needs to install a game more than 5 times and has been unable to due to DRM? Did you not know about a deactivation feature, chronically screwing up your system or what? The principle of it isn’t a valid argument.

    • redrain85 says:

      Two words: Laziness, DLC.

      Since the PC version is a port of the 360 version anyway, by using GfWL they don’t have to do a major recoding job by implementing Steam’s multiplayer features instead.

      Then, on top of that, they can use GfWL to sell DLC using that stupid MS points system that ties you down to buying more future DLC, because you always end up having leftover points.

    • itchyeyes says:

      @Walsh

      The problem is that GFWL is completely unreliable. For instance, in RF:Guerrilla it won’t log in unless the game has been updated (an update which is only available through GFWL). Problem is, the RF:G update install is completely broken. So unless you feel like diving into your command line and editing your registry you can’t save your games, which more or less means you can’t play the game.

      Another problem is that you can’t be logged into one GFWL account in two places at once. So, for instance, when I’m playing Fallout 3 and my wife turns on the Xbox 360 to watch netflix you’re sol

    • bookwormat says:

      @Tei:

      Is disgusting that these people (MS) has soo much influence on the software market.

      Compared to the 90ties, MS has become pretty impotent compared to then. They are still huge and make a lot of money, but they do not have that much influence anymore. Or, as Paul Graham overstates it: Microsoft is dead.

      As a developer I’m more concerned about Google or Facebook than Microsoft.

    • wyrmsine says:

      Walsh, it’s hardly whining. In my case, it’s a reality that I’m not always connected to the ‘net. I’d like to be able to play a singleplayer game irregardless of whether or not I’m online. Removing that functionality reduces the value of the product for me, ergo, no sale.

      I’ve had 2 bad experiences with GFWL saves, one of which wiped out all my savegames, and I don’t trust the product. I try not to buy things that have proven to fail on me.

      As to the activations, well, I expect I’m not that target market here, as I tend to juggle a lot of hardware. I’d like to install a game on both my laptop and desktop, and I expect that I will uninstall and reinstall the game several times over the next few years (assuming it’s good). Probably not the norm, but it doesn’t help convince me to buy a game with limited activations.

      Believe me, if you’d had to travel 50km into the middle of nowhere’s frozen north to spend a week with your relatives, being able to play a video game without constant net access would seem like a reasonable expectation.

  43. jsutcliffe says:

    Two observations:

    Why so much open discussion of piracy? That is done by shadowy men in darkened rooms, in secret. Also, naughty!

    To how many people is a fifteen-install, five-machine honestly a limit they’ll want to break?

    • Vinraith says:

      @jsutcliffe

      1) Because, between the encrypted saves with online account integration, the online activation and its inevitable failures, and the install limit, the pirated version of the game will be the collector’s deluxe version. It’ll be worlds more functional, with worlds less hassle, and that it’s available for $50 less than the borked version makes it all the better. Personally, I don’t pirate PC games, because I think if it’s good enough to play it’s good enough to pay for. Still, on this one, I can’t exactly blame the folks that choose the superior version of the game. Any sane, responsible person that just had to play this game would buy a legal copy, then get and install a pirated version to save themselves all the associated hassles of the “legitimate” version.

      2) Why should I have to keep track? Why should it even be an issue? Maybe I won’t ever need that, maybe the game will be so mediocre I’ll only want to install it the one time, the fact is it shouldn’t be a factor at all. I lost 7 hard drives in one year, once, as a result of a combination of manufacturing defects and what turned out to be a faulty power supply. 15 is a lot, but it’s still very much a finite and reachable number, and any number is too few in the lifetime of a truly great game. Limited installations says to me “the publisher thinks you won’t want to play this one in the future,” who am I to argue with a review like that?

    • Bonedwarf says:

      In the last two years I’ve had 4 complete OS failures with no way to claw an activation back.

      I know people who with Spore’s five activations lost them all on release day due to the DRM not working properly and them trying to install on other systems.

      So don’t come that old “Oh how many people are going to reach this limit?” nonsense as you’ll be surprised how easy it is to burn through activations.

      And of course let’s not get onto GFWL and the BS that causes.

    • Jacques says:

      For me, it’s more a case of GFWL than the activations.

  44. Lambchops says:

    I understand the multiplayer being run through Games for Windows live but why oh why the save games. It’s just an irritation. It wasa pain in the arse for Arkham Asylum and I imagine it will be a pain in the arse again.

  45. MadMatty says:

    Well i have never had any problems with drm to this date (lucky i guess) (although my friend did smash his HalfLife2 disc when he found out he needed to be online to play it), but i can kindof see the problem now.
    Its completely 100% useless as piracy prevention, the copy protections are still broken in a matter of days after release anyways- check some of the torrent search engines if you dont believe me!
    If i´d bought a game and had any nonsense with the DRM, i´d just go and get a pirated copy… it might not be Kosher in some households (or legally, which is bullshit) , but whats wrong with getting a working copy of your game running once youve allready paid for it?

  46. Yargh says:

    I guess that means I’ll be getting Solium Infernum then. I’ve suffered through far too much just getting Dawn of War II and Red Faction: Guerilla to let me play them for me to be willing to go through it all again. No wonder the Steam pre-order is at a reasonable price.

    This one can wait until next year’s Steam Christmas Sale, I won’t mind so much then I suspect.

  47. Cam says:

    Not only the drm to screw us Aussies over but 2k has also decided that they want 79.99 usd for it via Steam!

    Sadly that’s still cheaper than retail but it was nice to see retail pc games come down in price for a while in the physical stores, lately they’ve gone back up again.

    I won’t buy 2k, Activision, or Sega games via steam unless they are the same price in usd as the yanks get. For an evil empire EA keeps all their prices the same on steam.. Even though their local online store is stupidly inflated (they prob get more aus sales from steam than their own retail store).

    I love reading comments on rps where people won’t pay more than 30gbp for a game, we routinely pay over three times that.. Does not compute.

    • Lambchops says:

      So you routinely pay 50 quid for games?

      That’s ridiculous – the only game that has ever gone quite that high here has been Modern Warfare 2 and that almost didn’t count as high street retailers were very aggressive in slashing the price of it.

      I completely agree with you that there should be a level playing field with the prices on Steam and, indeed, elsewhere.

    • luminosity says:

      Yeah. $30 more than the Americans get charged, stupid save system that has lost my saves in the past, limited activation DRM. Gee, they’re really going all out to get us to buy this one. A pity, too, I wanted to see what Jordan “The Cradle” Thomas would produce in charge of a team.

  48. kikito says:

    Arrrrr

  49. phuzz says:

    @RPS Hivemind Overlords Could you please find out who is responsible for deciding to go with a system like GfWL, when clearly their customers don’t want it.
    If it’s because microsoft are paying them money then I’d happily pay a £5 more for a game if I didn’t have to bother with it.
    In fact, someone tell valve to start paying people to use Steamworks, if I’m going to be chained to an evil monopoly I’d rather it was Gabe on balance.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>