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. Little Miss 101 says:

    Like Nimic said up there, this –> http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=596875 <– is the place to let go all this indignant bile, guys. Come join us, it's fun! =D

  2. Collic says:

    Securom I can deal with, games for windows live is a real barrier to me buying. I hate it. It’s pointless, obnoxious bloatware. I own a PC, not an xbox, and I have no interest in GFWL.

    Steam is DRM too, of course, but its DRM that at least provides some functionality (even if that isn’t consolation enough for everyone). Dawn of war pulled the same GFWL and steam combo, and that did factor into my decision not to buy it.

    Moved from will probably buy (reviews pending) to will likely not buy unless it has a multi-player so brilliant I can’t stand to miss it. That seems unlikely since most of my friends will likely steer clear because of the GFWL thing.

    I bought the original, by the way.

  3. Rick says:

    Well, no BioShock 2 for me then. I’ll spend my money on a developer that at least attempts to give me the benefit of the doubt that I’m a decent person. Plus, Games for Windows Live just plain sucks, for the many reasons already given in this discussion. That thing should have been shot in the head ages ago, but Microsoft simply aren’t prepared to admit they’ve designed a piece of utter crap.

  4. Phinor says:

    The GFWL team must have done one hell of a job. GFWL was supposed to if not save, then at least improve PC gaming and make it easier for everyone but instead, it did exactly the opposite. People have encountered countless of problems with GFWL and there’s literally no support to be had. I have personally lost saves of GTA4 and Fallout 3 and am currently not sure if I should keep using my online or offline account. If I use online account, GFWL has the ability corrupt/delete my saves in some cases when I don’t have Internet access or my Internet connection drops out while playing. On top of that, if GFWL as a service ever goes down, I no longer have access to my saves. Meanwhile if I use offline accounts, backing up those saves is not properly documented and Windows does NOT keep the save files safe during a re-install. GFWL games seem to plant important files into different places and I should not be forced to google to save my save files. That’s why Microsoft created the folder called ‘My Documents’, to keep my files organized!

    The main gaming platform is without a doubt Windows and they (Microsoft) have been doing software for several decades now, yet when they decided to improve gaming on PC, they managed to create something so bad there’s now 240 posts in RPS within 6 hours of this news being posted. Ok, some of those are about the activation limits but still, very few people have had completely problem free experience with GFWL when in fact everyone should be problem free, it was supposed to IMPROVE our gaming experience. They should be constantly updating GFWL to fix bugs and to add features since they decided to release GFWL in alpha form. Also having a place to look for help for problems might be a good idea.

    Oh and I did have one problem free GFWL game. DoW2. Although I don’t like the matchmaking all that much but still, GFWL didn’t ruin the game for me and even the online saves still work.

    • tapanister says:

      A friend of mine was honest stupid enough to put our country (Greece) as the country where he was playing from and couldn’t play online. There, now you’ve got DOW II covered as well :)

    • Phinor says:

      I knew I forgot something. It’s the fact GFWL is NOT supported in 166 countries! AT ALL! If you register your game from within one of those countries, your license is lost FOREVER and you will NEVER be able to go online/play multiplayer with that copy EVER again. A quick google will show plenty of casualties.

      It’s all fun and games unless you live in one of those 166 countries. Imagine that. Only 166 countries unsupported.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      There was a pretty funny/sad thread of this sort on the GfWL forums. Guy locked himself out of the online part of Dirt 2 by associating his key with his newly created GfWL account (which forces you to use the same country as what’s in your regional settings). First reply from official support folks was, without the slightest hint of irony, the following: “Sorry, you seem to live in an unsupported country, so we can’t help.”

      Yeah, screw you, too.

    • Tei says:

      “GFWL was supposed to if not save, then at least improve PC gaming and make it easier”

      No, it was supposed to extend the domination of Microsoft on the PC gamming, and make more forced money for Microsoft. Use a monopoly to get another monopoly. And this is illegal against the anti-monopoly laws, but Microsoft try that again and again, is a multiple ofender of that law. Is almost his only strategy, prevail not because of software quality, but forcing himself on other markets abusing existing markets.

  5. tapanister says:

    Pirates are gonna have a ball with this shit, cool. I was kinda looking forward to a good Mass Effect/Spore reenactment.

  6. Zerotime says:

    I cannot wait for Shamus Young to get furiously indignant over this, again.

  7. malkav11 says:

    Currently I am trying to decide whether I’d rather rent the 360 version or just skip the game altogether (absent a $5 or so sale much later). I suspect I’ll come down in favor of the former, but…bleh. I was really looking forward to the PC experience.

  8. dragon_hunter21 says:

    Wait guys, new post from a 2K employee. Apparently, we don’t need to be online to save games. (But we still need to make an offline account, and if we want MP, we need to register- pleh) Also, SecuRom is only for the retail CD release of the game, so as long as you buy it on Steam, you won’t have that issue.

    Of course, why they’d put it in the Steam blurb and not remove it is beyond me.

  9. vash47 says:

    It’s like they’re trying their best to get people not to buy their game.

  10. Tarev says:

    @Zerotime (in case the reply function doesn’t work) Well, at least he’s fairly entertaining while being furiously indignant.

  11. Psychopomp says:

    http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55023

    tl;dr Securom being listed as in the Steam version may just be a misunderstanding

    • redrain85 says:

      God, what a mess Take-Two is getting themselves into.

      So now apparently the Steam digital download version does not use SecuROM, but the retail disc copy does. How does this make any kind of sense? Why not use Steam for both, and not add this kind of needless complexity?

      And with the Steam version, GfWL is taking the place of SecuROM. They’re using its new activation feature that was recently added, with the activation limit is 15 times using the key they provide you with.

      I think. Like I said, the situation is quite a mess.

    • Psychopomp says:

      http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=597383&postcount=45

      Oh wait, they’re using GFWL for activation. Well, fuck that again.

    • Optimaximal says:

      Ignore any third-party sources – 2K PR have said that someone copied & pasted the bullet points from a retail box.

  12. Perry says:

    I really like GFWL – I have bought 5-6 titles on steam that had it – no problems to date. No lost saves, no issues what so ever.

    Steam is fine too.

    Securom is a deal breaker though unless a revoke tool is confirmed (like GTA 4 and Batman had).

    My only bad experiences with Securom were EA: Mass Effect, Spore and Crysis.

  13. Y3k-Bug says:

    Why do publishers keep adding things that get in the way of me and my game.

    I don’t want GFWL. I don’t need it in my life. It does NOTHING that I need it to do that Steam doesn’t already do.

    I absolutely hate things between me and my games.

  14. Alaric says:

    I was toying with the idea of buying it… not a chance of that happening now after I read these news.

  15. Baggie says:

    2K, I am dissapoint. Especially seeing I’m buying it on steam.

  16. Kalayar says:

    This downgrades Bioshock 2 from being a buy on steam to being a rental on my console.

    Well done guys, you don’t get my money!

  17. AngryInternetman says:

    “The Games for Windows Live key you get has 15 activations on it. If you reach 16, contacting Microsoft will get the key reset. ” That makes no sense. Having that many activations kinda removes the effect of well.. activations.

    • ascagnel says:

      You may never need 16+ activations, but I could see some foolish swashbucklers trying a key on that many different systems.

      If the activation limit had been this high when it started, the whole scheme wouldn’t be looked down upon so much. While not the greatest, it isn’t as outright bad as BioShock.

  18. Ash says:

    I can understand online registration. It’s a bit of a pain in the arse but i can understand it.

    I’m not too big on install limits but at least it’s a higher number this time.

    But having to be signed in to a useless service everyone abandoned years a go, especially when you’re already using a much better one (steam,) just to save? There was a reason Gears of War failed on the PC.

  19. Risingson says:

    Another hater of GFWL here. And well, the activations thing is something I don’t like either.

  20. mesmertron says:

    You know, I’d been on the fence about this game for a while. Maybe I read too much Ayn Rand in school (and that was only one of her short stories!), but Bioshock completely underwhelmed me. It was good, but in no way was it as great – for me – as the reviewers made it out to be.

    Still, i was prepared to invest in a sequel, up until I realized that there were so many other games I actively wanted to spend my money on this quarter. Whenever I looked for a reason to buy bioshock, the only thing I could think of was ‘well, i paid extra for the collector’s edition last time and got disappointed…’

    That’s hardly a reason.

    This is the final nail in the coffin. I’m not overly fond of steam (it’s good, i admit that, but it’s just another layer of application that i can live without). Securom’s never bothered me, but i kill enough computers to cringe at even quite generous install limits. GfWL? You know what, I’d like to like it, i really would. I’ve never had any problems with it, but three minor nusiances taken together are somehow more than the sum of their parts.

    Bring on Mass Effect 2 and Napoleon Total War. Bioshock 2 can go rapture itself.

  21. gandi_ginjaninja says:

    Follow Kieron’s link to the tech specs and “Update #2: The “machine activation limit” has been lowered to 5.”
    What a surprise.

  22. Simon Jones says:

    6-12 months back there seemed to be a general, growing shift in the PC gaming industry away from silly DRM. At some point when I wasn’t paying attention this shifted back in the other direction. :/

    I work for a (non-game) software company and DRM is often a topic of debate for our current/future software. The priority, though, is always to come up with some kind of solution that doesn’t inconvenience the paying customers. As soon as the proposed ideas cross that line, they get dismissed. It’s a shame Take-Two don’t seem tot have that attitude.

  23. Tobev says:

    I wonder what you’re supposed to do if your country isn’t supported by GFWL? Seems like Steam does everything GFWL does anyway, and probably much better.

  24. Premium User Badge

    UW says:

    I think the biggest irony of this whole SecuRom shit is that pirates will have the easiest time of all playing the game. The only people affected by this are those who own the game legitimately. You can guarantee this game will be cracked and available online the same as the PC release date.

    I wish PC games manufacturers would just accept it as fact that their game will be pirated easily, and acknowledge that the people who buy their games do so because a) They want online multiplayer b) They want to support the games industry or c) Somehow they don’t know how to pirate stuff.

  25. Asskicker says:

    I don’t buy games that use GFWL.

  26. Guido says:

    That’s it for Bioshock 2 then. I found the first one to be a bit overrated too, after I didn’t buy it for quite some time (and then not for full price) due to the already too strict DRM of the first part. Won’t miss much it seems.

  27. Agrajag says:

    They just lowered the machine count to 5. Brilliant, it’s as if they actually want people not to buy it.

  28. Moot (at work) says:

    The problem I have with all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is that the majority of gamers will still buy the game…then bitch about the DRM and GFWL all the way through playing it.

    I very much doubt that this DRM news will make any discernible impact to sales – those who were going to pirate it will still pirate it and those who were going to buy it will, for the most part, do just that.

    Is it any wonder that games manufacturers don’t often pay much attention to ENRAGED gamers? Most are all bark with no bite – just take a look back to the whole MW2 dedicated servers/boycott fiasco for a recent example.

    • subedii says:

      Well yes, let’s look over that again actually, and I’d say the issue has very much hampered IW’s efforts on the PC. The main problem is that the PC market is a tiny fraction of the overall sales.

      Personally I’m not a huge fan of the whole “boycott” thing, but honestly, I thought those guys were stupid anyway. Oh right, the screenshot? Yeah I’ve seen that wheeled out in EVERY freaking conversation. Here’s the problem though, the Steam group had about 800 people in it, about half of which were online on release day. Steam groups all people currently playing games at the top, and so out of a group of 800 you had maybe 20 odd people playing MW2. Hardly spectacular, but it doesn’t really prove the point everyone thinks it does.

      Getting back to MW2 in general though, let’s talk percentages. Previously FourZeroTwo (IW’s community manager and resident Twitterati) happily admitted that MW1 sold about 10%-15% of total sales on the PC. The numbers he was saying they were “satisfied” with this time around? 3%, the game didn’t even breach the top spot on the PC charts.

      Yeah I’d definitely say the game was underperforming compared to what it should have been selling. However like I said, the PC version numbers are quite frankly a drop in the bucket compared to the truckloads it’s shifting on the consoles (still a chart topper there even months on).

      Then you’ve got the actual multiplayer, which they really couldn’t have messed up more if they had tried. Hackers? Yeah they’re still there in huge numbers, only this time they can’t be kicked. What makes it a bigger issue is that PC hacks that have been programmed and spread in the wild on the PC as a result have ALSO started being modified and making their way onto the 360 version via memory injection (most recent being the XP hack which actually drains all your hard earned XP and sets you back to level 1). What’s far worse is that IWNet, despite being the company’s own system, allows PIRATED copies to play right alongside actual purchasers. Check the patch notes if you don’t believe me, the most recent patch from a few days ago was supposed to fix this issue, it didn’t.

      Ultimately I can’t help but believe the whole thing has been a fairly souring experience for both IW and their PC consumers. Which leads to one of two possibilities: Either

      a) The next product they’re going to make will take some of this into account and try not to be so stupid about everything or

      b) The next Modern Warfare game won’t even be released on the PC.

      Personally I’m expecting the latter to happen.

      So maybe a counterpoint to all this. You’ve got companies like Bethesda and Bioware, who actually LISTENED to their communities and made the DRM simple disc-only checks. In the case of Bioware specifically, they’re only using a disc check for Mass Effect 2. This comes after Mass Effect 1 had install limits on it.

      So are Bioware freaking drooling morons? Or did they actually LISTEN to community feedback on the issue and implement a form of DRM that made more sense and didn’t cause as many issues (don’t forget, verification issues are ALSO a problem for Bioware come release day. If the players can’t access the servers to verify, they can’t play)? Because as far as I can tell, if they weren’t listening to feedback from the community and instead were only listening to the people who wanted install limits last time around, the DRM would have been harsher if anything this time around.

    • Anonononomous says:

      On the other hand, I preferred the DRM on Mass Effect 1 as I don’t need the disc in the drive to play it.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “the game didn’t even breach the top spot on the PC charts.”

      You may want to check the steam sales list.

    • Lilliput King says:

      That’s probably not quite fair, though.

      Considering MW2 has to be activated on steam, no matter where it originated. So it’s a collection of every digital and physical purchase, anywhere.

      I don’t think that actually happens often, and is certainly not common practice when compiling the normal sales charts.

    • subedii says:

      I was referring specifically to the UK retail charts. Which realistically, are still bigger sellers than DD at this point.

  29. jon_hill987 says:

    Does anyone know if it has dedicated servers and a proper server browser or does it just use GFWL matchmaking and P2P? That would be a deal-breaker for me.

  30. jon_hill987 says:

    Oh, and when I say I’m not going to buy something I stick with it unless they change something. I recommend everyone do the same or developers/publishers will continue the horror that is GFWL and P2P play.

    • Triangulon says:

      @ Jon_hill987

      Amen brother. The only way we can make a stand is by sticking to our guns. And that means no pirating too! I didn’t buy MW2 and frankly I don’t feel like I missed out one bit. There are so many games around that it really doesn’t matter to miss out on a few (even so-called big titles). I won’t get Bioshock 2 now which is a pity as I enjoyed the first. I’ll be busy with Star Trek Online and the Mirror’s Edge time trials (another game I wasn’t bothered about originally but got in the steam sale – awesome!). I’m much more excited about Alien vs Predator anyways.

  31. Shadow Aspect says:

    I like GfWL. There, I said it. I’m not much of a fan of how different games put savefiles in different locations. And occasionally migrating savefiles can go wrong. Moving my savefile for Halo2 from WinXP to Win7 resulted in the game telling me the profile had corrupted.

    Securom, too, is a cause for concern. I have no way I know of to prove it, but after installing the retail version of Batman my DVD writer went on the blink and gives me a lot of trouble both reading and writing. Shall be buying a new cheapo drive in hopes of resolving that, as I was looking to get a second drive anyway.

  32. Sarlix says:

    I’m with you Jon_hill987, you have to make a stand and not give in, it’s the only way they will learn. It’s all or nothing!

  33. Don says:

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

    But is this like GTA4? I ignored that when it first came out as the DRM sounded annoying but succumbed when Steam practically gave it away in the crimbo sale. I thought I’d always have to run the game via Steam but not so, it runs quite happily without it so one bit of DRM (albeit the least irritating one) out of the way. GFWL I set up a local account as I care less about their online community, DLC etc. so all I see of that is the logo appearing for a few seconds as the game starts. Even the Rockstar social club, which Bioshock 2 is not blessed with, can be ignored, I’ve never set up an account and just skip the login.

    By and large I’ve found these ‘enhancements’ of no use whatsoever but in practice they don’t interfere with the game playing experience in any significant way. Of course if I was forced to setup an online account and login to that before I could save games etc. that would be annoying enough to cause me to skip the game and I’d much prefer it if they could just use Steam’s system for games delivered via Steam and keep the other stuff for retail sales.

  34. Beast says:

    Cool, another game I can pirate and not feel even the slightest twinge of remorse for.

    • subedii says:

      How about you NOT pirate the game instead of making their point for them?

    • Psychopomp says:

      He’d just be proving the point that pirates will get a better experience than paying customers.

    • Alaric says:

      He can make any points he wants, but if it wasn’t for thieves, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    • Azradesh says:

      Copyright infringement is NOT theft you drooling mouth-breather.

    • Alaric says:

      Yea, yea, whatever. Hide behind legal definitions all you want. As far as I’m concerned, a person who takes something that doesn’t belong to them is a thief, thief.

    • Azradesh says:

      I’m not arguing right or wrong, and it’s the English definition, NOT just the legal.

    • CMaster says:

      @Alaric

      As far as I’m concerned, a person who takes something that doesn’t belong to them is a thief, thief.

      Fair enough. However a software pirate hasn’t taken anything, they’ve simply duplicated it. Not legally, ethically or actually the same thing. This isn’t to say it’s right – just not the same.

    • Alaric says:

      I’m not saying that to copy something or to move something is the same thing. Either copying or moving are merely the means by which the rightful owner is deprived of the profit associated with the sale of whatever it may be. It is essentially an equivalent of buying something, then picking the vendor’s pocket for whatever you just paid him.

    • CMaster says:

      @Alaric
      And now you are making the assumption that
      A) The pirate would have bought the product had they had to part with cash for it
      B) The vendor has actually made it possible for the pirate to acquire it legitimately anyway.

      Also “deprived of potential profit” is entirely different to “took something away you already had. Me beating you at a job interview would be me depriving you of potential profit. Me sneaking into your house and stealing your TV would be theft.

      Note that I’m not about to argue that piracy is right. You can make arguments to that effect, but I’m far from sold on them. But this “piracy = theft” nonsense doesn’t help things get done sensibly.

    • Alaric says:

      @CMaster

      One can glorify it and call it piracy.
      One can read from the law books and call it copyright infringement.
      One can contemn it and call it theft.

      We are arguing semantics at this point. When an action takes place, which causes someone to unlawfully obtain something that they did not pay for, the problem does not lie in whether I, Alaric, call it theft or not. The problem is that it created the need for the owners to protect what is theirs, as as such made possible a market for all sorts of ridiculous DRM schemes that are criminal in and of themselves.

      The point is, if a few criminals didn’t steal (I’ll just stick to my definition if you don’t mind) we would not all be treated like criminals, be in this mess, or argue over proper designations.

    • Hmm says:

      Alaric, your definition is correct. I am, however, using my own definition of the word “correct”.

      Regardless, they’re not protecting anything, because it has never worked. Therefore one can only assume it’s inclusion is to annoy people who bought it. It’s like if they knew thieves were the only ones who wore heat-proof gloves, then heat every retail box up to 200 degrees to try and catch them out, who’s the one that gets hurt? (That’s quite an odd analogy, I know). Is it rational or sensible for them to take ineffective measures that punish the normal customer because of “a few criminals”?

    • Alaric says:

      Oh, I’m not defending DRM, far from it!

      In fact I have as much venom for these “protection” schemes as I have for thieves. I’ve passed on quite a few games in the past due to DRM, and unless 2K drastically change their ways, I will certainly ignore Bioshock 2 as well.

      Also, I never claimed that DRM works. Of course it doesn’t. And I don’t understand why publishers can’t realize it. Perhaps they feel that an action that is doomed to fail is better than inaction. Who knows.

      Still, stupid or not, they make games. And criminals obtain these games illegally. Which is what causes the problem in the first place. So while we all rally together against DRM, (which we should,) let us also not forget that the people who created this problem for us were the criminals not the publishers.

    • Azradesh says:

      Alaric this is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of fact. Copyright infringement is not and never will be theft, this is not an opinion Alaric, this is fact.

      Copyright infringement is legally wrong = Fact
      Theft is legally wrong = Fact
      Copyright infringement in not theft = Fact
      Copyright infringement is morally wrong = Opinion

      You can debate that last line and that last line only, but all the wrongness in the world and Copyright infringement is STILL not theft. You can not simply alter reality to suit your opinions.

      Final eg: You have a car, I want it. Either I…
      a) break into it and drive off with your car, I now have a car and you do not. This is theft.

      or I

      b) use my amazing and awesome Star Trek replicator to make an exact copy of your car, now we both have the same car. This is copyright infringement

      The rights and wrongs of doing the latter is not something I am discussing.

    • malkav11 says:

      No, I’m afraid the DRM problem is entirely the fault of the companies who use DRM. The pirates are not holding guns to their head and forcing them to do anything. It’s an understandable reaction, certainly. But it’s always been their decision.

    • Alaric says:

      @Azradesh

      Very well. You’ve convinced me. (Not really, but I’ll just spare myself the annoyance.) I will no longer refer to people who steal software as thieves, even though I see them as such. From now on I will call them criminals instead.

      I hope every criminal who reads this will a) enjoy this tremendous, overreaching victory and b) duly appreciate your hard work and dedication in standing up for their good name.

    • Azradesh says:

      I can’t argue with that Alaric. :P

      Did you know that you’re quite possiblely a criminal on multiple occasions with out even been aware of it? :D

  35. CMaster says:

    I’m always stunned that stuff like limited activations and so on are legal, especially when not clearly detailed on the box. (of course, perhaps they aren’t – it would certainly explain why apparently a phone call will always get you more activations). And this bullshit of just disabling the game because you live in the wrong country (like Greece, FFS!) sounds highly legally dubious, as well as just morlally way out there. (Imagine if you bought a fridge in France that didn’t work in Portugal. I think you’d have every right to your money back and an apology)

    And so I turned to thinking – even if this stuff is legal, perhaps it shouldn’t be. Seeing as there is often no way of avoiding this kind of bullshit (if you want to play BS2, you’ll have to – that or break the law with a pirated version) and lots of people aren’t awrae of the problems until too late, voting with our wallets won’t work. Even more than that, even when people do express their dissatisfaction by not buying, the developers/publishers write it off as “piracy” or “negative media reception” or some other such nonsense. So perhaps voting with our votes is the best bet. Start campaigning for better consumer’s rights legislation for software. Contact elected representives etc. On this side of the pond, the most likley place for this sort of consumer protection legislation is at an EU level. Contacting MEPs may be a good start. So might the European Commission who actually write the laws. There are probably existing consumers rights organisations out there that can help us. Of course, EU legislation would have to get past the Sarkozy and Brown government reps in the Council of Ministers who have got into bed with the rights holders. But it really is the only way I can see this sort of thing every changing.

    Thoughts?

  36. grevpt says:

    The day every pc game is bloated with these drm implementations, its the unfortutante day that i’ll stop play on my pc (hope on continuing to play some indies though). But i probably won’t go to consoles for a substitute.

  37. Anonononomous says:

    Because it came out a year late and was not a very good game?

    • Anonononomous says:

      That was a response to the “Gears of War failed on PC” post.

  38. PsyW says:

    SecuROM is moderately irritating but I’ll live with it. GFWL is a dealbreaker. There are so many games coming out in the near future that I’d like to thank 2K for doing me the favour of downsizing the list of things I have to buy!

  39. Urthman says:

    Even if you only want to play Bioshock 2 offline single player, is there any reason to believe you won’t run into the same crap John Walker did with Fallout 3 when they release the inevitable Bioshock 2 DLC?

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/01/27/fallout-3-new-content-adventures-in-gfwl/

  40. Nobody Important says:

    Automatic non-purchase.

  41. suibhne says:

    Well, at least that’s another game I won’t need to consider buying. Thanks, 2K!

  42. AbyssUK says:

    So will there me a multiplayer demo I can play without GFWL so I can at least see if its worth the hassle? Also what about LAN support ?

  43. Frye says:

    One or two people above mentioned it : Pirates get a better product.

    BUT, you can crack software you bought to at least get the same.

    I crack most of my software, just to get rid of the dvd check.

    It can be a little frustrating right after a patch has come out, but I have gotten used to not being able to play certain games right away. Also I have been (wrongly?) banned from multiplayer games on occasion, despite having a proper key, but fair enuf, my client could have been a cheat. Some games I didnt dare crack because of the multiplayer bit.

    But this is rare and far between. I can proudly say that NONE of my 19 currently installed games require a DVD or Tages or Securom. All my multiplayer games I buy on Steam.

    On occasion I downloaded the very same DVD that I just bought hours earlier from a torrent because it has a crack in a subdirectory that i had difficulty finding

    They make it very hard to set the right example for my household. And the crazy thing is, that I’m committing a crime. LOL!