Bulletstorm To Feature Constant Online DRM?

By Quintin Smith on January 30th, 2011 at 6:44 pm.

EDIT: Stand down! People Can Fly’s Creative Director, Adrian Chmielarz, has tweeted saying that Bulletstorm only requires a constant internet connection for installation and online play. This simply looks like an incredibly poor choice of words on EA’s part, since none of the other “digital” versions on the disclosure page list a persistent internet connection as a requirement. Phew. For posterity, I’ve re-posted my original post after the jump.

Gaze upon the grim reality that could have been…

Hey, remember Ubisoft’s DRM that demanded constant online authentication and quietly quit your games for you if your internet connection went down? The same DRM which Ubisoft since appears to have thought better of seeing as it wasn’t in R.U.S.E. and appears to have been toned down in Assassin’s Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction?

Well, Destructoid has just noticed that on the Electronics Arts product disclosure page both digital download versions of Bulletstorm are listed with “PERSISTENT INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED”. But I’ve also noticed that the packaged version of Bulletstorm doesn’t include these words, so I’m unsure what to think. Still. Shame Destructoid already used the Bulletstorm/Shitstorm joke, really.

, , , .

192 Comments »

  1. gutenbergn says:

    Don’t they ever learn? I should be happy though, one less game to spend my money on…

    • mandrill says:

      Wasn’t going to buy it anyway. I don’t think Cliffy B deserves my moolah

    • BAReFOOt says:

      Don’t we ever care? ;)

      You have to admire the beauty of that dynamic though:
      The more the crooks try to lock everything down (which by definition can never work), the more it motivates people to circumvent the unbearable.
      And the more people circumvent the delusion, the more it motivates the crooks to lock everything down.
      So in the end, only those still believing in mental delusion of “IP” are punished.
      Us who are free from it, aren’t.
      And it’s only getting better at a faster and faster rate.
      Until only those with business models that agree with reality and physics will survive.

      The future looks bright for us indie developers. :)
      For us, file sharing is a free advertisement medium.

    • Bilbo says:

      @Barefoot yep, you’re a habitual thief, good job!

    • sp0gg says:

      “@Barefoot yep, you’re a habitual thief, good job!”

      Copying is not theft.

      In case you didn’t know, there’s a moral case against intellectual property and many people are beginning to wake up and realize what a waste of time, energy, and money IP is for everyone. There are simply zero good arguments for the institution of intellectual property. Zero.

      Intro: http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
      No good arguments: http://c4sif.org/2010/12/there-are-no-good-arguments-for-intellectual-property/

    • Bhazor says:

      Apart from the whole getting paid bit.

    • Bilbo says:

      Hm, constructed a rebuttal but can’t be bothered with it, redacted.

    • Tetragrammaton says:

      Or having the rights to something which you yourself created.

      Edit: @Bilbo, speaking as someone who relies on the copyright of my output to keep food on the table – id say you are tragically misinformed.

    • bob_d says:

      @sp0gg: Oh, good gods. “Strawman” arguments reach a new low with that second link. Rather than address the actual arguments for IP, it simply ignores them all and talks about things which aren’t even arguments. There’s an argument to be made against IP, but these don’t even get anywhere near that conversation. I always thought that Libertarians were people who didn’t study history. Those links, instead, make me think they’re people who haven’t studied anything, ever.

    • sp0gg says:

      Creation alone does not imply ownership. Making a copy of bits on a hard drive is not stealing. If you hacked into a dev’s computer and copied the game, you trespassed. If you bought a legit copy of the game and had a friend copy it, there is no victim.

      The key is not physical vs non-physical, as bits on a hard drive are indeed physical. The issue here is scarcity vs. non-scarcity, and information can be copied to infinity without depriving the original owner’s stake in their own property.

      @bob_d: Ad hominem much? Destroy the arguments put forth or move along.

    • Bilbo says:

      @Tetragammatron Not really sure what your point is – I agree with copyright law.

    • CMaster says:

      @Bilbo.
      1st – No, current copyright law is one way of protecting the industry. It may be the best way (seeing as we haven’t tried any others) although that is unlikley. Regardless, it’s part of the business model of the current game industry. That doesn’t mean that under different IP law we’d stop getting games. I’d invite you to look at how huge chunks of the internet are run on open source software before judging too quickly.

      2nd – No, that wouldn’t be theft. It would be trespass, which they would have to sue you for. (Most car parks will send you a fixed penalty that you can pay, if they bother. However, you are in no way legally compelled to pay them, in the way you are say a civil parking fine).

    • Bilbo says:

      Oh my word… if you copy the game for a friend, there is no victim? Your friend should’ve paid for their own copy of the game, if they wanted to play it. The victim is the entity that developed the content you’ve illegally reproduced.

      Got any more?

      @People responding to the car park analogy, I don’t really stand by that – as someone who pays for what they need, I just threw a kneejerk reaction out there fuelled by disgust. Pay it no mind

    • Tetragrammaton says:

      Sorry Bilbo: Twitchy copy paste skills- that was aimed at sp0gg.

    • sp0gg says:

      “Oh my word… if you copy the game for a friend, there is no victim? Your friend should’ve paid for their own copy of the game, if they wanted to play it. The victim is the entity that developed the content you’ve illegally reproduced.”

      Bilbo, you’re using argument #1 from the second link I posted above – “It’s wrong because it’s illegal. The state says every citizen must pay for a license of any copy of software to use it.”

      You’ve failed to name a victim in this transaction.

    • Bilbo says:

      @sp0gg

      “The victim is the entity that developed the content you’ve illegally reproduced.”

      Ohmigosh

      But just to spell it out, the reason why they’re the victim is because they lose money. Money = incentive to work and continued ability to work in one neat package, so not getting it = no more content !& dead developers. The model in play is to charge each user a license fee to use the software, and by not paying that fee you have no right to the license. Part of making that model work obviously involves denying people who don’t pay the fee access to the software. Furthermore, the fact that open-source software exists does not automagically mean premium licensed software ceases to exist or be justifiable in just the same way that if I want to, I can look for roadkill for dinner rather than pop down to Tesco’s.

      If you want to change the entire system – if you’re promoting, say, anarchy – then say that, and talk about top-down change, because that’s interesting and that’s the ballpark unto which such concepts have some merit and are appropriate; as justification for being too cheap to pay for games, they do not, in my opinion.

    • Lilliput King says:

      bob: I know. Probably the worst article I’ve read this year. I wanted to say something but thought better of it.

      Spogg: There was no argument. There was just someone furiously erecting strawmen while screaming “Eh?! EH?!” at the top of their lungs.

      everyone else: Surely definitions of theft are entirely unimportant when we’re discussing morality?

    • sp0gg says:

      Please explain how copying a CD which I own and giving it to a friend causes another entity to lose money.

      The company sold me a CD. I now own that CD. I take a copy of my CD and give it to a friend. No harm, no foul.

    • Bilbo says:

      You own the storage media, but not the content on the CD – you license that content. Providing that material to a third party breaks that license. Your friend has no license for that content. If your friend wants to play the game, they should pay the developer for it. Granted, I’ve got less of a problem with this casual sharing between friends than I have with individuals simply downloading games illicitly rather than buying legitimate copies, which is what I thought we were talking about.

      I feel like I’m really just spelling out the obvious here and I don’t think anyone wants to hear it, so I’m not going to re-comment. Cheers!

    • Tetragrammaton says:

      The issue is indeed the loss of sales potential not physical theft. However, Theoretically, this ‘loss of sales potential’ could cause no actual financial loss to the creator – he is not losing money on manufacture or overheads etc.
      He is in reality, however, losing revenue that he would otherwise have received if people where not such a bunch of unscrupulous delusional bastards. This is still devastating to the creator, especially if he is independent of any greater financial muscle. And it is the Independents who suffer the most.
      I am not saying that concepts like open source are somehow unworkable. I am saying that Copyright laws and indeed IP laws are vital to keep the creator in control of his creation if he so wishes. As for the statement. ‘Creation alone does not imply ownership’ : Frankly that is a matter of perspective, and i could not disagree more.

    • sp0gg says:

      Bilbo, purchasing anything does not imply some sort of contract after the fact. Unless you explicitly enter some sort of contract with the game dev, you’re not bound to any sort of decree they may issue regarding what you may or may not do with what YOU now own.

      Printing “Don’t copy our CD plz” on the CD, manual, game box or anywhere is not consideration for a contract.

      Tetra: You invite me into your house where you have a large block of marble in your basement. I say to you: “Hey, mind if I go downstairs and mess around with that marble block?” “Sure,” you say. I go downstairs for a few hours and emerge with a beautifully sculpted bust of Warren Spector, created from your block of marble. “Thanks, I’ll be leaving now,” I say, and I walk right out the door with my creation.

      If creation alone does imply ownership, then the above situation should be completely acceptable to you.

    • Nick says:

      That has to be the most stupid argument I have read on RPS.

    • sp0gg says:

      Welcome back, Bilbo, that was a short break.

      So what you’re saying to me is

      1. An EULA is a valid contract.
      2. There is no way one can copy a CD before installing software and accepting the EULA.

      @Nick: Why is this the stupidest argument you’ve ever seen on RPS?

    • Nick says:

      Because people keep responding to you.

    • Archonsod says:

      “Bilbo, purchasing anything does not imply some sort of contract after the fact. ”

      You’re right. It creates a contract rather than implies it, a sale being defined under law as a contract to purchase.

      “In case you didn’t know, there’s a moral case against intellectual property ”

      There’s a moral case for genocide too, it does not in and of itself prove anything.

    • sp0gg says:

      “You’re right. It creates a contract rather than implies it, a sale being defined under law as a contract to purchase.”

      Please, elaborate on the contract I’ve entered by purchasing something with a command written on it. if I allow a child to use a product which says “Keep out of reach of children,” do I then own the maker of that product some sort of compensation?

      “There’s a moral case for genocide too, it does not in and of itself prove anything.”

      I await your moral case for genocide.

    • Bhazor says:

      “You invite me into your house where you have a large block of marble in your basement. I say to you: “Hey, mind if I go downstairs and mess around with that marble block?” “Sure,” you say. I go downstairs for a few hours and emerge with a beautifully sculpted bust of Warren Spector, created from your block of marble. “Thanks, I’ll be leaving now,” I say, and I walk right out the door with my creation.

      If creation alone does imply ownership, then the above situation should be completely acceptable to you.”
      No that would be theft, vandalism and fraud as you did not get consent to destroy someone elses property.

      “I await your moral case for genocide.”
      http://www.zcommunications.org/the-politics-of-the-srebrenica-massacre-by-edward-herman
      Argument and debate does not equal validation.

    • sp0gg says:

      “No that would be theft, vandalism and fraud as you did not get consent to destroy someone elses property.”

      Exactly. Creation alone does not imply ownership. That’s what I was saying.

    • Bhazor says:

      … how?

    • sp0gg says:

      Because if creation were the sole determinant of ownership, you’d have to ignore all other factors that really do determine ownership. In my example, Tetra consented for me to enter his house and go to his basement and modify his block of marble. However, he did not consent to me leaving his property with it. If creation were the ultimate determinant of ownership, I would be able to walk away with my new creation unharmed.

      The same goes with selling something. I sell you a CD with a program I created on it. I gave ownership rights of the CD and all its contents to you. I don’t get to keep any part of it or tell you what to do with it just because I was the originator of the property.

      In fact, creation is not a determinant in property ownership consideration at all. There are only two ways to come into ownership of something:
      1. Claiming an unowned resource from nature.
      2. Title transfer from one person to another.

    • Premium User Badge

      stahlwerk says:

      It is harmful to morally divide the industry in two arbitrary camps of “indie” and “megacorps”, because both are dependent on one another and both employ a whole bunch of good looking, smart, decent, talented people, who would be out of a job or worse if funding for the next game falls through because the last one tanked due to “piracy”. But still, there’s a notion that the Robin Hood method of wealth redistribution is for the common good of the medium. I sincerely doubt that.
      Why? Because people are cheap, if you offer them a finger, they’ll either wait until they can buy the whole hand at a steam sale or get the arm on a torrent site for instant gratification. Misery’s the river of the world etc.

      Edit: please note that I said morally, of course I recognize the differences between Indie and Non-Indie (Deps?) game development, scene and marketing.

    • sassy says:

      @sp0gg: First off you didn’t ask to modify the block of marble, simply mess with it. That is an entirely different thing. Therefore you have just went and defiled the owners marble, it is that simple.

      What does marble have to do with gaming anyway? Developers create content out of nothing (or licensed materials), this costs money. Doing anything that deprives the developer of the funds that they are entitled to is immoral, end of story.

      The contents of a disc are not (and should not be) owned by the purchaser, if they did then they are legally and morally allowed to make copies and sell them. If you argue that this is a perfectly acceptable situation then I would you are irrational scum.

      I was going to go into open source but I felt it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so I will leave it at that.

    • nayon says:

      sp0gg, what’s your profession? How old are you? I don’t mean to demean, I’m just asking so I can get a sense of your social/economical status and relate it to your opinion.

      Your argument about the marble block is fallacious, yes, you did create the marble statue, and under independent conditions that would give you rights to it, but the marble block is owned by your friend, so even though you created the statue and thus should have the rights to it, he provided you with the material, environment and opportunity to create it, and morally, if not legally speaking he should also have some kind of say on it. If you had purchased the block of marble from him, then it would probably have been fine, and you would probably be right to think you own the rights to the statue you created.

      I for one, am a musician and a computer scientist working towards a PhD. In both of those careers, I have seen the value of proper attribution of creations to their creator, and I have also seen the shortcomings of laws regarding it. I understand that the corporate attitude towards this subject frustrates you, but you must also understand that there needs to be some kind of system to both protect and reward the creator. Otherwise we would fall into a state of creative anarchy, and without any motivation/reward for the creator, the creator will lose the desire and means to create.

      Do you think the game industry would exist if no one ever paid for games. Making games cost money. Studios need money to make more games. How do you suggest they earn that money? Donations? Please. Some people buy it, some people pirate it, and they make money from the buyers? Let X be the number of buyers and Y the number of pirates. If piracy was legal, and morally acceptable, the situation could easily devolve to X=5 and Y=5 million. People will by default choose the cheaper option.

      Don’t pay for movies, don’t pay for games, don’t pay for music. Even if you say it’s legally acceptable (and it’s not, the first argument saying “it can’t be illegal without justification” isn’t a good counterargument, regardless of justification if it’s illegal it’s illegal. If you don’t like it, either disobey the law and enjoy the consequences or try to change the law (by voting or other means, whatever)), it’s not morally acceptable by traditional moral standards. Might not be part of your moral compass, and that’s why I ask you what’s your age and profession.

    • mda says:

      I would just like to add to this thread that noone actually owns anything, ever.

      Posession is an illusion.

    • nayon says:

      @mda of course, nothing means anything, but given that we accept the fact that there are laws and people generally obey them, we have our argument. Otherwise all arguments on this subject are pointless :D

    • sp0gg says:

      “Your argument about the marble block is fallacious, yes, you did create the marble statue, and under independent conditions that would give you rights to it, but the marble block is owned by your friend, so even though you created the statue and thus should have the rights to it, he provided you with the material, environment and opportunity to create it, and morally, if not legally speaking he should also have some kind of say on it. If you had purchased the block of marble from him, then it would probably have been fine, and you would probably be right to think you own the rights to the statue you created.”

      Thank you for again reaffirming what I’ve stated above. My example was meant to be fallacious. I was demonstrating that creating something does not give you ownership of said thing. I never implied that the example was valid.

      “Do you think the game industry would exist if no one ever paid for games. Making games cost money.”

      You’ve used argument #3 from the second link I posted above. There’s no evidence that such a system needs to exist, and there is plenty of evidence that the IP system is a net drain on the economy. Pornography does not enjoy as robust IP protections due to its “unsavory” nature in our culture, yet it is still being made because someone, somewhere is paying for it.

    • nayon says:

      @sp0gg no, your argument that IP rights don’t make sense because of the marble situation is fallacious. Thus you aren’t disproving IP rights with your example.

      That’s like saying: “Barack Obama isn’t black because he’s Japanese”. Just because Obama isn’t Japanese doesn’t make him not black. Making an incorrect statement doesn’t destroy the validity of existing correct statements.

      That’s what I tried to address in my previous post, perhaps you should have paid more attention to what I actually said instead of trying to find a way to reaffirm your ill-conceived erroneous argument. Turns out I expected too much, I thought your previous arguments were generally well-worded so I expected that you could hold some reasonable debate, but I guess I’ll go elsewhere for a good debate.

      Read more carefully, and try to answer my questions next time. Spouting nonsense and ignoring valid points doesn’t make you look smart.

      Also, are you saying that we don’t need to pay for games? Who’s gonna pay for the cost of making games then? What games did you enjoy in the previous 5 years? How many of them would have been possible if the developer(s) had no money to make it?

    • Bungle says:

      More than 2,000 human genes have been patented by private companies so far. Larry Buffer has successfully sued people for saying “Let’s get ready to rumble” as if he owns the words. Think about it. Intellectual Property laws are bogus and designed to keep the rich in power. All sensible people must reject them.

    • nayon says:

      @Bungle the whole “patenting genes” thing is a really weird issue, but research funding doesn’t come out of thin air, a company works for 10 years to engineer a drug, and then some other company just copies their plans and starts making a competitor that is exactly the same?

      Indeed, the current laws are kinda bull, but there has to be some way to protect creators and customers simultaneously.

      You guys have to realize that effort takes time and money and has to be rewarded one way or the other.

      Please, anyone who makes an anti-IP argument, also state your profession. I really wonder what kind of job a person who thinks this way has.

    • sp0gg says:

      “Spouting nonsense and ignoring valid points doesn’t make you look smart.”

      Neither does dismissing a valid argument instead of refuting it, talking about how you’re a computer scientist going for a PhD, asking about socioeconomic status, or attempting to dismiss someone else as if they were a child or lesser being than you. It’s not me who’s concerned about looking smart, I’ve stuck with the debate the entire time.

      Unless you’d like to address my argument about pornography, tell me why my marble statue example doesn’t hold up as disproving creation as the sole determinant of ownership, or begin addressing me in a civil manner, I’ve no interest in continuing to talk to you.

    • nayon says:

      @sp0gg

      I mentioned my professions because both professions are cannot exist without some form of IP rights, thus displaying my standpoint. I am not trying to prove any superiority by mentioning them.

      Socioeconomic status is valid in my opinion, because it helps me understand where your argument is coming from, and it helps me make arguments that are relevant to the person so we can understand each other better.

      As I said before:

      “Your argument about the marble block is fallacious, yes, you did create the marble statue, and under independent conditions that would give you rights to it, but the marble block is owned by your friend, so even though you created the statue and thus should have the rights to it, he provided you with the material, environment and opportunity to create it, and morally, if not legally speaking he should also have some kind of say on it. If you had purchased the block of marble from him, then it would probably have been fine, and you would probably be right to think you own the rights to the statue you created.”

      Had you acquired the rights to the block from your friend from the block, yes, you would be able to claim IP rights on the statue. This makes sense within current IP laws.

      Had you attributed your friend as a co-creator or some other cooperator in your marble statue, yes, you would be able to claim IP rights on the statue, along with your friend. This makes sense within current IP laws.

      In your argument, you neither purchase the rock from your friend, nor do you cite him as an enabler for your statue. Thus this behavior doesn’t make sense within current IP laws. Thus, your argument is illegal within current IP laws, thus your argument does not contradict current IP laws, thus it is not fallacious.

      About the pornography issue. I am not familiar with IP regarding porn, and I am not too familiar with the traditional porn business model. So my argument would be, at best, guesswork. But since you called for it anyway, I’ll try my best.

      There is a lot of free porn on streaming websites, and those sites usually work together with paid porn sites. They advertise for paid sites, and the videos on such free sites are usually either cropped versions of paid-for videos or amateur videos. Now, amateur videos are an entirely different argument, so let’s get to the paid videos. Traditionally, to access those videos, one has to pay for a paid site, which is quite similar to regular IP. I believe that’s how they make their money.

      Of course, illegitimate (let’s not say illegal) distribution of paid videos is possible, and I would presume it takes place a lot (I honestly don’t know how it works outside of free streaming sites). At least some people pay for the videos, which is how I presume the industry makes its money (ignoring secondary avenues like selling pills, toys, etc). If nobody paid for the videos, then that industry would also be unable to make money and thus sustain its state.

      If 10 people watch a video and they each pay $10 for it, the video’s maker earns $100. If 10 people watch a video but only 3 of them pay for it, the video’s maker earns $30. The other 7 watched the video without paying for it, and while they neither stole something nor did they cause any loss or damage, they gained access to something that they shouldn’t have been able to without benefiting the creator. As mentioned, this isn’t theft, but there should be some name for it. It is a disrecognition of the effort of the creator, and it potentially makes the creator’s life harder. I guess.

      As I said, my argument in this area isn’t really strong because I’m not really familiar.

      Alright, then let me ask you a question. Let’s say I somehow take Minecraft, and exactly copy the game, call it “World of Minecraft”, and due to some strange twist of fate, it ends up being more popular than the actual Minecraft. Let me remind you that I didn’t spend an effort to develop the game or anything, while Notch has been working on it for years. Is this fair for Notch? If not, how do you protect Notch from a situation like this, realistically speaking?

      I tried to answer all of your arguments and questions to the best of my ability, now it’s your turn. This argument can’t continue without a symmetric amount of participation.

    • steviesteveo says:

      Bansky spraypaints a wall. Does he own the wall? No. But he owns the painting he designed. This is what intellectual property is for. The story is not the paper it is printed on.

      The problem is this is a complicated, technical issue and people are not using technical arguments to discuss it. We’ve got a crazy hypothetical of a person who goes around chiseling his friends’ marble blocks (oh matron) here.

      There’s someone in this discussion single mindedly demanding to have a “victim” pointed out to them despite that this is not necessary at all. Parking illegally is a criminal offence — IP infringement is just a civil wrong — and the only reason we have that is because it helps keeps parking available for other users. You don’t need even “victims”. Sure, it’s nice and simple if you can point the orphan (filesharing killed her parents, I’m afraid) but it is completely unnecessary.

    • Wulf says:

      “If 10 people watch a video and they each pay $10 for it, the video’s maker earns $100. If 10 people watch a video but only 3 of them pay for it, the video’s maker earns $30. The other 7 watched the video without paying for it, and while they neither stole something nor did they cause any loss or damage, they gained access to something that they shouldn’t have been able to without benefiting the creator.”

      This is the kind of thing I stopped reading RPS for. I look back, just out of curiosity, and I see the same old nonsense. How can someone as obviously learned as you make such a willfully specious argument? I know I’m not particularly bright but I understand enough about economics to see why there are so many things wrong with this block of text. And in an attempt to uphold good essay format, I’ll cover them on a point by point basis over the next number of paragraphs.

      The first problem is that you’re oversimplifying. You present the fallacy that 10 people already have access to the film before the point of purchase, this is due to how you’ve worded your argument, you speak as though people do things and pay afterward, but generally the reverse is true unless we’re talking about demos or trailers. What does happen is that a person has the option to pay to view or to pirate, this is where you’re oversimplifying because it’s not as simple as you paint it to be.

      First of all, there are a number of arguments which explain why each instance of piracy isn’t a lost sale. Not only do we have people measuring lost sales incorrectly (I’ll get back to this), but we assume that the person who has gained access to the media is from an economically stable and wealthy country. My point is is that situations can change, and whilst someone might have been able to afford a means of watching a film years ago, their financial status might not allow them much or even any leisure currently, due to life circumstances and the economic and financial stability of their nation.

      Now, with assumed lost sales being measured correctly, many publishers look at BitTorrent and believe that every connection is a unique downloader. This is an incorrect but common assumption – often a download on BitTorrent will take a while, and in that time their connection might be interrupted or they may shut off their computer. Yet each of these is taken as a real number, so what I’m getting at here is that the seven people who didn’t pay might have only been three, which brings the total of people who had access to the media to six, not ten. So this part of the argument is fallacious as well.

      Piracy numbers are inflated to begin with because of a misunderstanding of how technology works. And we understand that not every instance of a pirated form of entertainment equals a lost sale. Let’s say that one of the three people who actually did download the file in question was actually able to pay to see the film. Then that’s only one lost sale to begin with. So we have one lost sale right there, granted. But this is where things get interesting, because piracy has often acted as a form of free advertising. And what I see people do is distribute what money they do have to the parties they feel are most deserving.

      So let’s say that at the end of the month, that one person who pirated that file has some money to spread around, and one of the things he decides is worth the money being asked is the file he downloaded previously, so he pays for it after the act of piracy, because he felt it was worth the money. I know a number of people who do this because they have limited available funds. Therefore they tend to use piracy to determine what’s actually worth their money, that way their money goes to people who’re doing things they like, to support those people, to help ensure that these people do more of what it is that they like. And this is becoming more and more common.

      So what you actually have there is four sales and no instances of a lost sale. I’m not saying it’ll play out this way every time, but I’m just explaining how the argument was specious in the first place. And there are real world examples of this that one can look at to understand why it can play out that way. Dwarf Fortress is an entirely free game, it is a free game in that there is no box, no monthly payments, and no microtransactions. And yet its developer lives comfortably. Why is that? The developer of Dwarf Fortress provided a method of payment to those who thought his works were worth supporting. It’s not at all uncommon to find people who’ll pay for something they like, even after the fact.

      It happens all the time, too. Shows do a first episode on YouTube and ask for donations to continue and they get them. Many open source projects are founded on donations. And some people just ask for funding to continue whatever it is they do. Just because a person had enjoyed something already for free, it doesn’t automatically imply that they won’t pay. The vast majority will, they’ll use whatever amount of money is available to them to the best of their ability.

      One example that applies to me recently is that I listened to a number of tracks by a musician named Sidhe on YouTube, I listened to them a number of times, and when I had the money available to me to do so I actually went ahead and bought the album from bandcamp because I wanted to support the artist, I honestly felt that what I’d listened to and continued to enjoy was worth paying for. So when I divided up my entertainment fund, I made sure that that musician was compensated for their work.

      But this is why I don’t visit RPS much any more. I tend to find that arguments like this are common and I’m almost certain that I’ll be drowned out. If someone considers pirating something then they’re automatically an evil pirate, a true evil, and the scum of the earth. It’s a very black & white, simplified, moralistic approach and very typical of old world dualistic thinking. But there are so many layers to a situation like this, and I don’t think that IP laws as they are right now actually work, I don’t think that the dinosaurs of publishing companies realise how things are shifting to the Internet, and I do believe that this is the future. A future where people will simply upload their works, and those who enjoyed them and can afford to pay will do so. You’ll always get one or two who won’t, but they’ll be of a minority so small it wouldn’t be worth considering. Much like things are today.

    • Premium User Badge

      Crimsoneer says:

      You’re in a country where the democratically elected representatives have said copyright law, and IP, reign supreme. Thus, if you decide your moral code is more important than the law, men with badges and funny hats come to take you to a bad place. Thus, they win.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Oh so tempting to coolstorybro.

      Instead of repasting it, I will just link to my last post on this rough topical area (stealing/copying/piracy impact/theft:

      http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/20/proto-minecraft-abandoned-due-to-epic-error/comment-page-1/#comment-608160

      Quite a bit parallel to what Wulf has said, which is likely no coincidence.

    • JackShandy says:

      “I would just like to add to this thread that no-one actually owns anything, ever.

      Posession is an illusion.”

      Oh, I don’t know. I’m quite attatched to my kidneys.

      Surely my body is mine by definition- it IS me. You can sever my brain and keep it in your pocket, but it’s still fundamentally mine by virtue of the fact that I’m in it. And if you agree that a person owns their body parts, what if they physically grafted their possessions onto themselves?

      A crazy example, you might say, but I’d argue that our possessions DO become part of ourselves, at least mentally. When two cars crash into each other, no-one ever says “He hit my car with his car!” – they say “He hit me!”. You don’t say “My on-screen avatar shot a guy” or “My oven baked a pizza” or “My arm opened the door.” You put some of yourself into the objects you use.

      Ahem. Apologies for the derailment! Continue arguing.

    • Premium User Badge

      Thermal Ions says:

      Kind of getting tired of half the comments on every second article I read on RPS devolving into a pointless* debate on Copyright / Theft / IP Law. I used to enjoy reading the comments.

      * Pointless as in the battle lines are drawn from the first post and regardless of inferred or professed “open mind” it becomes apparent as it goes on that no-one’s position is up for grabs to a convincing argument. Those reading, which the posters may hope to convince, are likely getting bored / jaded and clicking away to find something more interesting than what is essentially “I’m right, your wrong” being posted over and over again.

    • Lilliput King says:

      I dunno, I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion. I hadn’t come across the ‘creation doesn’t imply ownership’ argument before, and spogg argued it very convincingly.

      Of course, the statue example kind of raises a corollary argument which is that the original owner of the block could now simply take that crafted bust and sell it as his own, which seems as wrong as the first conclusion.

    • hamster says:

      Sweet frickin’ jesus. You don’t own a patent because you created something – you own it after you have REGISTERED it, and usually this requires proving a number of factors to the satisfaction of the relevant department. One of them is, without a doubt, legality. So there’s the marble thing out of the way (although here the IP right in question is industrial design).

      There certainly are arguments against IP rights. For example, growth inhibition of some sectors that rely on some highly technical aspect that has been patented. But then some countries impose mandatory licensing schemes and even if not, patent rights typically expire after a period of time. Check out the pharmaceutical industry to see this in action. Along the same line, the growth inhibition (argued above) may be so strong that it becomes anti-trust. Yet, just a couple of decades ago, the defendants were compelled by the court to license their patented tech (i believe the case had to do with satellite parts) CONTRARY to their IP rights. So there we go: in extreme cases, the court will intervene. If not, legislators will legislate.

      So now we go back to the whole thing Spogg was talking about. Um firstly, offer and acceptance occur when you purchase the boxed copy of the game with the retailer. The stuff on the box constitute the contractual terms. Now, technically there is some debate as to whether the stuff in the EULA, accessibly ONLY inside the box is legally binding. But the terms on the box reference the EULA which is presumably accessible online anyway. That being said, the freedom to contract means guys can specify anything contractually UNLESS it contravenes statute. One might argue that due to the first sale doctrine, if the game is considered as a commodity good rather than a license, then any right to resale is expressly stipulated in the doctrine (which means contract terms can’t supersede it). This is probably a pretty weak argument though. Other examples of legislation interfering with contract terms include waivers to liability and punitive clauses (and probably a few others depending on the country’s laws). So basically i fail to see how Spogg’s fallacious example adds anything to the discussion.

      And FYI i have a law degree and specifically studied comparative IP.

      As for IP rights, the world would SUCK if there was no IP. Nobody would bother spending development funds on something. Do you have any idea how cheap it is to replicate an IC, for example? The parts might be a @#$# to design and test, but the actual variable cost of production is miniscule. Then you have the same situation with pirated games in which the cost of (online) replication is essentially zero. Without IP nobody in their right mind would invest. In fact, it would make much more sense for some charitable shmuck to develop something…then immediately replicate it. That’s right, spend your funds instead on establishing a distribution network :)

      Wulf: you typed a heck of a lot of stuff to essentially agree. Yes, the economic loss is only potential and no, the interpretation of the statistics is probably flawed (if not intentionally exaggerated). But then your position is just as bad as theirs. You don’t know how many people out there end up buying the game/can’t afford/wouldn’t have bought in the first place vs. the people who would have bought it but for bittorrent. So really i don’t think you have the grounds to dismiss piracy just like that. In fact I think experience with human psychology points more towards free riding than uh, “morality”.

    • Kefren says:

      Re: the marble block in my basement thing.
      I would defintiely remove that player from ops.txt.
      No-one messes with the blocks in MY cellar! It causes dwarf rage.

    • latedave says:

      I always find these IP debates interesting but skewed. Essentially we operate in two different systems,

      1. You purchase big release type game through a store or online or crack the game/ download it (harder), companies keep trying to make it harder to download or crack it and lots of people who do it complain and point to…
      2. You purchase an indie type game, this can also cracked/ downloaded quite easily but often thats in the Indie company’s interest as it spreads knowledge of their game throughout a community in which they cannot afford to advertise in. Sometimes its entirely free and you simply pay a donation.

      People like 2. so they apply it to 1, and scream at publishers ripping us off (which of course they do but thats capitalism, they need to pay shareholders, pensions, national insurance and big bonuses to directors which sucks unless of course you’re one of those big bonus type people)

      The difficulty with 2. as an argument over whether we really need IP is that often these indie developers are creating their games whilst working for a company that does 1. Very few indie developers survive on donations/ good will. Minecraft probably being the main example. No IP rights actually to me has an interesting slant on the marxist idea of no one owning anything and its all shared, its a great idea but it doesn’t encourage innovation or putting in additional effort/ quality, you’re rewarded the same as everyone else.

      Open Source is an interesting example, I work for an IT firm and we’re shifting to systems integration with open source and developing more software to do that, we’re still making money, just a different way. SpoGG used the argument of pornography, why do people make it if it doesn’t make any money? Well in fact a lot of it is now free on internet sites, particularly amateur but these sites now make money in other ways through advertising and ‘premium type content’ (whatever the hell that is *ahem:)*. IP rights exist for the same reason patents do, somewhere someone has put time and effort into something, if they don’t have the possibility of reward (and many people do stuff for free) then why would they do it again? Piracy, regardless of dicking around with the numbers dilutes that possibility, even free to play browser games aren’t free, you’re paying by having that advertising and sponsership on your screen even if you haven’t physically parted with cash. Oh and the marble example is a classic one in criminal law (not that specific one which is flawed but theres tons about cakes etc) but basically your mate owns the raw materials, you would however be likely to entitled to a cut of the proceeds if it was sold but it would depend very much on what was specifically said. Here we’re talking purely IP so it doesn’t apply.

    • nayon says:

      @wulf fine, you are right on that; but please, also answer my other arguments?

      Especially the one about medicine and/or Notch. How do you protect the creator from, for lack of a better word, “intellectual theft”?

      For the record, I’m not “for IP”, but I’m “for anti anti-IP”, if that makes any sense.

      If we got rid of all IP laws like some here have suggested, then we would be in a chaotic situation. Not all businesses can strive on an open-source model.

      Maybe the idea works for TV series, games, music etc, but it definitely doesn’t work for science. And by science, for those interested, I don’t mean open journals. That has already been implemented and it seems to work. I don’t care about the ownership of the papers I publish. I care about the ideas therein. If I work for 15 years and make a huge discovery, and someone with no experience or anything just sees my discovery, “steals” it and becomes rich with is, is that fair? What have I spent years working for? Just the origination of the idea? I was trying to monetize the idea too, but that other guy somehow beat me to it, and thus my idea is invalid to me now. With this, I am out of business, and can no longer avoid to do R&D, and this does not benefit science.

      With IP laws, however, I am always guaranteed that if my idea is somehow monetized, I will see some profit from that, thus I can keep doing R&D and benefit the world.

      IP laws as prohibitive, lawyer-tempting traps aren’t good, but without some sort of IP protection, research doesn’t work. I am all for rewording and reworking the current IP laws, but I am strongly against completely abolishing them. Free games sound like a good idea but not everybody is as nice as Wulf to pay for donationware. And the argument doesn’t work at all for science/development.

      Do you think any of the movies you watch, the games you play (I’m talking about big budget productions like Inception, Dragon Age etc (it’s not relevant if you think those suck, a lot of people liked them and it’s just a matter of taste, I’m sure there’s ONE major production you like, even if it’s not recent)) would have been created without IP protection? Do you seriously think they can financially maintain themselves within your proposed model?

      It is true that some people do donations. But let’s look at the numbers. Inception’s budget was 160 million dollars. That’s how much it took to make that movie. If sharing was legal, i.e. anyone could see the movie without paying for it, how much do you think that movie would have made? Let’s say we live in a supremely optimistic world. Donators (donors sounds weird) would donate up until the original budget of the movie was met (highly unlikely, Wikipedia barely made its budget of 16 million last year, and this movie is 10 times that, and I believe the amount of people who use wikipedia is greater than the amount of people who watched inception), but that would be it. The movie would barely break even, and the creators wouldn’t have been able to make more movies. This wouldn’t be a profitable business model so people would stop making movies. There you go, no more Inception, no more Dragon Age, no more Alpha Protocol, no more Minecraft, whatever it is that you enjoy.

      You’d be stuck with playing shitty flash games and/or (not shitty) humble bundle games if the developers decide to be EXTREMELY generous. That’s it.

      Do you honestly believe a business model without some sort of IP is reasonable? If so, please do tell me if you work in a profession that is protected by IP (musician, developer, scientist etc) and how you would earn money without IP.

      @latedave yes, I’m glad you said that. There’s a lot of dicking around with facts going on when the subject of IP comes up. For every niche argument anti-IP people come up with, there are thousands of real life situations where IP has proven to be worthy (albeit ill-formed). IP enables science, and science saves lives. Without IP most researchers would go bankrupt.

      And what happens if someone steals our work? I have another musician friend who writes a lot of songs, and some kid on youtube just took his songs and called them his own. Now that kid is making an album, and he will sell those songs. My friend is trying to take action against that kid. How do you suggest this be feasible without IP laws?

      Let’s be realistic, Wulf. The pirate is an exception? Only one or two people will use the works without paying? CoD:MW2, no matter what you opinion of it is, was pirated 4.1 MILLION times. Attribute that to it being a bad game?

      Super Mario Galaxy 2, a game universally liked, was pirated 1.47 million times. It had 8.84 million sales worldwide. So every one person in nine didn’t pay for it? Can you honestly say most of those pirates just bought the game eventually?

    • latedave says:

      @Nayon, agree with most of your points to be fair, particularly the music example which is where somethings available for free but reused in a way the original person didn’t intend.

      @Wulf, SpoGG et al ; I think reading through the comments most piracy is justified on a try before you buy, in which case why not rent a game? DVD’s and music do it and also suffer high levels of piracy justified by exactly the same arguments, the reason bit torrents are popular is because they are free, not because they’re a safe, easy way of transferring data.

      I would probably argue that the reason games feature even more intensive debate and safeguarding is purely because publishers have the ability to put keys and drm on them which is harder (although still done to some extent) with dvd’s and music and also far more noticable when it f***s up. The IP debate for games is really just a lazy way for people to sound intellectual when its far more applicable to more worrying things like gene patents and crap like ‘apple’. I work on something, I expect the possibility of reward (how long that reward should be applicable for is a much more interesting debate in my view, see ‘The underdogs’ for companies being muppets about protecting old games IP long after people would part with money)

      Edit: stupid reply function!:)

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @spogg
      Yeah, you are irrational scum. And as long as you “reason” like a child or lesser being people are going to treat you like one. Your arguments are so shortsighted it is utterly beneath me to waste my time playing games with you.

      Western society is predicated on the notion that everyone is equal and their opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s, no matter how idiotic and destructive they may be. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes on the internet knows this to be a shoddy lie.

      Unless we stop babying people with retarded views and stop wasting our precious energy trying to reason with them, as the other posters so foolishly did, this delusion will be our society’s downfall.

      @Nick
      Exactly.

    • Fumarole says:

      That’s gotta be some kind of record for number of responses to a first post on here.

    • Kefren says:

      “most piracy is justified on a try before you buy, in which case why not rent a game?”

      I think that in an ideal world that would be possible, a la CDs and DVDs from the public library or video shop. The thing that kills the idea for PC games is the DRM usually, i.e. limited activations, EULAs and requirements to create accounts (GFWL, Steam, Tages etc).

      I have a really good idea though – why don’t all PC game publishers make sure they always release a demo?

      :-)

    • Lilliput King says:

      “Unless we stop babying people with retarded views and stop wasting our precious energy trying to reason with them, as the other posters so foolishly did, this delusion will be our society’s downfall.”

      Phew, good thing you caught that. Sounds like we could’ve been in real trouble.

    • Longrat says:

      It’s like whenever anyone makes a post condoning pirating RPS goes into a frenzy. Seriously you guys, just stop getting mad at this stuff.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      @Nayon

      Alright, I’ll bite on the one point about research not existing without IP.

      To get the preliminaries over with quickly; 24 years old, synthetic chemist in a small company that profits mainly from the sale of a handful of patented enzyme substrates. As well as previous experience in one of the big pharma companies.

      To me, as an incentive for research that benifits society as a whole, earning money from the licensing or sale of a patented discovery/creation is hardly ideal.

      Firstly it is essentially a legally enforced monopoly on the products of said discovery and like any monopoly the price charged for the goods doesn’t have to relate to the difficulty of producing the product (including R&D costs). This leads to people being charged as much as they can afford for the goods they need most, like medicines and better crops, regardless of how much human effort went into the discovery/production. Depriving the least affluent of goods that would satisfy their most basic needs, not because society can’t produce enough to support them but because the rest of society can afford to pay more.

      Also it offers incentives to halt all innovation once you own the patent to the current best goods in a field. Say you had the best current treatment for alzhiemer’s patented and heard that a rival is devloping a potentially more effective one. You would either then have to begin costly development and hope to create a drug even more effective than your rival’s or accept losing the vast majority of the market to the better product… Or, you could make it financially unviable for your rival to put their drug to market. Of course active sabotage is utterly illegal, though I don’t doubt underhanded ways and corruption make this possible sometimes. Even so, with enough information about their target early on you could do just enough development of your own along the same lines and release it to make patenting it very difficult in the future. The rival halts development because it has other patentable products to persue, you halt development because your current drug sells well enough without the competition, and society never recieves a better treatment for alzhiemer’s.

      There’s also plenty of good arguements that fundamental and blue-skies research is more beneficial to society in the long term than only persuing monetizable research. Something which IP doesn’t encourage in the slightest and it indirectly discourages by luring talented individuals away to the bigger money areas.

      Of course just ripping away IP laws and leaving a void would certainly be disasterous but research could easily continue and perhaps even flourish under say, government funding, assuming a properly accountable govt. The vast majority of scientists are salaried anyway (how else could you afford to work 15 years on something before you see any kind of pay?). Never seeing a direct cut of any licensing of their work, so working salaried under goverment funding could work exactly the same. Except now projects could be judged based on how they would help the entire country not whether they can be packaged and sold at the end of it. Heck the govornment could foot the bill for the entirety of pharma R&D and probably still save money overall on the slashed costs to NHS medicines just by culling the massive legal and marketing sections that exist soley to vie with other companies for goverment business.

      I suppose the entertainment and other creative industries could work in a similar way. Salaried work with all produce in the public domain, paid for by taxes.

      The only problem being safely trusting so much power to a government is no easy thing but my point is IP laws are far from the best solution and they’re certainly not the only solution, they’re just the first one that stuck and we built a lot around it.

      Ah, hello comment thread essay about a game with quotes like “pull up your skirt and strap on your dildo”! *sigh* At least I’ve ordered my thoughts a little on the matter on the way.

  2. Sam says:

    Damn, I was looking forward to this game.

    Is it just me, or are Activision and EA starting to swap places? I mean, Activision are still god awful but they’ve started relaxing the persistent online DRM. EA is getting on people’s nerves with all the pre-order DLC stuff, crap Dead Space 2 support for PC, and now (possibly) this.

    EDIT: Looks like it’s fake yay!
    http://twitter.com/adrianchm/status/31782783235923968

  3. Miker says:

    This one went from waiting for 50% off to 75% off in a heartbeat.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      You can still play it when it comes out.
      And pay when they are OK with 75% off.
      :)

    • Premium User Badge

      Stompywitch says:

      You can still play it when it comes out.
      And pay when they are OK with 75% off.
      :)

      Of course! If we all keep on doing this, it’ll show publishers exactly why they should abandon DRM!

      If you don’t think it’s worth playing until it’s 75% off, wait until it’s 75% off. Could be you find out it’s not even worth that much.

  4. rocketman71 says:

    Well, I was going to wait for a sale, but if CliffyB is going to watch whenever we’re playing, he can go fuck himself. Which is what he’ll be doing anyway, probably.

  5. Mr_Day says:

    Seems to be false.

    https://twitter.com/#!/adrianchm/status/31782783235923968

    Oh dear, seems you’ll have to copy and paste that. Goes to a People Can Fly worker who seems annoyed that people have made that assumption. He says it only require online connection for online play, which makes sense. Thanks to @Batsphinx.

  6. Pijama says:

    EDIT

    Journalism FAIL?

  7. Premium User Badge

    HermitUK says:

    If this does turn out to be another DRM Nightmare, I hope Epic are the ones to blame, rather than EA. Certainly wouldn’t bode well for PC versions of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 if EA decide always-on DRM is a good idea.

    I wonder if it’s referring to the GFWL component and someone misinterpreted it as needing an internet connection to keep playing. To my mind it’d make little sense to saddle the download version with this sort of DRM, but not the box version, which means this is either a mistake or they haven’t updated the product listings yet on retailers.

    • Premium User Badge

      HermitUK says:

      Turned out to be a mistake. Just like using GFWL, but I’ve at least coped with that in the past.

  8. Quatto says:

    No demo, Games for Windows Live, 60 dollars and this nonsense. I think they’ve maxed out on PC gaming’s facedumps.

  9. The_B says:

    Urgh. GFWL? NOOOOOO!

    • Kefren says:

      Ha, I was reading this comment as WinXP suddenly underwent a BSOD.
      GFWL must be really bad.

  10. Jimbo says:

    It’s never too late for a Sterling/Shithead joke though.

  11. CoyoteTheClever says:

    I do hope people will check and see if there is DRM at release. It seems to me that mere rumors of DRM can sink a game, which could be an effective tactic if used to crowd out competition among titles.

    • squirrel says:

      To check for DRM info. is exactly what I am now doing for making every purchasing decision on PC game these days. And from my experience, if publisher is quiet about DRM of a game, it is usually bad news. So? publishers do know that DRM is not tolerable, yet they still persist on installing them. Why?

  12. Icarus says:

    No demo, GFWL, and now this? To hell with this nonsense, waiting for a Steam sale or not buying at all.

    Edit: Still not buying it.

  13. Diabolico says:

    so now the only pro about this game is gears of wars 3 beta….fuck this….I’m skippin

  14. The Magic says:

    wait… what?

  15. The Pink Ninja says:

    PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM!

    • Quintin Smith says:

      Tune in tomorrow when I’ll be accidentally uploading a picture of my mother as a header image.

    • Premium User Badge

      Some_Guy says:

      ill be waiting.

    • fallingmagpie says:

      I’ve got one if you need it, Quinns.

      BOOM!

    • RegisteredUser says:

      As much as I love to bash on the RPS crew when they display hueg amounts of puritan breast-hating, I quite honestly fail to understand all the fail posts in this thread, unless they are meant 100% humorously, at which point I would like to point out others may be unable to recognize this properly every time.

      If there is more always-on BS being tossed about, I want to hear about it, even if it is just a semi-well-founded (it was IN WRITING) rumour. In this case it was an official line on the disclosure page, so I dare say that is bad enough.

      Then again I have bought various steam games, so I need to retreat and rethink my hypocrisy now.
      I blame “All of the games of the series for 7.50 EUR!” pricing.

  16. coldvvvave says:

    Developer commentari is totol lies.

  17. Ricc says:

    Wow, incredibly poor choice of words… I like to believe that this was CliffyB’s work, trolling PC players once again. :)

  18. frags says:

    Fucking internets! End quote…

  19. skinlo says:

    Good thing I have an internet connection then.

  20. ChampionHyena says:

    Came here from Twitter, hurtling into this thread like a slow motion car accident: “NOOOOOO, DON’T DOOOO IIIIIIIT, JIM STERLING ISN’T A REAL JOURNALIIIIIIIIIIST,” but by the time I got back, you guys had already picked up on it. Sharp eyes, lads.

    • outoffeelinsobad says:

      I listened to a podcast “debate” between Jim and Ben Paddon recently. Jim literally says he has no journalistic standards except to entertain his readers.

  21. Ravenger says:

    EA should be up-front about the DRM in their latest games and actually tell us what exactly what DRM their games are using and how it works, instead of just publishing the EULA which just causes gamers to panic when they spot poorly worded descriptions in incomprehensible legalese.

    It’s even more important these days as EA seem to have different DRM for each game – ME 2 just required a disc check and online verification of DLC. Dragon Age was similar, but seemed more tightly bound to the EA account, Dead Space 2 has limited activations and a one-use code for multiplayer, the latest Command and Conquer required a persistent connection.

  22. Teddy Leach says:

    “Bulletstorm only requires a constant internet connection for online play.”

    WHAT?! NO!

    • Bhazor says:

      I agree. I am appalled this game doesn’t have play by email capability.

  23. Ubiquitous says:

    It’s a bit silly to be freaking out over this nonsense. this is NOT Ubi-DRM and I dont think we will be seeing much of that in the future. As someone else posted, go look at that twitter.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      “It’s a bit silly to be freaking out over this nonsense. this is NOT Ubi-DRM and I dont think we will be seeing much of that in the future.”

      GfWL does support such a configuration, actually, so it was definitely a possibility here.

  24. Jimbo says:

    Can’t really blame the internets for this one. Their publisher’s website saying “PERSISTENT INTERNET CONNECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY.” next to the digital version but not the packaged version doesn’t exactly leave a lot of room for interpretation.

    The only other games on the list with that sentence are BF1943 and C&C4. I haven’t played it myself, but C&C4 actually did require a persistent connection didn’t it?

    • Ricc says:

      Yeah, C&C4 justified it with stat-tracking. Nobody even cared about that game, though, so it kind of went unnoticed.

  25. MrWolf says:

    This doesn’t change the fact that CliffyB is a total cock-twiddle.

    • Cooper says:

      This.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      If cock-twiddle is english for “People who ruin great developers with square-peg-round-hole-just-requires-a-bigger-hammer approach and strip their games of everything that used to make them great”, then I, too, second this.

  26. Malawi Frontier Guard says:

    Persistent internet connection required for installation and online play? We must boycott this game!

    Join me in the “Boycott Bulletstorm” Steam group where we will all play the game when it comes out.

  27. yhalothar says:

    Prediction: between that, the price and GWFL integration the game will sell poorly, the DRM will fail to stop pirates, and in the end, Cliffy will go all Q_Q about the game not selling due to piracy.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      That’s like saying when you drop something, it will fall downwards.
      Except of course that you’re using propaganda terms of the enemy. Arrr!

  28. Bhazor says:

    Top drawer journalism as always, guys.

  29. pupsikaso says:

    Quinns, tell me honestly. Do you really even care about this game? I mean I know you have a PS3 (you reviewed Demon’s Souls), so you are able to play the demo. Tell me honestly that you have played that demo and are still actually excited.

    • Quintin Smith says:

      I played the demo and had fun in a laughing, Serious Sam kind of way. I wasn’t expecting anything and I got a gun that shoots people into the sky and explodes like a firework. I’m happy!

    • pupsikaso says:

      I’ve lost faith in you, Quinns. What has happened to you? I thought you were cool.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Chelicerate

      Repeating the same argument thas already been refuted doesn’t make it any more convincing. Likewise simply reversing peoples statements doesn’t invalidate them, if the statements don’t then hold water.

      Also whilst you are pondering that, perhaps you might illustrate the damage that EA have caused, that you’ve eluded to. I’m curious to see it.

      @Droopy

      Personally I think it’s a non-news issue. The reality is some EA lawyer made a gaff with the online EULA, and it’s only because some retard at Destructoid decided to make a big deal about nothing (because that’s what it’s amounted to in the end) and enraged the internets , that we are here now. The entire exercise is a complete dead end as far as factual information goes. The only thing it’s achieved is to rile a bunch of AIM for no good reason and scored some (all important )advertising page hits. End of the month and Quintin need some news shoes perhaps? Colour me cynical.

    • Chelicerate says:

      @Kadayi

      Stating an opposing opinion is not the same as refuting an argument. You seem to forget that this issues is a subjective one. There are no facts you can bring up to ‘refute’ my argument, it is a matter of opinion. We are discussing, not refuting.

      i would suggest you stray away from insults if you don’t want them simply reverse. yes, i took your ‘hilarious’ comment as an insult. Because that’s what it was intended as. It still holds water, when reversed. Show me how it doesn’t. Show me what i’m not seeing, if you feel you are right, objectively.

      The damage caused is that some people now think this game requires constant online DRM. This is damage, as it will cause some people not to purchase the game. This damage is due to EA’s lawyer’s faulty wording, which was reported on by news sites that were following the game anyway.

      i do feel that this was a newsworthy issue. i had been on the fence on buying this game (it looks worth my money) and had this been more than just faulty wording, it would have swayed my vote.

  30. BarerRudeROC says:

    Well this was funny.

  31. Kadayi says:

    Yay, for more unnecessary and unwarranted PC fear mongering by RPS.

    Maybe instead of alienating every AAA developer & publisher out there with half baked alarmist articles, the Hivemind might try and swing a few interviews instead.

    • Ravenger says:

      Maybe EA would like to actually tell people what DRM its games use instead of hiding it in the EULA? RPS can only go on what information is actually released, in this case the EULA states clearly that a persistent connection is required – even if that is actually incorrect. Given RPS’s stance on UBI DRM I think the article is fair.

    • DiamondDog says:

      Fear mongering? Oh, please.

      It was a mistake by EA, not the games press. They reported what would be an important issue for many people. Then the mistake was flagged and the story updated.

      This kind of shit is flavour of the month I suppose. Somebody should mention Kotaku, right?

    • Kadayi says:

      @DiamondDog

      I don’t think fact checking is a crime. I think it’s indicative of operating to a standard.

      Plus as I said, I’d like to see some AAA interviews on the site and not just ones with Johnny Indie Hipster, and I figure that constantly ragging on publishers/developers is hardly going to achieve that. There’s a bit of a ‘Them & Us’ habit that’s formed around this site (notable more so since KG took more of a backseat), and I think it’s marginalised the site from being what it could/should be.

    • DiamondDog says:

      If the source is EA themselves I think it’s fair to assume that they have their own information correct. You’d have a point if it was a random rumour floating about, but it wasn’t.

      As to your other point, that’s irrelevant. RPS can run their site however they choose to.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Diamonddog

      ‘If the source is EA themselves I think it’s fair to assume that they have their own information correct.’

      Why? Up to now EA have happily gone along with there existing approach to online activation (in fact recently so with Dead Space 2) . This would be a radical departure, therefore it makes perfect sense to seek clarification on the matter before proceeding to report rumour/speculation as fact.

      Sure they can do what ever they like, but given they are one of the only PC only sites out there, it might not be a bad thing for them to at least try and engage with developers/publishers now and them rather than consistently piss them off with half baked articles, often based off of unverified second hand news. Simply being another cog in the gaming rumour mill is hardly ambition.

      Back when this site started, there were the odd big developer interview here and there, but that now seems to have dried up, and it’s a bit of tragedy really for what should/could be the premier PC gaming news site on the web. Personally I’d like RPS to be getting some meaningful interviews with Bioware, Epic, ID, Bethesda, Irrational, Obsidian, CD Projekt, etc, etc, and I think that’s a real pity.

    • DiamondDog says:

      It wasn’t a rumour.

    • Kadayi says:

      Given the games industry is historically rife with mis-steps I think it takes a particular level of indolence to accept as fact anything written down that sounds out of step with what’s come before hand at face value. It’s not enough to say simply say ‘Well EA wrote it, so it must be true’ given how out of synch such a move would be Versus EAs present operating procedures upto this point.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      blabla

  32. Mark says:

    So, RPS reports on EA’s own website stating that “PERSISTENT INTERNET CONNECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY”, and they’re now being criticised for inferring from that that maybe, you know, a consistent online connection is required to play the game?

    Er, seriously: what the fuck? It’s EA who screwed up here, not the sites reporting this. I mean, the RPS headline suggests that the situation is unclear. I honestly don’t understand this “lol, games journalizm” sentiment at all.

    • Dao Jones says:

      Internet is all about “rabble rabble” now, it seems. :( Remember when it was all about the “pr0n”? :)

    • Maykael says:

      +1.

      It was a balanced report. Sterling’s story on Destructoid on the other hand… UGH!

    • Kadayi says:

      Maybe instead of just inferring something and them running to the internets to get the pitchforks & torches going, they could I don’t know maybe contact EAs PR to clarify the facts? A radical suggestion I know, but I figure that if anyones going to do it supposed gaming Journalists should do no?

    • Mark says:

      I assumed that they had or were in the process of contacting EA. In the mean time, this was a news worthy story and fair game to report on. It’s not like this was just some errant rumour floating about. It’s sourced directly from the EA site, after all.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Mark

      Why? Was there a dire need to report on it straight away? Was there fuck.

    • Mark says:

      Why wouldn’t you post something like this straight away? This is just process journalism by the numbers. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Mark

      Because it’s news about an unreleased game, not a national emergency, so seeking some clarification on it would be no bad thing.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      @Kadayi

      Well, maybe not dire, but yes there was a need to publish it. Being late to the party on a news site isn’t exactly going to net you many readers is it? And to me a statement on the publisher’s official site counts as solid enough evidence gathering to warrent publish. (And since it’s a game with a singleplayer component a “persistant online connection” is a very unusual requirement short of using the mentioned “always on” DRM.)

      EA were tragically poor with their wording, RPS reported the most logical interpretation of this. Ea corrected this, RPS updated their story. No-one did any wrong under the circumstances, accidents happen and sometimes no-one needs to be villified for an understandable mishap.

    • Tetragrammaton says:

      Dont mind Kadayi. It would seem he has his troll-face on today.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Droopy The Dog

      I’m fairly sure the bulk of the RPS readership are regulars, not fly by nights, so again there is no necessity to join in the merry go round of rumour mongering & idele speculation , Vs ‘establishing the facts ma’am’.

      @Tetragrammaton

      If you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation don’t post.

    • Chelicerate says:

      @Kayadi

      Even the person who submitted the clarification via twitter doesn’t blame people for misunderstanding. This is clearly EA’s gaff.

      If, say, a hotel were to release a statement saying ‘Tracking collars required to rent rooms’ and people went to the presses saying that you are required to wear a tracking collars, would you be blaming the press?

    • Kadayi says:

      @Chelicerate

      Oh EA made a gaff (people write these things after all, and people make errors), but that doesn’t excuse idiots like Jim ‘who are all the pies’ Sterling @ Destructoid from electing to run with it even, though it was at odds with EAs current policy and should of been fact checked. The pursuit of page hits obviously matters more than providing your readership with accurate information it seems. Even after the update, there are still even people in this thread now convinced that constant internet is required, because people tend to go with the headline.

      Also, I’ve yet to ever check into a hotel where tracking collars are even part of the equation. So again if that were listed in under their T&C, I’d be inclined to employ some common sense and question the validity of the statement, rather than assume it’s absolutely the case.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Kadayi is of course spot on.
      It is silly of us to assume that carefully worded, officially published EULAs and other legal disclosures which are backed by a tremendously vast team of professional lawyers should be read, taken at face value, or in any way heeded at all.

      After all, law is not about words and paragraphs, but what we all know better ourselves, as he so elaborately has explained throughout the thread.

      If it just does not fit their “profile” of prior behavior, then clearly all of the above legalese can simply be overruled by what we think instead.

      So I will now just go ahead and think that this game would be better off not being sold for profit for epic, but rather distributed freely, as this fits in better with the prior behavior of the free-spirited programming community as a whole, of which PCF, Epic and others are just a subset of.

    • Kadayi says:

      @RU

      “If it just does not fit their “profile” of prior behaviour, then clearly all of the above legalese can simply be overruled by what we think instead.`”

      It’s not a case of overruling, it’s a case of employing common sense, assessing the situation and making the effort to seek some official clarification on a matter, which if it were true would constitute a seismic shift in policy by one of the worlds biggest game publishers before reporting it. Doing otherwise is the equivalent of talking about ‘death camps’ when it comes to healthcare reform.

      I find it hilarious that so many people adopt this attitude that games journalists some how can do no wrong, and that their actions are somehow beyond reproach.

    • Chelicerate says:

      @Kadayi

      Any damage that has been done is EA’s fault. They’re the ones who told people ‘“PERSISTENT INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED”.

      i have never once said games journalists were beyond criticism. Ever. You’re making assumptions. EA said something, RPS reported on it, EA clarified, RPS updated with clarification. it’s that simple. There have been games in the past that have required this, so it was not out of the realm of possibility.

      Now, to try your little jab on for size, but reversed:

      I find it hilarious that so many people adopt this attitude that games publishers some how can do no wrong, and that their actions are somehow beyond reproach.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      @Kadayi

      So one of the issues here is with people still getting the wrong idea about bulletstorm’s DRM even with the updated article explicitly saying it was a misunderstanding? In that case I think it’s only fair to expect the same common sense from the readership as you do from the writers, I personally don’t want my news aimed and censored to cater to a naivé idiots.

      Perhaps you’re not the only one who realised that this was somewhat out of character and took just the one sign in a requirements page with a pinch of salt until more evidence was gathered. But still EA posted this (briefly) on their site, and even if I still come to the same conclusion (that being it doesn’t seem likely to feature Ubi style DRM) I’d rather have all the details when forming an opinion than be ignorant on the matter.

      Trying not to confuse the easily confused just leaves everyone keeping silent, or at best being incredibly inane.

  33. Casimir's Blake says:

    I should hope the “Internet connection required during installation” (to paraphrase), is NOT for activation. What if the game doesn’t work?

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      It seems it is for activation.

    • Kadayi says:

      You take it back to the store you brought it from?

      EA games have required online validation for quite a while.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      You can buy PC games in shops now? ;)

    • Kadayi says:

      When was the last time you ever had to buy a game Jim ;)

    • Premium User Badge

      Thermal Ions says:

      I was in a games store just yesterday. Believe it or not they did actually have a small area of PC games for sale. Of course I couldn’t stay long as I felt it would be rude to roll around the floor in laughter at the prices they wanted to charge for new AAA games, and 2-10 year old games that can be bought online for pennies.

    • Casimir's Blake says:

      So, assuming you install and activate the game, and then spend a few hours wrestling with settings and drivers to procure something other than an error from the game… you will then have to hope that the retailer / seller will return the game, knowing that an activation for that otherwise working copy has been used.

      Well done, EA.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      To the best of my knowledge, most modern day digital media is explicitly exempt from returns after “opening” / downloading / installing, and this is usually stated on the product page itself as well(I have seen this on steam as well as on Play and various others).

    • Kadayi says:

      DP

    • Kadayi says:

      @RU

      Care to point to that particular exemption clause in the The Sale of Goods Act 1979 for me.

      http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/

    • 7rigger says:

      @Kadayi

      The sale of good act only covers goods which are faulty. If the game is flat out incompatible with your computer it is NOT faulty, as it is your fault (apparently) for not checking the requirements correctly. Currently the only definition of a faulty game is one that has a physical flaw on the disc, and retailers will simply exchange the disc in those examples.

      There is no clause in British retail law that allows you to return something that you don’t want.

    • Kadayi says:

      @7rigger

      Casimir’s Blake query was regarding the viability of returning the game in the event it didn’t work, not whether it was a case of him/her not wanting it as you seem to infer. Certainly the onus is on you ensure that you hardware & software meets the necessary requirements, but if the game still refuses to work then you have every legal right to return it either for a replacement or a refund.

    • 7rigger says:

      “Certainly the onus is on you ensure that you hardware & software meets the necessary requirements, but if the game still refuses to work then you have every legal right to return it either for a replacement or a refund.”

      You have every legal right to try, but as someone who has worked and managed in game shops I can tell you have no chance at all. It’s not a case of meeting requirements, it’s a case of proving that the product you were sold is/was defective. As you can imagine it’s rather difficult to prove software faulty if the disc reads perfectly and you’ve been able to activate the product online.

      It’s a crappy situation, and I hated leaving fellow gamers with £40 coasters, but it is the law.

      On the plus side, if you kick up enough fuss at a high enough level most companies will refund the product – but they do this as customer service, not because it’s the law.

  34. DarkeSword says:

    Well you know, I for one am really disappointed that this game requires CONSTANT ONLINE CONNECTION for online play. What a load of crap! They should be ashamed of themselves. >:|

    • Chelicerate says:

      It didn’t say ‘constant internet connection for online play’

      it said that constant internet connection is required to play.

      These are very different things. This is not RPS’s fault.

  35. malkav11 says:

    I’d just like one thing clarified for me: will the disc copy require online authentication on install? Because that’s not okay. The digital distribution versions, sure, fine, whatever, those already have a limited lifespan.

  36. terry says:

    So is this a bit like Dragon Age Origins then? It doesn’t technically require you to be online, but you can’t play with any DLC or continue any savegames with said DLC without being logged in.

    • Bhazor says:

      So you’ve not played Dragon Age I take it?

    • squirrel says:

      No, I’m afraid you can’t compare it with Dragon Age Origins. It’s true all Dragon Age DLCs require online authentication, but you have to appreciate that Dragon Age by itself, without any DLC (including Awakening which can be in DLC or disc), is a complete game. Besides, PC DVD version of Awakening also does not require authentication. You truly own this game when you purchase it.

      However, on the other hand, I am shocked by the link provided in the news that Dragon Age 2 will have online authentication requirement.

    • Bhazor says:

      Yes you need an internet connection to download DLC. Crazy, huh?
      No you do not need to phone home to use the DLC each time. Once you’ve registered and downloaded the content within the game you’re good to go.

      As for Dragon Age 2, from the EA product disclosure page.
      “ONLINE PASS SERIAL CODE EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2012. EA ACCOUNT, REGISTRATION WITH ENCLOSED SINGLE-USE SERIAL CODES, INTERNET CONNECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY AND TO ACCESS BONUS CONTENT (IF ANY) AND ONLINE FEATURES AND/OR SERVICES. ”
      Same.

    • squirrel says:

      @Bhazor

      If I dont understand wrongly, Dragon Age DLC is locked to the account you buy the DLC (BTW, what DLC isn’t?). Therefore, you cannot sell DLC in a second hand market. That’s the primary goal of DRM: to kill off second hand market, to deny our legitimate right to resell our property.

    • Bhazor says:

      You say it like killing the second hand games business is a bad thing.

    • terry says:

      Actually, I am playing through it right now. And I must log in to play savegames with the DLC. Ergo, I must be online to play my game.

      Edited for unwarranted snippiness. Apparently this is a widespread bug and not intentional on the part of EA.

  37. laddyman says:

    I hear a shitstorm coming.

  38. Gravy says:

    Who cares? I consider anyone that buys this game to have more money than sense, i’ve yet to see anyone waiting eagerly in anticipation for this shit.

    • zergrush says:

      Found the demo to be pretty entertaining, in a Serious Sam / Duke Nukem kind of way.

      I wasn’t interested at all from the videos, but the demo made me think about getting it. The thing still keeping it from being a sure purchase is that it seems to be the kind of game that benefits from having a bunch of buddies talking shit on vent, but none of my friends has any interest in it.

    • DOLBYdigital says:

      I agree Gravy, this game seems like a joke and I’m quite surprised at the level of attention its getting at RPS. However I’m sure everyone will post back to defend their purchase while some will admit its not worth day one purchase. I guess we could be wrong and it could be good but nothing seems to point to this even the demo.

    • Premium User Badge

      RobF says:

      I’m pissing myself with anticipation for it. I loved Painkiller to bits, despite its glaringly obvious flaws. And i like me some stupid to go alongside my intellectual stimulations and ho, Bulletstorm looks to be the most stupid thing we’ll see this year.

      I’m totally in for that.

  39. RegisteredUser says:

    And I would have thought they have gone for the Trifecta: Ubisoft DRM stupidity, consolified-dumb-down game limits and epic community hazing in their forums and support.

    Then again, this is close enough. If you buy this, you support evil and hate the PC’s freedom!

    Give me back the PCF that made Painkilller!

    • Kadayi says:

      /face palm

      The headline turned out to be false dude.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      ..are you sure you properly read what I posted?

      Let me help and replace the first part of the sentence, which I thought anyone could have guessed from how it was written to begin with: HAD THIS BEEN TRUE, I would have thought etc.

      That will also – almost as if that was what I intended! – allow the rest to make sense. You know, where I go “Then again, this is close enough.” and refer to the fact that it is still required to be online during installation.

      The rest is 100% justified regardless of always-on, as the old PCF made a game with health, armor and as many weapon slots as there were available guns, and some publishers encourage rather than insta-ban discussion.

      Maybe you should stop hitting your head so much, it seems to be starting to impact your cognitive skills.

      For more on “would”:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence

      That aside, a question(“the headline”) cannot be false or true, as it is a question.

    • Kadayi says:

      @RU

      Well, tbh it’s hard to make out exactly what you were saying given you seem to skip words in your haste to post. Same goes for your reply.

    • Tokamak says:

      Kadayi – looking through your comments, I’d had to say that you couldn’t sound more like corporate a shill if you tried.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Tokamak

      Weren’t you the same guy that accused me of being an Ubisoft employee in a previous thread? Or was it of being an Activision Employee? Or was it an Bethesda employee? Or was it a RTW employee? The list of companies I allegedly work for is kind of endless tbh. However, maybe in fact, it’s not a case of I work for all of them, but instead they all work for me, and perhaps, just perhaps I’m just fucking with you all, simply because I can from my secret volcano base whilst I sip margaritas.

  40. Bungle says:

    It’s almost 9am GMT and no news yet? Make something up. We’re bored.

  41. 7rigger says:

    As someone who is interested in spending money on this, I am thankful that RPS put this story up as always on DRM is a bit of an issue for me. It turned out to be false, and RPS reported that.

    This is also good as I would have assumed the same thing from the text on the website.

  42. -Spooky- says:

    /irony

    “Oh rly? You need a permanent online connection to play online. Mad sad world …”

    /irony off

    War. War never changes ..

    • squirrel says:

      This “constant internet connection for installation and online play” requirement is not simply requiring connection itself, but also requiring checking by EA’s servers.

      Even for online play, it is not legitimate right for publishers to impose online check requirement for online game. Keep in mind, that it is our right to have LAN play and run our own servers. The fact LAN support is becoming rare these days for online game is that publishers want to impose strict control on us by ruling out possibility of independently run online game. On the other words, we no longer own the game we “buy”, we are renting them.

  43. RegisteredUser says:

    Since a far larger percentage of this thread than I would like has turned into RPS bashing, let me stand up and say this:

    I have, despite SEVERE trolling in the form of voicing my strongly emotionally swaying opinion several times over, despite extreme pessimism, negativism and overall obtuseness(I blame growing up in a gaming era where games were still about the guys making them having fun and sharing their creatings with others, and then eventually being confronted with THIS modern day mess), not been banned here yet.

    While I am not yet 100% certain this is due to RPS grace or a simple oversight, this is something that is handled quite differently over at epic.
    I put up a single “vote your opinion” thread on the restricted weapon choices system vs a free, unlimited, Painkiller style mechanic, and within 2 weeks and 20 posts of “I wish this were more in the spirit of Painkiller’s awesomeness and game mechanic” I was banned.

    Also RPS has better cookies and doesn’t afraid of anything, not even sending them out to malnourished game devs.

    And they like hats.

    Top blokes, by any standard. Boob-haters aside, but I guess Kieron provides/provided a good counterweight there.

    So: RPS > Epic any day, thank you very much.

  44. latedave says:

    @Nayon, agree with most of your points to be fair, particularly the music example which is where somethings available for free but reused in a way the original person didn’t intend.

    @Wulf, SpoGG et al ; I think reading through the comments most piracy is justified on a try before you buy, in which case why not rent a game? DVD’s and music do it and also suffer high levels of piracy justified by exactly the same arguments, the reason bit torrents are popular is because they are free, not because they’re a safe, easy way of transferring data.

    I would probably argue that the reason games feature even more intensive debate and safeguarding is purely because publishers have the ability to put keys and drm on them which is harder (although still done to some extent) with dvd’s and music and also far more noticable when it f***s up. The IP debate for games is really just a lazy way for people to sound intellectual when its far more applicable to more worrying things like gene patents and crap like ‘apple’. I work on something, I expect the possibility of reward (how long that reward should be applicable for is a much more interesting debate in my view, see ‘The underdogs’ for companies being muppets about protecting old games IP long after people would part with money)

  45. pipman3000 says:

    LOL

    soon every game will have drm just like this or even worse. hope you like having to give a blood sample every time you play dragon age 2!

  46. Tetragrammaton says:

    Jesus, this weekend seems to have seen the comments devolve into a writhing mess of mostly pointless bad feeling.
    Go go gadget internet!

  47. Daryl says:

    I really wasn’t planning on buying this game anyway, DRM or not. Epic has really fallen off since UT3. There is a small possibility I might pick it up on a Steam sale down the road when it’s in the 5-10 dollar range. Until then, meh.

  48. kennycrown says:

    sleep.sleep.sleep