What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
309 Comments
- blobzorz, on 10/10/2007, -26/+2125 by 5?! IT'S MY GAME I BOUGHT IT! Don't tell me what to do with it. Still not acceptable.
- Kelgann, on 10/10/2007, -12/+190Now if they just remove SecuROM from the game entirely, I might buy it (rather than pirate the cracked version when it comes out). I'm just not comfortable with any program (especially one from Sony) with that kind of control over my system. Locking the user out from deleting files on his own computer is a behavior that should be reserved exclusively for malware.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -10/+115Until they remove Securom, I'm not buying it. I will not tolerate a rootkit.
- antispimmer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+86Software which prevents the user from removing it from one's computer IS malware.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+94Not until they remove the Securom rootkit that won't f-ing uninstall off your computer it's not.
- mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+70Ah ha.... They state on their FAQ that SecureROM is not a rootkit, even *AFTER* they define rootkit as being exactly what ScureROM is.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/pc_faq.html
This won't make me buy Bioshock. SecureROM has to go. I won't even pirate it. - ortucis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+62So they finally realized that claiming every bug to be be a 'feature' doesn't really work on the PC gamers.
- achoo5000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+662 installs, 5 installs, it's still a rootkit
- BostonLow, on 10/10/2007, -10/+62Isn't much of a good news.
1. they've promised a lot of stuff in the past that hasn't materialized.
2. getting screwed over 5 installs isn't much better than getting screwed over 2 installs.
3. doesn't address the fact that it still installs an invasive rootkit and potentially compromises your system - mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+53"An Xbox 360 patch is under consideration as well."
(RTFA) - icewolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51Agree with blobzorz 100%. The whole "you didn't buy what you just bought" thing is crap, if I buy a game, I bought a game. I don't want to hear about how I really bought a license. The whole license model, IMHO, is the greatest exploited contraption being used in this day and age. Now companies can continue to gouge you for money, or force you to play by their rules with this whole 'license' notion. Sorry, BioShock looks awesome, but if I buy the game, I bought and own a copy of the game and to hell with any license.
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -31/+71That is pretty damn cool.
- Krynn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44That's one of the funny points of all this. The game was already cracked yesterday despite all this secuROM and activation nonsense. So really the only people annoyed by this are the legitimate customers (of which I am one).
- drafhk, on 10/10/2007, -7/+44This is still ***** because the big thing still remains: They're putting ***** malware/trojans/viruses on your computer against their own EULA and US Law. The only thing they've done is double the amount of times you can install it before you run into the exact ***** same problem that we've had in the first place. DON'T BE COMPLACENT WITH THIS. We absolutely MUST keep demanding that they fix it properly and not be satisfied with some ***** copout.
- nogami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37And until they COMPLETELY REMOVE the limiting from Steam, the way it's supposed to be - then nothing has changed in my book.
Pretty remarkable - a studio creates a great game which has basically everyone excited, and the managers who control publishing are able to totally torpedo the amazing PR this game had within the space of a day or two. Someone should be getting a pink slip right about now... - 0ddity, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38Also, I don't think you need to worry about limited installs on your console.
- TalkingBanana, on 10/10/2007, -10/+42There had damn well better bet a 360 patch too, "under consideration" my ass.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -23/+55Wow, a company that actually gets things done?
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31If it really is as difficult to get rid of this securom as forums and gaming sites make it sound, then it's a rootkit.
- WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30"Does SecuROM fingerprint my hardware? SecuROM does not fingerprint the hardware. When an activation is performed, a unique ID is generated to identify the system being used for the activation process." Is that a contradiction??
- chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34I heard that in order to install the patch you have to provide your blood type, birth certificate and a list of people who you suspect are anti-drm advocates. AND if you want to reinstall the patch you must first sign a blood oath to give your soul to Cthulhu god of ancient underworld.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32Next step: a company that thinks things through and putting their software/hardware through the paces before putting it on the market.
- drafhk, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Oh, I'm buying a license to play a game? In that case, the verdict is still the same: ***** them and let them rot. I'm not buying their *****.
- afx1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23theoretically speaking, what if one day an exploit is found with securom. how would i go about removing this difficult to remove/tamper with software? also, I like to have control (as much as possible) over what loads and doesn't load in my system.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26DRM SUCKS!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22the steam version still uses SecureRom
- sctwp09, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27***** you.
- LucasKane, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Glad they're listening to their customers
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Sounds like the pirate version is for you.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19You only need Live Silver.. which is free to all users.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Reported as a troll.
- natmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Heard of Blizzard? They still patch Starcraft!
- wshs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19If purchased from a retail shop, and it doesn't prominently state that you are buying only a license, then legally, you aren't buying a license. You're buying a game. Likewise with online purchase for download. If it doesn't indicate prominently in the product description, you are buying the game, not a license.
- Bossman1086, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17It's you who needs to re-read. It was confirmed by 2K that uninstalling DOES NOT give you back credits. They're making a stand alone application that you have to run when you uninstall the game to get credit back. It hasn't been released yet.
- Guspaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17This is pretty damn uncool. They STILL have a limit on the max number of installs, in ADDITION to a CD check.
And they've confirmed that, for reasons unknown to man, they've actually got it using SecuROM even with the STEAM copy! Apparently they don't trust Steam's own DRM techniques enough to NOT give us a DOUBLE dose of DRM. - TH3W1R3D, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Can you install it on one computer 25 times?
- achoo5000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21they lost a potential customer
- kryo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16The Steam version still has SecuROM, with the same problems.
- conwayblue, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18While it might not be difficult for a Windows pro, I have no ***** clue how to do what you just said. This game will have no place on my system. No spying, rootkits, hardware fingerprinting, DRM, nothing, NADA!!!
- blaiwesd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21I dont know about everyone else, but I usually dont uninstall great games. And trust me, Windows is ***** enough, that I will have to reinstall it after some ***** goes wrong. Anyway, point is, I guarantee that of all my purchased games, I've installed them all at least 5 times without uninstalling them. Its complete ***** that if I dont UNinstall a game, it counts toward a god damn install quota. Will never buy a game that installs a rootkit and/or limits my # of installations.
***** 2k, ***** the RIAA, and ***** Comcast.
All this ***** is getting out of hand - sb76117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21why the hell does it limit how many times you can install it on a single machine? i seriously dont see the rational behind that.
- wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Are you told at time of purchase that you are only buying a license and not an actual product? Is the product prominently labeled as a license for sale as opposed to product for sale? If you or anyone cannot truthfully answer yes to either question, then no, they aren't buying a license. They are buying a game. Please educate yourself before you try and lecture people about contract law.
- itseffinkasey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18I don't know about being pretty damn cool, I have had my computer for at least 3 years now and I have upgraded my mother board/ replaced it 4 times already, and I have reformatted my computer many more times. I'll have to buy this game again in a few years if I were to keep up with my record. I call BS and if it comes to that point then I'm going to find a way to make a "legal" back-up of this game.
- kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It even more painless when you have a copy that doesn't need to be activated at all.
DRM is anti-consumer technology.
Before DRM went mainstream, the software piracy rate was falling. Once MS brought DRM/Activation to the masses, the software piracy rate stopped falling.
So while making a phone call isn't much of a big deal, it is a waste of time, because Activation doesn't work to limit piracy. And the continuing development by corporations of DRM technologies, only adds to the costs of a product, which again is passed down to the consumer.
Painless would actually be no DRM, and no DRM costs added to the price of the product.
Are you a consumer? Then why are you so willing to jump through DRM hoops AND pay more for your software products than you would if these scumbag corporate copyright elites didn't waste time and money putting totally useless DRM in software?
To Recap:
1.) DRM does is totally useless to the consumer.
2.) DRM is not only totally useless to the consumer, it is also useless to the manufacturer too, as DRM's intent is supposedly to help fight against piracy, but in reality, it doesn't do anything to limit REAL piracy.
3.) DRM is not only totally useless to the consumer and the manufacturer, DRM's costs are passed down to the consumer. So, in effect, the consumer is saddled with usless technology, that they neither want or need, and they have to pay for it!
But hey, DRM is painless, right? LOL! I hear herpes is pretty painless too, but I still wouldn't want it! Would you? - goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15From what I've heard, even the Steam version has the rootkit. Hell, even the demo had it.
So sayeth the internet, at least. But in this case it was from a source I trust, so I believe it to be the case. - JoshuaH, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Hey, If they worked with Digg..We would have an image section by now.
- NnyCW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I'm pretty sure the FOV patch is an Irrational...sorry 2K Boston/2K Australia move. The developers of BioShock I've got nothing against. They made a fantastic game and listened to the community to fix what we didn't like that was their responsibility. Now, as far as the publisher goes, they're responsible for the rootkit that is SecuROM and the install limit. They're the problem.
As for the 2 to 5 install limit, I get the feeling 2K Games wanted that number all along. If you want to push something controversial, you push it past the point you want, people express the outrage you expected them to show since day 1. Then later you say you've increased it from what it was by more than double, some people are happy with the compromise and settle down and you got yourself what you've wanted since the start. 2, 5, or 100 installs, it's still limited and it's still wrong. - brotherfranciz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Riiiight... and my 11" e-penis has been rendering my Jessica Biel lookalike girlfriend since the 21st. Fantastic stuff...
- Lane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You get dug down because you didnt take 5 seconds to google FOV
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Field of View is the degree of vision you have out of 360° horizontal mobility.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is