$5M Class Action Lawsuit Against Ubisoft for Starforce

[dimzon]

$5M Class Action Lawsuit Against Ubisoft for Starforce (http://kotaku.com/gaming/legal/5m-class-action-lawsuit-against-ubisoft-for-starforce-164303.php)
Hate Starforce? Want to sue them? Well, Christopher Spence has already done it on your behalf. Christopher has filed a $5M class action lawsuit against Ubisoft for using Starforce DRM in their games, and if he wins, you’ll be entitled to collect if you’ve ever had your system infected by Starforce.


Ubisoft Ditches Starforce… Thanks Gawd! (http://kotaku.com/gaming/starforce/ubisoft-ditches-starforce-thanks-gawd-166898.php)
In a fitting comeuppance for the nexus of evil known as Starforce, Ubisoft has wiped Heroes of Might and Magic V free of the malware and won’t use it in future copy protection.


Ubi Confirms Dropping Starforce (http://1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3149611)
When questioned Ubisoft representatives told 1UP, “Right now, Ubisoft has decided to use an alternative copy protection system to Starforce for upcoming releases and we are investigating other possible steps at this time.” But why the change now? … “Ubisoft takes its customer concerns very seriously and is investigating the complaints about alleged problems with Starforce’s software. Ubisoft’s goal is to find solutions for its customers if there are problems with Ubisoft products.”

[celtic_druid]

Only one problem "has decided to use an alternative copy protection system". When will they learn that it would be better for everyone including themselves if they just dropped the protection totally?

[Doom9]

I have something on the subject: Yesterday I finally installed FEAR. Then I tried to run it: it comes with an emulator detected message. So I deactivate daemon-tools. Try again, failed. Remove autostart, reboot, try again, and it fails again. Then I deinstall, try again, nogo. Then I deactivate anydvd and reboot, now it works.

Now, I paid money for this, but I have to
1) remove software they don't like
2) keep the DVD in the drive even though everything has been copied to my HD
3) oh yes, I paid money for it.

If I were to use the pirated version, I'd
1) pay no money
2) wouldn't need a DVD in the drive
3) wouldn't have to worry about uninstalling software they don't like.

So I ask you, am I stupid for having spent money when I could just as easily have downloaded the game without all the hassle? And is it at all a surprise that people pirate given the above? The legit buyer is effectively the only one getting screwed over..

[dimzon]

So I ask you, am I stupid for having spent money when I could just as easily have downloaded the game without all the hassle?
Is'nt such discussion violate rule 6 ? :D

[Sirber]

@Doom9

It's the same story with all the DRMed crap you buy.

[Doom9]

It's the same story with all the DRMed crap you buy.That's why I don't buy any..
@dimzon: I didn't pirate so no, the discussion is purely academic. And I'm allowed to call myself stupid.. I can't violate rule 4 by calling myself names.

[Sirber]

http://www.star-force.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=855

[Zarxrax]

Crap like this is partly what caused me to stop buying PC games years ago. The last PC games I purchased were Unreal Tournament and Starcraft. On both of them I ended up getting pirated versions just so I wouldn't have to keep the cd in my drive every time I wanted to play. Eventually the discs became scratched or lost, and I was FORCED to use the pirated versions to play my games. After that, all the games coming out were using increasingly annoying DRM techniques, and I just said to hell with it, well before it even escalated to this point.

Back in the day, it was trivial to copy a program from a floppy disk. Yet the old days gave rise to some of the most powerful companies around today. If piracy really hurt, wouldn't all software companies be dead today?

[Sirber]

If piracy really hurt, wouldn't all software companies be dead today?Coz legit customer pay 60-90$ a game?

[siddharthagandhi]

My thoughts exactly.

[Zarxrax]

Coz legit customer pay 60-90$ a game?

Piracy doesn't cause prices to increase. That would fly smack in the face of supply and demand. If people aren't buying your product, it simply makes no sense to say "well lets just increase the price, that'll make them buy it!"

For proof that piracy doesn't effect the price of games, look at the console gaming market.

Xbox 360 games can't be piracted yet. Despite this, they cost about $10 more than games on other systems.

Gamecube games aren't pirated. Yet they still cost $50 a pop, exactly like the widely pirated games on PS2 and Xbox.

[siddharthagandhi]

The smart thing for companies to do is follow CounterStrike and Halo. If you don't have a legit serial, its much harder to play. And also, if you dont have a good steam account with a serial and all you can't play.

[Sirber]

I love what Valve is doing with Steam. I recently bought Sin for $20 (include old Sin game, and Sin Episode 1).

[foxyshadis]

Crap like this is partly what caused me to stop buying PC games years ago. The last PC games I purchased were Unreal Tournament and Starcraft. On both of them I ended up getting pirated versions just so I wouldn't have to keep the cd in my drive every time I wanted to play. Eventually the discs became scratched or lost, and I was FORCED to use the pirated versions to play my games. After that, all the games coming out were using increasingly annoying DRM techniques, and I just said to hell with it, well before it even escalated to this point.

Back in the day, it was trivial to copy a program from a floppy disk. Yet the old days gave rise to some of the most powerful companies around today. If piracy really hurt, wouldn't all software companies be dead today?
Almost every single company from that era is gone. The fact that ten are now megagiants isn't much consolation to the thousands that didn't make it.

Piracy has always been a problem, and different companies deal with it differently. (Adobe supposedly builds piracy into its prices, charging you as if you'll give them to a friend or three. It certainly isn't "niche" software to justify those prices.) It's just that there's no real way to quantify it, it's impossible to say which of those who stole would've bought, or how much piracy it takes to bring a company down or delay their next product.

But DRM is very easy to quantify: every support call, every frustrated forum post, blogs everywhere about getting no help and no refund for something that doesn't work, or stuff stops working six months later when the company gets bought or puts out something new. Even if they aren't the majority, they're the vocal ones everyone sees. Star Force can label them pirates all they want, since they aren't their customers, but publishers can't, because that's a one-stop ticket to permanently losing them and everyone they reach, and eventually starving an entire industry when people find less frustrating recreation. Like consoles that "just work".

At least until someone figures out how to install a rootkit on the 360...

[ChronoCross]

I don't play too many games anymore due to the price. I mean Removing crappy DRM makes my experience a little more difficult but I enjoy messing with that kind of thing. I'm still annoyed with the fact that all the fun games are now

1) buy game for $60.00
2) buy online subscription to play game 29.99 a month.

It's like I'm paying for another internet connection just so I can have fun and play it. and then if I don't pay a month my character is gone and I'm forced to start over. If I don't play as much I still sepnt $30 that month. that my friends is a rip off.

[Zarxrax]

Almost every single company from that era is gone. The fact that ten are now megagiants isn't much consolation to the thousands that didn't make it.

Well, thats true of any industry, not just software. Over 85% of small to medium sized businesses fail within the first 5 years. In addition, a lot of small software houses just ended up getting bought by bigger ones.

[Sirber]

@ChronoCross

Guild Wars, $50 and no monthly fees! :D

[SirCanealot]

If I were to use the pirated version, I'd
1) pay no money
2) wouldn't need a DVD in the drive
3) wouldn't have to worry about uninstalling software they don't like.



I'd like to mention that I've been playing a pirated version of F.E.A.R. and have had NO hassle!
Then, a few days ago, my girlfriend picked me up a cheap copy from the game shop she works in. But now that I've read this, I've decided against uninstalling my pirated version and installing my legit version. I mean, I use Daemon tools (though not for entirely legit purposes :P), but screw having to uninstall x n to get the game working (though I suppose I can install and then use a No-CD crack...).

[greath]

(though I suppose I can install and then use a No-CD crack...).

But won't the installation process put the rootkit on your PC, even if you do have the no-CD crack, and that's what's causing the trouble.

[celtic_druid]

I believe Doom9 said it was protected with Securom, not StarForce though.

[niknik]

My feelings exactly like Doom9. It's absurd PAYING customers get the hassles, while pirates get the all the advantages.

I haven't bought many games these past years because of those stupid DRMs. (And sent mails to them, stating it!)

Even worse is: if they require for me to have the CD/DVD in the drive, then why do I have to install over 4Gb of crap on my PC!??! Why can't it run from the DVD all together? Just like any console does???

(it shouldn't even need an install, but would be asking too much.. <sigh>)

[SirCanealot]

then why do I have to install over 4Gb of crap on my PC!??! Why can't it run from the DVD all together? Just like any console does???



Because DVD is about 5000x slower than HD. It guess it'd work if you wouldn't mind the game pausing and stuttering every time it loaded new data. Remember: many CONSOLE developers changed how their games work due to the original XBox's hard disk!

Edit: Imagine something like Quake 4 or Oblivion directly from the DVD, haha.

[niknik]

Slower? maybe... (and you can get 15+MB/s from a 16xDVD... that isn't exactly "slow").
Anyway it would be nice to have that you could make that choice yourself. Wouldn't it?

I don't know if you have a PS2 or XBOX, but if you look at the best examples there, playing from much slower drives, with 500000x less the memory we have on a PC....

There's no excuse for sloppy coding. Why does a level needs to reload again if you're restarting it and it should still be in-memory?

[m1ckran]

I read the news with some detachment when it's about protection systems on pc games. I used to enjoy games but I haven't bothered with them for some time now. I gradually got fed up with them being incompatible with my pc, due mainly to copy protection.

I never made a concious decision to boycott certain brands or embark on a crusade against user-restrictions. I just lost interest. Now, I don't have a clue what's going on in the game world because I am totally disinterested.

Perhaps I was never a true "gamer" in the first place but there must be many people like me. There are probably even more people soon to be driven away from dvd (or whatever format will be tomorrow's favourite) simply because it will be too much hassle.

Manufacturers don't seem to realise that their antics are losing business. Perhaps they don't care.

[Tatsh]

Gamecube games aren't pirated. Yet they still cost $50 a pop, exactly like the widely pirated games on PS2 and Xbox.

They are so, but not in the same sense as Xbox and PS2 until very recently. Regardless the stereotype is mostly true, that mostly little kids have a GC and they aren't smart enough to go online and find out how to get a modchip or even network stream with GCM files, or how to burn mini-DVDRs and the like. The warez scene of GC has, over the period of about 3 years now, become huge.

As far as game buying, I feel like sometimes getting it just to get the legitimate online key. Otherwise, buying is lately just plain useless. What I used to do normally before I lost most interest in games was download, burn, and buy, simply because it was easier than me buying and copying for backup. The downloaded copy of course had the crack which I would use. And I would install using a burned one but instead of use a keygen just install with the key I PURCHASED. But lately games just plainly suck anyway.

[SirCanealot]

Slower? maybe... (and you can get 15+MB/s from a 16xDVD... that isn't exactly "slow").
Anyway it would be nice to have that you could make that choice yourself. Wouldn't it?



Look. Do your research before spouting your mouth. Do you know how much data a level of Quake IV has to load into memory? Ultra quality takes 512 megs of texture memory and around a gig of ram.
That's 93 seconds of loading from the DVD, assuming the data is completely uncompressed and the drive gets a STEADY 16x 100% of the time (is that really likely?). That doesn't include the streaming require in the level.
Wiki says you get around 50mb/s from a 10000rpm drive. So let's say it's around 40mb/s for a 7200rpm one... that's now 37 seconds of loading! Just about barable ^^;;
Quake IV is a bit of an extreme, but just scale it down for other games.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4586448618317501230&q=psp+loading&pl=true
Is also an extreme of disk loading times. Imagine how long everything would take from a HD drive!

If Quake IV was designed to be played from the DVD, developers would have to make levels smaller or less complex since you can't stream as fast. XBox has a HD. 360 has a HD. Ps3 will have a HD. Ps2 doesn't have a HD, but where do you see huge and complex levels? Nowhere. DVD is limited. HD is also very limited, but less so. Developing for HD = allowance for much bigger levels, etc.

[Wilbert]

SirCanealot, do I need to remind you of rule 4?

[foxyshadis]

7200 SATA drives are 40-90 MBps sustained, and max out at 200 (both depending on where on the disk it is). 10K/15K/SCSI is mostly better at random access than raw speed, often because of the smaller drive capacity. So yeah, a really fast drive will save you a lot of twiddling of thumbs in quake 4. =p

It's also impossible to compare dvd speeds directly, because the inside is only 1/4 the speed of the outside. So average speed is less than 2/3 of the max.

[information taken from TechReport (http://techreport.com/reviews) benchmarks.]

Of course for dvd-load games the textures are stripped way down, but then what's the point of having anything more than a 64 meg card?

[niknik]

Look. Do your research before spouting your mouth. Do you know how much data a level of Quake IV has to load into memory?

And you should do a reality check before "barking up the worng tree".
It doesn't really matter how much it loads into memory, I'm just arguing we should have the choice to have it running from memory.

Ultra quality takes 512 megs of texture memory and around a gig of ram.

Sure! And all you friends have super-uber computer with the latest graphics cards and play it in those settings. Most my friends still play at 800x600, with medium settings, and just a couple have 6800GTs.

That's 93 seconds of loading from the DVD, assuming the data is completely uncompressed and the drive gets a STEADY 16x

As you mention... that would be "uncompressed data". And, if the cpu is waiting for data to be read from the DVD/HD/Floppy, it might as well be decompressing it, no?(which happens in the *real* world).

For instance, there are 3rd party levels with very nice detail in under 50Mb, even if you had another 50Mb of compressed textures, that would be 100Mb... which would take what? 10-15 seconds to load from a very slow dvd rom?

Wiki says you get around 50mb/s from a 10000rpm drive. So let's say it's around 40mb/s for a 7200rpm one... that's now 37 seconds of loading! Just about barable ^^;;
Quake IV is a bit of an extreme, but just scale it down for other games.

Funny...
If you cared to do some research, or care to understand how things work, you should have noticed that loading times are often not the "bottleneck".
Just check some loading times:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2682&p=7

humm... a maxtor beating a Raptor in C&C Loading times... oh well, there goes your theory...

Even by using raid arrays (as I happen to have) most games don't load twice as fast. There's a lot of other stuff going on.
So, I don't believe that loading it at 10MB/s would make THAT big a difference.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4586448618317501230&q=psp+loading&pl=true
Is also an extreme of disk loading times. Imagine how long everything would take from a HD drive!
Sure, when the storage media is the bottleneck, that is true.
But in most recent PC games, that isn't always the case.

DVD is limited. HD is also very limited, but less so. Developing for HD = allowance for much bigger levels, etc.
Not necessarily, but ok... it's not as if we don't have complete 3D FPS running in 8Mb, complete 3d games in 64Kb, or so...

You're probably the kind of person that think it's ok to wait 30 seconds for your OS to load. And when vista comes, if it takes 1 min - even better!
I, on the other side, as a professional programmer for over 15 years, would like them to do things efficiently.
I make real-time image processing systems running on 25Mhz CPUs with 512kb ram. (ok, I had to upgrade, as the older 20Mhz couldn't cut it with the latest additions)
Does the overhead of having an OS explain the extra GHZ and GB needed to make things work right?

And believe me, playing a game from DVD sure wouldn't be such a big problem as you think.

[SirCanealot]

Wilbert, I'm not sure what you mean. I consider niknik as running his mouth (if that's what you're refering to) since he seems to have little knowledge of maths (fully in my opinion) and how games work (again, full in my opinion). He's just walzted into this topic and started spouting what he thinks without knowing exactly what he's saying (in my opinion). I apoligise if I've seemed insulting, but I really haven't meant to be...

Listen, niknik, if you make OSes on 25mhz processors, that's cool. But you're asking programmers to do more work and fit with in a more limited spec.

I mean, to directly quote you:

Sure! And all you friends have super-uber computer with the latest graphics cards and play it in those settings. Most my friends still play at 800x600, with medium settings, and just a couple have 6800GTs.

Does everybody even have a DVD-Rom drive that will read at 16x 100% of the time? (unlikely, assuming dust/finger prints, wear and tear, etc, and, I forgot, the inside tracks being read at a much lower speed).

Okay, let's say the game has 500 megs to load into data (perfectly feasable) in total. That's 30 seconds via a fast DVD-rom drive on a perfect disk and 12 seconds on a slow SATA hard disk. Why would I want to wait 30 seconds?

And the other thing is, you're capping developers at 15mb/s for streaming. Why should they be capped at 15mb/s streaming when HDs offer FAR more?

Also, you're asking them to use more media as info is compressed heavily for DVDs/CDs. I mean, Tomb Raider: AOD aparently takes up 9 gigs of disk space! Yet isn't it on a DVD-5?

Also, what about spin up time and seek time of DVDs? Also MUCH higher than HDs.

If you cared to do some research, or care to understand how things work, you should have noticed that loading times are often not the "bottleneck".
Just check some loading times:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=2682&p=7

humm... a maxtor beating a Raptor in C&C Loading times... oh well, there goes your theory...

But what about the other two games? I don't understand. And there's no DVD-Rom loading in there. Should I just triple all the load times?

For instance, there are 3rd party levels with very nice detail in under 50Mb, even if you had another 50Mb of compressed textures, that would be 100Mb... which would take what? 10-15 seconds to load from a very slow dvd rom?

And 2.5 seconds on a slow HD :/
And what about the game engine, AI, sounds, etc? Don't they take up ram too? ^^

And believe me, playing a game from DVD sure wouldn't be such a big problem as you think.

But it would still limit developers heavily due to the transfer speed limit. Remember: The ability to play from the disk has died down in the last decade. I wonder why...

What's the standard seek time of a DVD-rom including the spin up time?

[niknik]

Wilbert, I'm not sure what you mean. I consider niknik as running his mouth (if that's what you're refering to) since he seems to have little knowledge of maths (fully in my opinion) and how games work (again, full in my opinion)

I never meant this to turn into a "flame" war, and I'm not here to show my Masters and Ph.D to you.
None the less you should not assume what I know or do not know about programming and game development... But that's besides the point.

This all started because I said (and will keep saying it) that WE (the consumers), being forced to have the DVD always on the drive, should be been given the OPTION to run the game from the DVD.

. He's just walzted into this topic and started spouting what he thinks without knowing exactly what he's saying (in my opinion). I apoligise if I've seemed insulting, but I really haven't meant to be...

Likewise, I'm sorry if I seemed insulting.
But from the start I simply stated this as being exactly waht it is: MY opinion.
And I just tried refuting some of your arguments on why it isn't "possible" to do so.

Listen, niknik, if you make OSes on 25mhz processors, that's cool. But you're asking programmers to do more work and fit with in a more limited spec.
I do a lot of stuff - that's also besides the point.
But pardon me if I see a lot of bloatware around.

Does everybody even have a DVD-Rom drive that will read at 16x 100% of the time? (unlikely, assuming dust/finger prints, wear and tear, etc, and, I forgot, the inside tracks being read at a much lower speed).
I didn't forget that, that's why I always stated much lower transfer rates than it's theorethical limit.
But again, it's besides the point - If if I were running it from a 1x DVD drive, filled it dust, and making 1000x retries for each sector - that's out of any developer control. Having a single check box that read: "Run game from DVD", is.

Okay, let's say the game has 500 megs to load into data (perfectly feasable) in total. That's 30 seconds via a fast DVD-rom drive on a perfect disk and 12 seconds on a slow SATA hard disk. Why would I want to wait 30 seconds? Why would I want to wait 5 minutes for the game to install in the first place?

And the other thing is, you're capping developers at 15mb/s for streaming. Why should they be capped at 15mb/s streaming when HDs offer FAR more?
Having no "copy to disk" option, doesn't mean the game wouldn't be able to create temp files on the HD - even if it just used "memory", it would still be using it as virtual memory.


Also, you're asking them to use more media as info is compressed heavily for DVDs/CDs. I mean, Tomb Raider: AOD aparently takes up 9 gigs of disk space! Yet isn't it on a DVD-5?
My point exactly - do you think AOD is such an excelent game that really needs those 9gb??? Is it that hard to find similar (better?) games fitting in a lot let space?

Also, what about spin up time and seek time of DVDs? Also MUCH higher than HDs.
If that were such an important issue, as I said, there are many ways to "solve" that. Just cache your entire theoretical 500Mb from the DVD to the HD, play it, delete it. Or would it take "that" long to copy 500Mb from a dvd to HD?


But what about the other two games? I don't understand. And there's no DVD-Rom loading in there. Should I just triple all the load times?
Now it's time for me to doubt your math abilities.
If I showed you that 2 different drives with 2 different data transfer rates loading the same level in nearly the same time... duh?
Just to show that loading times isn't ALL about data rates.
Or else, wouldn't the raptor, or a raid array load it in 1/2, 1/4 the time?

But it would still limit developers heavily due to the transfer speed limit. Remember: The ability to play from the disk has died down in the last decade. I wonder why...

Has died for PC games, consoles use it everyday.
Maybe because grew used to "wasting" 9Gb of HD space for a game they still have to put in the CD/DVD drive.
I wonder why people think that's "ok".

What's the standard seek time of a DVD-rom including the spin up time?
Even it took 5 seconds to bring it up to speed...
It's not as if I'm forcing my opinion on everyone else. Like I said: I'd just like the option to chose it if I wanted it.

(I wouldn't express my "wishes" if I thought it would be so controversial :P

[siddharthagandhi]

SirCanaleot is entirely right. I have played like every game that ever existed, some off of cd, dvd, and some off of hd. DVD drive, without a doubt whatsoever, no matter what DVD or CD drive you have or what your computer specs are, is 99.999% of the time slower than hard drive. Thats why many games give you the option of a "Full" install so that it wont lag in the game.

[niknik]

SirCanaleot is entirely right. I have played like every game that ever existed

Bold claim. But glad to know someone is supporting the game industry. ;)

99.999% of the time slower than hard drive. Thats why many games give you the option of a "Full" install so that it wont lag in the game

Glad to know someone got the point!
That's exactly what I was talking about. I'm "bitching" about the games NOT giving you that OPTION, forcing you to do multigigabyte installs.

[siddharthagandhi]

Doesnt that mean you two are arguing for the same side? Then why are you two fighting? What's the controversy?

[niknik]

Just that Sir Canealot doesn't agrees that it would be feasible to have the games runing off DVD without installing Gigabytes of data to your hard disk.

Thankfully, this is a big world, and we're all entitled to have our own (different) opinions :)

Now, I don't even need to start talking about how I feel about DRM schemes that "request" you to remove any virtual drives you may have, do I? ;)

[siddharthagandhi]

Whoa hold it..? If a game is running of a dvd, then there is basically nothing except the "base" or "foundation" of the game installed on your computer...most of the data is on the dvd...

In that case, SirCanaelet is wrong. Because running it off the DVD is the ALTERNATIVE to installing gigabytes of data to your hard drive.

[niknik]

running it off the DVD is the ALTERNATIVE to installing gigabytes of data to your hard drive.

Yes, that should be it. But some games *require* you to copy all of it to the HD first - giving you no choice whatsoever.
I just think they *all* should be able to run off the dvd *and* have that full install option for anyone willing to trade some Gigabytes for a "better experience".

But lets get back on topic.
Anyone has any idea on when a "result" should occur on the starforce lawsuit?
(If it was here, justice and courts are so slow it would take a couple of years, at least!)

[Zarxrax]

Another point that no one seems to have mentioned yet...
taking SirCanealot's example of Quake 4...

If I'm not mistaken, the game is released for Xbox360 and it runs in High Definition. This means the textures will be quite large and more comparable to the pc version than for example, a PS2 game. As for the large expansive levels, unless they completely changed the game, the levels should be just as large as on the PC version.

And the Xbox360 doesnt require an HD.

[niknik]

There are a lot of examples we could use on how to effectively run from dvd only.
Full open world games, like GTA San Andreas, that plays on the PS2 very much like on a PC.
Legay of Kain, that doesn't even have loading times. You press play, and you start playing immediately...
That would indicate that it CAN be done.

[SirCanealot]

If if I were running it from a 1x DVD drive, filled it dust, and making 1000x retries for each sector - that's out of any developer control.

So it would be acceptable for a game to pause in a random place in the middle of the level — perhaps in the middle of a fight to load a sound — to spin up the DVD, take the time to read it, and then load it into virtual memory or your ram?

How would the game do this? Would it actually pause or would it jerk around like a bitch? Or would it display a "now loading" screen?
All of this would increase development and testing time. For instance, the "Please insert a controller" you get on most console games takes several people hours to test. People must spend days going through each level and cutscene and randomly pulling out the controller to make sure the message is displayed. Food for thought.


Why would I want to wait 5 minutes for the game to install in the first place?

Because it's better in the long run. That's the same as saying,
"Oh, I could buy a car and make my 20 minute walk to work 5 minutes... wait a sec, buying a card will take me 30 minutes! Forget it!"


Having no "copy to disk" option, doesn't mean the game wouldn't be able to create temp files on the HD - even if it just used "memory", it would still be using it as virtual memory.

That's a good point, and it's what the Xbox does. However, that's still an uneeded increase in development and testing time...

My point exactly - do you think AOD is such an excelent game that really needs those 9gb??? Is it that hard to find similar (better?) games fitting in a lot let space?

The quality of the game has nothing to do with the space it takes up. Perhaps there's lots of FMV or uncompressed audio.


If that were such an important issue, as I said, there are many ways to "solve" that. Just cache your entire theoretical 500Mb from the DVD to the HD, play it, delete it. Or would it take "that" long to copy 500Mb from a dvd to HD?

You would do that, then? Every time you played the game?



Now it's time for me to doubt your math abilities.
If I showed you that 2 different drives with 2 different data transfer rates loading the same level in nearly the same time... duh?
Just to show that loading times isn't ALL about data rates.
Or else, wouldn't the raptor, or a raid array load it in 1/2, 1/4 the time?

Yes, but look at THE OTHER TWO GAMES. THEY SHOW THAT HAVING A BETTER HD DECREASES LOADING TIME. C&C is such an old game; why was it even on the test? :/


Has died for PC games, consoles use it everyday.
Maybe because grew used to "wasting" 9Gb of HD space for a game they still have to put in the CD/DVD drive.
I wonder why people think that's "ok".

And consoles are more limited in what they can do. And all of the next gen consoles have a hard disk. The XBox "installs" as you suggested like precaching. However, correct me if I'm mistaken, but the XBox doesn't automatically delete the data when you're done playing to speed loading time next time (unless you're running out of space).
[/QUOTE]

If I'm not mistaken, the game is released for Xbox360 and it runs in High Definition. This means the textures will be quite large and more comparable to the pc version than for example, a PS2 game. As for the large expansive levels, unless they completely changed the game, the levels should be just as large as on the PC version.

And the Xbox360 doesnt require an HD.

Can you say Quake IV doesn't require the XBox HD?

Besides, you should be able to squeeze Quake IV in "high quality" into the XBox's memory with a little bit of streaming here and there... but forget about "ultra" quality (not that I can see much difference between the two... it's just that ultra quality is completely uncompressed).

There are a lot of examples we could use on how to effectively run from dvd only.
Full open world games, like GTA San Andreas, that plays on the PS2 very much like on a PC.

Yes, but ALL the PC versions of the GTA3 games have had MUCH improved draw distances due to the increase in memory and streaming bandwidth. And the Ps2 versions have always jerked and slowed down a little bit as it loaded new data into its ram (though SA seemed better in this respect... better coding? :P).

Legay of Kain, that doesn't even have loading times. You press play, and you start playing immediately...
That would indicate that it CAN be done.

Some of them have loading times. My room mate is a LoK nut. I can ask him if you like. However, it's not like the LoK levels are overly complex. Blood Omen II's were pretty complex, but if I remember rightly, that had loading times...

The point is, would you actually run games of the DVD?

It's a hell of a lot slower than the HD, and why should developers even need to consider it when developing for PC platforms? For PC developed games it should NOT be thought about as it will limit development opportunities due to decreased streaming bandwidth.

[niknik]

All of this would increase development and testing time. For instance, the "Please insert a controller" you get on most console games takes several people hours to test. People must spend days going through each level and cutscene and randomly pulling out the controller to make sure the message is displayed. Food for thought.

Well. That's their job isn't it?
If they do a good job, more people will buy their products. ;)
Unless you actually buy a buggy game and then spend most time complaining about its bugs (as it so often happens).

And all of the next gen consoles have a hard disk.
It's "optional" on the 360. Guess that alone would prove "next gen" games can indeed run entirely from the DVD alone?
(and I'm not arguing that having the HD won't provide a better gaming experience. It does - or at least it should)


Yes, but ALL the PC versions of the GTA3 games have had MUCH improved draw distances due to the increase in memory and streaming bandwidth.
Maybe also because they have 4Mb of video ram and 32Mb of system memory?... ;)

And the Ps2 versions have always jerked and slowed down a little bit as it loaded new data into its ram (though SA seemed better in this respect... better coding? :P).
I was talking about the SA, that the one friends pointed out as a "good example".

My room mate is a LoK nut. I can ask him if you like. However, it's not like the LoK levels are overly complex

Please do, and better yet, have a go at it. Then think about all the "similar" games that have those long loading times.
Sure, it may use a completely differente game architecture, but the fact is: they pulled it out, and offered an excellent game experience.
(once again, this is just one of the "good" examples - I'm not saying EVERY game could pull such stunt)

The point is, would you actually run games of the DVD?
Seriously?.. Yes I would. I'd like to have the choice to play games on the PC exacly as on a console. I'd put the disc in, load it... play it, pull it back. And not have to worry about installs, and wasted space while I'm not playing...

It's a hell of a lot slower than the HD, and why should developers even need to consider it when developing for PC platforms? For PC developed games it should NOT be thought about as it will limit development opportunities due to decreased streaming bandwidth.

Well, as new games come out for the 360 (and I'm not informed on what/how many will require the Hard Disk or not) we'll see how well (or how bad) the DVD only games will behave.
For instance, if the quake IV runs without it, there's no reason for the PC version not be able to do so, right?
(Anyway, I don't even know if Quake4 for PC is one of those games that forces you to do full installs to disk! ;)

[Eretria-chan]

Also remember that the GC had low loading times, especially on good titles such as Metroid Prime, and it had no HD. For revolution, I think the storage is more for downloaded games rather than as a place for temporary files.
I second the idea of being able to play a game by simply putting in the DVD and playing. No installation, no waste of space :)

[siddharthagandhi]

I think what should be implemented is a choice of Full HD install or run from DVD, with Full HD install being the default choice (unless there is less than 10 GB of hd available).

[Mug Funky]

Adobe supposedly builds piracy into its prices, charging you as if you'll give them to a friend or three. It certainly isn't "niche" software to justify those prices.

a note on that: if you contact adobe and ask about purchasing several licenses of one of their products, more than likely they'll flat out accuse you of using a pirated version. now THAT's customer service for you... damned if you do, damned if you don't. i love how they risked a very lucrative deal by immediately insulting their customer. if they weren't a practical monopoly there's no goddamned way they could get away with that kind of disgusting behaviour. and now people have to deal with them to get flash as well... the price has gone right up and the code hasn't been touched since macromedia were acquired.

compared to that, i'd sooner buy software from a drug dealer up on smith street. you're likely to get a better standard of service, and a little less lip.

[alstar1]

I recond MS have plenty of mony after the pirated MS XP revolution. I have customers who paid for XP when thay bought their computers from the store and after their computers crashed and got reloaded with generic XP Disc now have to fork out for a proper copy of XP. They must have mades trillions. Now they will bring of another version of vista.

[Shinigami-Sama]

I know
I dispise adobe
but to veiw any PDFs I need it
I couldn't find one windows veiwer that actualy worked in opening PDFs
yet somehow I have like 3 differant ways I can MAKE them installed right now
how messed up is that?

[Sirber]

I know
I dispise adobe
but to veiw any PDFs I need it
I couldn't find one windows veiwer that actualy worked in opening PDFs
yet somehow I have like 3 differant ways I can MAKE them installed right now
how messed up is that?
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

waaaaaay better than adobe :D

[Shinigami-Sama]

have to pay for that one though :(

[DarkZell666]

@Shinigami-sama: do you need new glasses mate ?
Foxit Reader 2.0 is a free PDF document viewer and printer... It can't be more explit than that ;)

[Shinigami-Sama]

I think I do need new ones
and also time to sleep; working on about 4 hours a night over the last two weeks
I just saw licencing and prices
meh