GTA IV PC to use SecuROM [News]

[News Reader]

GTA IV PC to use SecuROM [News]
The upcoming PC version of Grand Theft Auto IV is set to use SecuROM copy-protection. Details within.

Category: News
Publish Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:26:50 +0000
Read more...

Source: bit-tech.net feed
Description: Computer hardware, games and technology reviews and news

[fabyak]

Steam it is then!

[Dr. kitteny berk]

Steam it is then!

I've pestered steam to cancel my preorder, too much DRM and iffyness for me to pay for this game.

[FatherJack]

Better get the Amazon Christmas shopping ordered pronto, before the angry herd of twats spam it to oblivion with 1-star reviews.

[fabyak]

too late!

[Baliame]

Better get the Amazon Christmas shopping ordered pronto, before the angry herd of twats spam it to oblivion with 1-star reviews.

Admit it though, they're mostly right.

[FatherJack]

Admit it though, they're mostly right.

They're right to question DRM, which punishes only paying customers, although it's questionable how many it actually has an impact on. They're right to say it won't affect 0day pirating, and a game this popular will be cracked in short order.

What's not so right is to denigrate all the people who make an effort to post informative reviews on Amazon, and then have the gall to insist their one-line reviews mentioning only DRM constitute a proper review. It just makes a farce of the entire system, even though it was never unflawed.

It's bully-boy tactics and copycatting, but the publishers may have the last laugh. What better way to generate interest in what's probably a shoddy console port that to whip up internet hate only to announce a reversal of the decision later on.

[Dog Pants]

probably a shoddy console port

None of the other GTA games have been, and a 90%+ PCG review would suggest otherwise. However, reviews don't take into account ridiculous DRM.

[Shada]

Admit it though, they're mostly right.

Yeah, they're definitely right. Just like the massive braindead horde who downvoted Fallout 3 because someone told them it has securom. It does have securom, of course - the same fucking securom that's been around for YEARS that just uses a DISC CHECK. HURRR SECUROM EVIL HURR DURR DRM DRM DRM.

[FatherJack]

None of the other GTA games have been, and a 90%+ PCG review would suggest otherwise. However, reviews don't take into account ridiculous DRM.

Not too sure about that by my definition.

Vice City was the only one that was about right for the time it came out.

GTA3 needed a super-PC on initial release - in that it was very poorly optimised when run on systems that would comfortably play most other new games at the time. A year later, PCs had improved sufficiently for it not to be so apparent.

By the time San Andreas was released, it looked horribly dated graphically by the PC standards of the time.

That's what I meant by shoddy console port - neither were optimised or improved for the PC platform. The practice has become so commonplace now that it seems trivial, but it was a big deal at the time. Pre-GTA3 the PC was the home of the series, with it's lovely high res blowing away the PS1's pixelly shiteness. For PC owners to get something which was only equal to the console offering just seemed a huge insult.

Fortunately hardware merging has made it less of a leap between the platforms for current titles, but for every Mass Effect and Fallout 3, there's been a Dead Space or Timeshift.

[deject]

GTA still manages to run like shit for some reason, even though I can play Mass Effect, COD4, BF2, and a host of other, more graphically competent games. San Andreas runs better on my machine. I think Vice City was the only decent port of the lot, the rest are people wearing rose-colored glasses or something.

[Dog Pants]

I never noticed any performance issues. maybe I just had an ubar rig at the time. I do admit that they all looked dated, but in the case of VC that didn't bother me as it had so much character, and in the case of GTA3 I suppose the novelty distracted me.

[Baliame]

Ahhh GTA3. Yeah, that was back in the times when I was fucking around with a Voodoo 4 and a GeForce 2.

Yeah, they're definitely right. Just like the massive braindead horde who downvoted Fallout 3 because someone told them it has securom. It does have securom, of course - the same fucking securom that's been around for YEARS that just uses a DISC CHECK. HURRR SECUROM EVIL HURR DURR DRM DRM DRM.

It has no effect whatsoever on piracy, it's just a useless shit to fuck around with paying customers. Now in my opinion if you design a tool that does the complete opposite of what it's supposed to, and it even hides itself mostly unremovably on your system, then fuck you they deserve the 0-star. HURR SHADA HURR HURR HURR HURR.

It's bully-boy tactics and copycatting, but the publishers may have the last laugh. What better way to generate interest in what's probably a shoddy console port that to whip up internet hate only to announce a reversal of the decision later on.

Absoultely good point there, but there are people who actually read reviews, and those probably wouldn't buy it either way. I usually consider buying a game even if it's a semi-crappy console port, however this "do a ridiculous or not-so-ridiculous DRM and then remove it so it seems like we made up our fucking minds" tactics DOES put me off a game. (As in not-so-ridiculous, I don't like DRMs that hide in the shadows of my windows folder. Which probably means every DRM which came out after, and including, StarForce 3) The seaside area of plundering people usually has a few of these games lying around on the floor, I'm not paying for further improvement of this shitty DRM.

Just look at Valve, they have a pretty fine and secure content distribution system, they do not include DRMs, and even if we don't regard the fact that their games are simply fucking awesome (they're in fact doing probably the complete opposite of everyone else, instead of hiring big names still manifacturing Sims clones/failed god games/attempts at dethroning wow, they hire big talents..), I'd buy them just to support their efforts.

[Shada]

It has no effect whatsoever on piracy, it's just a useless shit to fuck around with paying customers. Now in my opinion if you design a tool that does the complete opposite of what it's supposed to, and it even hides itself mostly unremovably on your system, then fuck you they deserve the 0-star. HURR SHADA HURR HURR HURR HURR.

haha what, you aren't even responding to anything i said there

[Baliame]

I'm proving my point of "any DRM is bad DRM" and "users have the right to be negative about shit that invades their computer if they decide to be legit".

[Nicketal]

From what they've said it sounds better than the DRM EA are using, still doesnt answer the question of what the fuck good its going to do though. It will be cracked sooner or later, they are just pissing people off in the meanwhile.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

From what they've said it sounds better than the DRM EA are using, still doesnt answer the question of what the fuck good its going to do though. It will be cracked sooner or later, they are just pissing people off in the meanwhile.

I'm not so sure.

The securom alone isn't a problem for me, as it's supposedly just a disc check (so why is it present in the steam version?)

The being forced into GFWL for MP, and that Rockstar Social Club (hopefully just an xfire clone to be deleted)

Well, that sounds like a cuntload of bloatware, I'd rather install HP drivers than GTA4.


Personally, I'd rather take the EA drm which is fucking horrible, but much less likely to cripple my machine.

[Baliame]

Well, that sounds like a cuntload of bloatware, I'd rather install HP drivers than GTA4.

Now, now, you don't have to lean toward the extreme THAT much.