Support NeoGAF

[stuminus3]

I can launch my Steam version offline and play no worries. On a platform where piracy is a considerably bigger issue than it is on PS3. So what the crap is this? What is even the point?

 

[Number45]

So you cannot sell the game used and it has always on DRM. This sounds oddly familiar....

This is specifically talking about the PSN version, how would you expect to sell it used?

 

[BosSin]

This doesn't make sense. If the disc version doesn't have always-online DRM, pirates would be able to just obtain copies of that

I'm gonna re-post this so people actually see it

 

[M3Freak]

Screw that noise. I won't buy any game that has stupid DRM like that. I don't care how good the game is or how badly I want to play it, I won't spend my hard earned money on it.

Tomb Failer.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

That is kinda ridiculous. People who don't like it, buy the physical copy. Simple as that.

No. The publisher and developer must be punished for this kind of thing. No sale at ALL.

 

[I'm an expert]

Cool, so we've established your playing profile. Now let's look at other people. Plenty of people actually go back and play older games. Not "every single game they've ever owned," but perhaps their favorites. And these favorites differ depending on the person, clearly. Don't assume that everyone is just like you and only plays games once and gets rid of them, because that's a very poor assumption.

I'm not assuming, nor am I telling anyone to do anything or behave like I do. You of all people should know I don't have to stick an "IN MY OPINION" or "THIS ONLY PERTAINS TO ME" on every single thing I write on this board (nor should anyone). The only absolute I spoke was "dd games are not permanent", but hell neither are physical games. Is it my opinion that people that freak out about this shit are silly? Sure, but then there are people who think I'm silly, and it all cancels out. I suppose you can infer from my post that if 15 years down the road you have an inkling to play Tomb Raider for the PS3 it's a bit out there, but then you can just buy it on disc! Yay!

 

[Zoe]

That 24 hour cooldown period has been around for a long time and other games have had it.

Yeah. That part doesn't strike me as that big of a deal. Locking it solely to that account though is unprecedented AFAIK (assuming that is the case).

 

[despire]

So this is only with the downloadable PSN-version of the game? Not the disc version?

 

[I'm an expert]

So this is only with the downloadable PSN-version of the game? Not the disc version?

Correct. As of now, the only benefit of the dd version is the convenience of having it on your hdd. Otherwise, the physical copy has (had) depending on the retailer a variety of bonuses for the same price. It will also most likely be lower in price in the coming weeks. (or the pc version which is much cheaper as well)

 

[OldJadedGamer]

This could be how Sony will make publishers happy with the PS4. They can just do digital only and print discs. That way they get their always on DRM and no used games.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I can launch my Steam version offline and play no worries. On a platform where piracy is a considerably bigger issue than it is on PS3.

I only really buy digital downloads on sale to offset not being able to sell and other crap, but this "always-online" garbage is a new line in the sand that just sucks.

Hopefully the digital sales for this game suck.

If we take Sony and NPD numbers (hide/spin) as an example we'll never know, in fact we'll just hear how great things are if they do say anything.

IraqInfomationMinister.jpg

 

[Aeana]

I'm not assuming, nor am I telling anyone to do anything or behave like I do. You of all people should know I don't have to stick an "IN MY OPINION" or "THIS ONLY PERTAINS TO ME" on every single thing I write on this board (nor should anyone). The only absolute I spoke was "dd games are not permanent", but hell neither are physical games. Is it my opinion that people that freak out about this shit are silly? Sure, but then there are people who think I'm silly, and it all cancels out. I suppose you can infer from my post that if 15 years down the road you have an inkling to play Tomb Raider for the PS3 it's a bit out there, but then you can just buy it on disc! Yay!

No, you don't have to mark your opinions, but your posts don't contain only opinions. You made an assertion that the only people who are affected by this are hoarders, but that isn't true. I just replayed Final Fantasy 3 on Famicom last spring. I still have the game because I like to play it every once in a while. It's a good thing I still had it, so I was able to play it, right? Your posts just demonstrate a lacking level of empathy that I'm not comfortable with. Your personal behavior is fine, it doesn't bother me, nor should it bother anyone else; I simply wanted to make it clear that plenty of people do like to replay games, and/or do view gaming as something worth revisiting rather than completely transitory. Those people have a reason to be unhappy about this type of thing, and it doesn't make them hoarders or any other negative term you can come up with. It makes them different from you. That's it.

 

[Espada]

That's essentially how all digital games are these days, regardless of drm. One day they will no longer be available. The end. Even with a game like Tomb Raider, I'd buy it, play it, beat it, probably platinum it, and never touch it again. Why would I care if I don't still have it 15 years from now? If it was the physical copy I would have just sold it anyway. The only people that get affected by it are hoarders.

So because some people do the equivalent of wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am with their games the rest of us as supposed to just grin and bear these kinds of policies? If one of these companies makes an awesome single player game but requires online support to play, that's going to suck something fierce.

Even worse when they take down the online service and you want to enjoy said title on your own time.

People have too much faith in cold and faceless corporations.

 

[spwolf]

This could be how Sony will make publishers happy with the PS4. They can just do digital only and print discs. That way they get their always on DRM and no used games.

PS3 always had all these options, and publishers could pick what DRM to use.

It is pretty stupid that you cant play it on all of your PS3's, makes little sense. Since they lowered the activations, i doubt many use it for game sharing anymore.

 

[I'm an expert]

No, you don't have to mark your opinions, but your posts don't contain only opinions. You made an assertion that the only people who are affected by this are hoarders, but that isn't true. I just replayed Final Fantasy 3 on Famicom last spring. I still have the game because I like to play it every once in a while. It's a good thing I still had it, so I was able to play it, right? Your posts just demonstrate a lacking level of empathy that I'm not comfortable with. Your personal behavior is fine, it doesn't bother me, nor should it bother anyone else; I simply wanted to make it clear that plenty of people do like to replay games, and/or do view gaming as something worth revisiting rather than completely transitory. Those people have a reason to be unhappy about this type of thing, and it doesn't make them hoarders or any other negative term you can come up with. It makes them different from you. That's it.

You have to admit your video game playing style is on the complete opposite spectrum of most. Just because people like you do exist doesn't mean you're not a minority that game publishers (or whoever make these decisions) most likely do not care about at all. You don't have to make it clear for me that people replay games, I know, I replay games too sometimes. I just don't think that entitles me to an everlasting library of permanence in today's digital age. Some people do think they deserve that, which is totally fine and hopefully they support that stance by not buying stupid drm games like this.

As for my lack of empathy, is it bannable? Cause if not, shrug, that's how I am. If I had an issue with fellow gamers being different than me, I sure as heck wouldn't post here in the bastion of crazy video game opinions. But I have my own opinions, and as long as I am not rude or offensive I would like to keep posting them. Hoarders a negative term? I..guess. Personally, I feel there's a distinct line between people who actually collect video games (or anything) and people who keep shit for the sake of keeping it. That's another topic though.

So because some people do the equivalent of wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am with their games the rest of us as supposed to just grin and bear these kinds of policies? If one of these companies makes an awesome single player game but requires online support to play, that's going to suck something fierce.

Even worse when they take down the online service and you want to enjoy said title on your own time.

People have too much faith in cold and faceless corporations.

Even though I'm a hit it and quit it kinda guy I still posted in this thread how I thought this practice was stupid and would never support it. I was, as should be understood with any post, speaking from my personal perspective. I don't get how I'm the person who has too much faith in these faceless corporations even though I don't buy a game like this, but you have people most likely on this very forum who have bought this game on PSN. I just accept reality. These companies do want to fuck you and do want your money. The only thing I can do is not voluntarily give it to them. What more can I do? Start a petition? Get a bumper sticker?

 

[Espada]

You have to admit your video game playing style is on the complete opposite spectrum of most. Just because people like you do exist doesn't mean you're not a minority that game publishers (or whoever make these decisions) most likely do not care about at all. You don't have to make it clear for me that people replay games, I know, I replay games too sometimes. I just don't think that entitles me to an everlasting library of permanence in today's digital age. Some people do think they deserve that, which is totally fine and hopefully they support that stance by not buying stupid drm games like this.

As for my lack of empathy, is it bannable? Cause if not, shrug, that's how I am. If I had an issue with fellow gamers being different than me, I sure as heck wouldn't post here. But I have my opinions, and as long as I am not rude or offensive I would like to keep postnig them. Hoarders a negative term? I..guess. Personally, I feel there's a distinct line between people who actually collect video games (or anything) and people who keep shit for the sake of keeping it. That's another topic though.

This has nothing to do with majority or minority of anything. This is publishers creating an untenable situation where the product you purchased is only valuable for as long as the publisher deems fit. We're supposed to praise this as progress?

It'd be unacceptable if book publishers could somehow render a book unreadable once they stop hawking it and the sites go down. You're simply saying to accept the practice of making games time bombs on the grounds that the majority jump from game to game like junkies looking for a fix.

 

[I'm an expert]

This has nothing to do with majority or minority of anything. This is publishers creating an untenable situation where the product you purchased is only valuable for as long as the publisher supports it. We're supposed to praise this as progress?

It'd be unacceptable if book publishers could somehow render a book unreadable once they stop hawking it and the sites go down. You're simply saying to accept the practice of making games time bombs on the grounds that the majority jump from game to game like junkies looking for a fix.

I replied to you directly in an edit, but where in this thread or anywhere did I suggest we praise them for anything? I agree, it's a stupid practice and one that no one should support. But what more can we do than that? These are the people who supply our video games. You either get it from them, don't, or make your own. If you want, start a movement or spam their twitter or whatever. And just to be clear, book publishers supply physical versions of the book. So do game publishers (for most games). It's just the digital age hasn't caught up to the idea of permanence yet. And the idea of DRM is still evolving too. It's a weird time, but here we are, experiencing it.

 

[Espada]

I replied to you directly in an edit, but where in this thread or anywhere did I suggest we praise them for anything? I agree, it's a stupid practice and one that no one should support. But what more can we do than that? These are the people who supply our video games. You either get it from them, don't, or make your own. If you want, start a movement or spam their twitter or whatever. And just to be clear, book publishers supply physical versions of the book. So do game publishers (for most games). It's just the digital age hasn't caught up to the idea of permanence yet. And the idea of DRM is still evolving too. It's a weird time, but here we are, experiencing it.

Ah, I see your response up there. I just have to say that if a key feature of the "digital age" is a rejection of permanence, it doesn't sound like something I want to be a part of. It stinks of restriction and regression.

 

[Htown]

Or if you remembered to shut the client down before you shut down Windows.

again, they fixed that months ago

 

[I'm an expert]

Ah, I see your response up there. I just have to say that if a key feature of the "digital age" is a rejection of permanence, it doesn't sound like something I want to be a part of. It stinks of restriction and regression.

Rejection by us or them? I'd like to point out I'm not rejecting it, I'm accepting that as of now it is not an obligation of our content providers. But that doesn't mean I'm completely anti-digital. I'm actually anti-physical media in the grand sense except for games because as of now there isn't a huge incentive due to there being zero price difference or any worthwhile bonuses on most releases. If they had released this game (let's assume the DRM didn't exist) for 49.99 and the same preorder bonuses, I'd have zero qualms buying it.

 

[-PXG-]

This doesn't bother me at all. My PS3 is always connected to the internet. In the rare occasion that it wouldn't be, I'd be OK not being able to play a game.

This apologist bullshit needs to stop. So you're ok with them having control over when and how you play your games?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

PS3 always had all these options, and publishers could pick what DRM to use.

It is pretty stupid that you cant play it on all of your PS3's, makes little sense. Since they lowered the activations, i doubt many use it for game sharing anymore.

And if they don't stop publishers from doing it now, odds are they aren't going to stop them next gen. The buck stops with the console maker to end these practices so publishers don't abuse it like they are here.

 

[I'm an expert]

This apologist bullshit needs to stop. So you're ok with them having control over when and how you play your games?

I'd just like to point out if people can call me empathetic to their side, I think this is overly..emotional? ..to our side. We're not apologists or corporate defenders. We accept the price of a digital age and digital content as it exists RIGHT NOW. We hope for better days, but some of us just do not care that much if our sole purpose is to enjoy the game in this moment.

 

[coldfoot]

I'll make a point to buy a used Blu-ray copy of this game, and I never buy used games. I sell them though.

 

[I'm an expert]

I'll make a point to buy a used Blu-ray copy of this game.

Definitely the best option period nowadays. Especially for games without online passes. /thumbsup

 

[Espada]

Rejection by us or them? I'd like to point out I'm not rejecting it, I'm accepting that as of now it is not an obligation of our content providers. But that doesn't mean I'm completely anti-digital. I'm actually anti-physical media in the grand sense except for games because as of now there isn't a huge incentive due to their being zero price difference or any worthwhile bonuses on most releases. If they had released this game (let's assume the DRM didn't exist) for 49.99 and the same preorder bonuses, I'd have zero qualms buying it.

Them. The idea of a consumer having a permanent copy of their product not controlled by them is apparently unpalatable, so we have schemes like this which puts all control in their hands. They're using the shift towards digital distribution to slip in noxious policies that only punish the end user and benefit themselves.

 

[coldfoot]

And if they don't stop publishers from doing it now, odds are they aren't going to stop them next gen. The buck stops with the console maker to end these practices so publishers don't abuse it like they are here.

The buck ALWAYS stops with content creators.

 

[NekoToshiro]

Holy shit why

Spoiler

NANO MACHINES SON

This apologist bullshit needs to stop. So you're ok with them having control over when and how you play your games?

Agreed. What if PSN got hacked again and you couldn't log in for weeks. . . That would annoy me. When I buy a game I'm not buying it to bend to there whim. They need to make it easy to access and I don't want to go around jumping through hoops to play my own game. Its like EA's Spore series. I would love to try it but only being able to use the code three time I do believe is like "What?" Why should I waste money when I will either wipe the hard drive or it might even get corrupted by a virus and I would have to reinstall.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

The buck ALWAYS stops with content creators.

The content creators have to follow the set list of TRC's. Whomever makes those guidelines are responsible. Publishers are like children and the console maker is the parent.

 

[MikeE21286]

next gen starts when Sony says it does.

 

[I'm an expert]

Them. The idea of a consumer having a permanent copy of their product not controlled by them is apparently unpalatable, so we have schemes like this which puts all control in their hands. They're using the shift towards digital distribution to slip in noxious policies that only punish the end user and benefit themselves.

Welp, that's most things in life. What can ya do? You either buy games or ya don't. I don't support dlc as an idea because I feel games should be complete when you buy them. I've kept my dlc purchases over the generation to I think literally 2-3 times (for the PSN Magic games). So I've tried my best to boycott and vote with my wallet, but what do I see? Millions buying costumes or map packs or extra levels. What do the companies see? Cha ching. So hopefully in this specific case, people don't buy PSN TR. Because if it's profitable all they'll think is "well, that went alright."

 

[coldfoot]

The content creators have to follow the set list of TRC's. Whomever makes those guidelines are responsible. Publishers are like children and the console maker is the parent.

TRC's only apply to technical details and ensures a certain level of quality.
When it comes to MONETIZATION of their content, the buck ALWAYS stops with the content owners.

 

[Espada]

Welp, that's most things in life. What can ya do? You either buy games or ya don't. I don't support dlc as an idea because I feel games should be complete when you buy them. I've kept my dlc purchases over the generation to I think literally 2-3 times (for the PSN Magic games). So I've tried my best to boycott and vote with my wallet, but what do I see? Millions buying costumes or map packs or extra levels. What do the companies see? Cha ching. So hopefully in this specific case, people don't buy PSN TR.

In this sentiment I agree wholeheartedly. DLC was something that many were wary of, we were promised it wouldn't go overboard... and then they did exactly that. Games should most definitely be complete when they're put to market, rather than sold piecemeal with an amortization scheme in place to wring extra money out of people.

What you said a few posts earlier about making some sort of campaign against these policies, I honestly don't know. The people who are making these business schemes lucrative are those least likely to get (or care) about the message.

 

[I'm an expert]

In this sentiment I agree wholeheartedly. DLC was something that many were wary of, we were promised it wouldn't go overboard... and then they did exactly that. Games should most definitely be complete when they're put to market, rather than sold piecemeal with an amortization scheme in place to wring extra money out of people.

What you said a few posts earlier about making some sort of campaign against these policies, I honestly don't know. The people who are making these business schemes lucrative are those least likely to get (or care) about the message.

Of course they don't care about the message, they care about the money. Which is totally fine. But we as gamers have to not give it to them if we don't agree. Unfortunately, sometimes taking a stance is a losing battle. I don't buy dlc, but then I'm forced to wait a year or two for goty edition. Or I can't play on the same maps as someone else. You might not buy this game and I might not buy this game, but 1000 other people who don't read gaf just see the PSN version and grab it. Our voice is small, and most people just don't care.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

TRC's only apply to technical details and ensures a certain level of quality.
When it comes to MONETIZATION of their content, the buck ALWAYS stops with the content owners.

All they need to do is make a TRC that says you can't require the user to be signed in for single player. Done. It is the console makers responsibility to protect the customer.

 

[Discusguy]

This doesn't bother me one bit. I refuse to buy games with this type of DRM. It sucks for the people that want it but hate DRM.

 

[coldfoot]

All they need to do is make a TRC that says you can't require the user to be signed in for single player. Done. It is the console makers responsibility to protect the customer.

Then it would not get published on PSN, but it would be available on other platforms like the 360 digitally because they allow online check. Unless you are a monopoly, you can't force the content owners to do anything that they don't want to do.

 

[The Lamp]

They can always patch out the DRM before the network goes down... If they care enough at that point.

They clearly don't care about the consumer enough to do that.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Then it would not get published on PSN, but it would be available on other platforms like the 360 digitally because they allow online check. Unless you are a monopoly, you can't force the content owners to do anything that they don't want to do.

This issue is unique to PSN is it not? Does 360 allow always on DRM of single player games? Those Capcom PSN games that are always on are not always on the XBLA versions.

 

[I'm an expert]

This issue is unique to PSN is it not? Does 360 allow always on DRM of single player games?

Just to be clear, none of the games locked like this on PSN, including Tomb Raider, are single player only. They all include multiplayer.

 

[Blades64]

And people actually want a digital only future? This is BS.

 

[cheekymunky]

Can anyone clear something up for me? Does this mean that if I have one PS3 with 3 sub acconts and my account on it that online my account is aloud to access the game? Meaning that if my son wanted to play TR that he would have to buy his own copy even though we share a PS3?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Just to be clear, none of the games locked like this on PSN, including Tomb Raider, are single player only. They all include multiplayer.

They have single player modes. Again, those exact same Capcom PSN games that have always on DRM do not have always on DRM on XBLA. It is a PSN only issue. No one is bitching that you have to be signed in to play multiplayer................

 

[I'm an expert]

They have single player modes.

Right, but you said single player games. Technically, they're not. Actually, does Warhawk even have sp?

 

[Wario64]

Just to be clear, none of the games locked like this on PSN, including Tomb Raider, are single player only. They all include multiplayer.

Bionic commando rearmed 2 has no online multiplayer I'm sure.

 

[AuthenticM]

Right, because piracy on PS3 is such a big fucking deal.

 

[beast786]

This apologist bullshit needs to stop. So you're ok with them having control over when and how you play your games?

I am not an apologist but just dont care as i dont buy used games. But, your second point did get me going and is really valid point.

 

[I'm an expert]

Bionic commando rearmed 2 has no online multiplayer I'm sure.

Ah, didn't even know that was one of them. I concede. Take me to gamer jail.

 

[bebop242]

Can anyone clear something up for me? Does this mean that if I have one PS3 with 3 sub acconts and my account on it that online my account is aloud to access the game? Meaning that if my son wanted to play TR that he would have to buy his own copy even though we share a PS3?

I don't own any copy of the game, but what I've seen, yes all sub accounts are locked out.

 

[Ahasverus]

You should consider getting the internet. It will change your life.

Good luck trying to relieve your memories 20 years from now.