[quote who="Stormsong" reply="2" id="1930981"]I have the GC II Endless Universe retail version. Is there any way to register is on Impulse? It is bot available in the add registrations games list(I also have Dreadlords as a separate install). [/quote] I'm a little confused as to what "Endless Universe" is? I thought it was the European release of GalCiv and ALL the expansions. Does it not include Dreadlords then?
I'm not sure what's worse: Having people who probably wouldn't buy the game anyway, pirate it, or having people who would have bought the game, not do so because it has a rediculous level of DRM in it. I'm in the latter group. I haven't bought a PC game in nearly two years now because I wont rent software (and I don't pirate it either). I simply do not see why publishers cant release patches to remove DRM after the game has ceased to be economically viable. In fact, what's needed is a
By the way, back in the DOS days, limited activation was already being used, just not over the internet. Some games had a system whereby a token was copied from the disk and had to be in place before the game could be run. The token had to be copied back to the disc before the game could be installed and used some where else. Thanks to disc crashed etc I still have several expensive games that no longer work. This is the main reason I wont buy any Stardock game that uses activation, or any ot
I answered this question once before, Brad, and you rudely assumed I was a pirate (which I'm not). I said then, and I still say, I would accept online activation, with or without limits, securerom even Starforce (the versions that stopped being destructive) if games publishers would start issuing patches to remove ALL DRM once the game hit bargain basement status. Even if I never play the game again, I like to know that I can install it and play it, long after the game company has gon
As for "licensing the software", you're not licensing the software at all. unless you can show me where, on the CD I bought, I can view the software. Since it's an executable, that is not possible, therefore, I bought the GAME and it's mine to do with as I please. If you don't believe that, take all the people selling tehir legally bought CD's to court and lets get this stupid EULA thrown out once and for all.
They have already said that transferring/disabling serial numbers in NOT a trivial or hassle-free thing to do. In other words, it costs them money to perform this NON-STANDARD service, because someone has to go to the trouble of doing it, rather than doing what they could otherwise be doing for the company. That doesn't make it so. How diffic
You must be kidding me? You've already made your money off the furst sale of the product, why should Stardock make any more money off a resale? You're not going to have to provide any more support to the person who buys a second hand game other than transferring the serial which costs you nothing. Under your logic, there wouldn't be a second han
From what I could tell, 97's the highest they've ever given a game so that was particularly cool. Nope, they gave Half Life 2 a score of 100/100. Personally, while I thought HL2 was graphically impressive, it wasn't nearly the perfect game.
Amongst all the love being poured on Stardock here, I have a small voice of dissent. The game does have copy protection, it's just hidden. It's hidden in the product activation part of the patch process. What's to stop a company releasing a game that has a deliberate bug in it that requires an online patch to play? Basically, before you can play the game, you thus have to activate it. I am absolutely against this and wouldn't have bought the game if I'
So you release a buggy program that requires an update to work properly and then put the "product activation" in that update? I like a lot of things about Stardock and your products, but if this is how you're going to implement "copy protection" this is the last game I'll buy. I feel very strongly, rightly or wrongly, that I should be able to install the game, and play it, long after you've gone under. This isn't the case here, is it? </fon
