Ubisoft DRM Authentication Servers Go Down

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Hubilub:

Rex Dark:

Hubilub:
First the PS3, now the PC.

Now we just have to wait for every 360 in the world to stop working and the circle is complete!

...oh wait.

First we wait for all Wii(s?) to suddenly start exploding.

My Wii is going to explode!?

But... But I don't even have a child yet.

PhunkyPhazon:

Rex Dark:

First we wait for all Wii(s?) to suddenly start exploding.

*snicker* Maybe I just have a dirty mind, but...

OT: Seriously, this shit is hilarious.

EDIT: Ahhhh, ninja'd ;_;

Potty jokes, yay!

I couldn't help but laugh derisively at the irony of the whole thing. I mean, the DRM is designed to keep players on only if they are connected to the servers - making the assumption that the servers themselves wouldn't fail.

Irony has struck again, and it scored a critical hit.

it sounds like a Denial of service attack, as bad as it sounds its still a better thought than ubisoft's servers going down because of their incompetence.

personally assassins creed 2 doesnt interest me, i played the first game and it never grabbed me, but the new silent hunter game does. i was wary of this drm and now my fears have been confirmed. i wont be purchasing any games with the drm system

Onyx Oblivion:
I smell more DRM hate! And a Shamus Young rant!

Yeah. Course he won't point out that DRM is probably the leading cause of sales losses in video games and not piracy (Seeing as Pirates apparently don't buy games they can't pirate they just don't play them).

Disclaimer: I don't pirate and I think it is silly but I also think that blaming it for profit problems is like blaming drugs for all the worlds problems. It isn't the drugs it is legal response to drugs that is the problem, similarly it isn't the piracy it is the response to piracy that is the problem.

I smell hackery shenanigans.
Anyway, kudos Ubisoft, it's not every day that we get to see a company your size completely humiliate yourselves like this.

SlainPwner666:

I personally can see both sides of the story. Yes, piracy is harmful to a company's profit, obviously. And there's nothing wrong with trying to stop them.

HOWEVER

There are limits. Once your customers start becoming inconvenienced, then you have a problem. And Ubisoft now has a problem. Legitimate, paying customers are not being rewarded for paying for the legitimate product. And even if there is no cracked version of a game yet, there soon shall be, and then the pirates shall be the only ones truly enjoying the game.

So yes, I don't exactly support piracy constantly, but this is one of those times where even I change my mind.

FINALLY, someone got my point. I will admit, I don't care for DRM, but I do understand the reasons behind it. But it would be unacceptable in any other business to work as hard as some companies in the game world do to drive away customers.

Sajuuk-khar:

You're not reading. It isn't understandable at all that developers and publishers try to prevent piracy right?

No, YOU aren't reading. I'm not saying DRM should be abolished (although I would love to see that day, but I know it wont happen), I'm saying that going so far to stop pirates that you make your product useless and/or harm paying customers isn't understandable, and that's exactly what Ubi has done.

commasplice:
I don't think he was so much advocating DRM as he was saying that the shareholders wanting to stop piracy is understandable...

Again, I understand that. But how do you think those shareholders will react now that the time, money and effort put into creating, implementing, maintaining and spinning the DRM were pointless? Sure, they are trying to stop pirates, but in the process, they alienated a good section of their fan base, and probably turned a good section away from them (all while not stopping piracy in the slightest).

Paying customers can't play the game when anything happens to their internet connection, the internet itself, Ubisoft's connection, Ubisoft's server, or any other hiccup that might be encountered.

Meanwhile, pirates are playing the game regardless.

It's been said many times, but this was never about piracy, it was about preventing used game sales, as you must register the game with a key. Virtually all DRM is made to prevent used game sales. Everything from install limits to Steam.

Well, I hate to say I told you so but I told you so.

Ugh... failure Ubisoft, failure. If you want this thing to get off the ground and not bite your ass off you need to make sure that this first steps go off so well nobody can ever complain and you screwed it up. There is going to be exponentially more whining now... ugh... It's like a million packs of chihuahuas barking their heads off as it is.

commasplice:

SenseOfTumour:
New point, new post...

People keep knocking Steam but once installed, you pretty much can set it to offline and it'll never connect again and you'll have full access to all your games.

On top of that, you get things like 'Defense Grid' the great tower defense game, recently self patched itself for me, in doing so adding support for future DLC. Oh great, another way to try to sell me stuff. Except in doing so they've added extra functions and 4 free levels, months after the game was done released and sold. Portal also has been getting upgraded and I think these stories might have taken longer to break if it hadn't been for the simplicity of upgrades Steam offers.

Ok, Portal can be called a simple marketing ploy that wasn't asked for, but I think Defense Grid and the still constant support of games like Team Fortress 2 are a fine example of good coming from Steam, and things many people would have missed if they are like me and have a few dozen games and had to visit nearly 50 sites a month to see if there was anything new that needed manually downloading and installing.

Also, Steam (from my viewpoint at least) is a great outlet for indie games, and as sales have shown, it's better to get 50,000 sales at $5 than maybe 2,000 at $20, especially when the overheads are so low, in terms of no production costs, shipping etc.

I don't know if I'm alone, but I'm a sucker for the bundle packs, when you see say 7 indie games for £10, it's almost too cheap to say no even if you haven't played any of them.

Eh, you make some good points, but A: I find it annoying that Steam even has to start up for me to run a completely different program (back when I first got The Orange Box, it'd slow my computer down som'n fierce before letting me play, but I've since reformatted, so maybe it'll be a little nicer to me) and B: a lot of the games are priced around the same as their physical counterparts on other systems, which is a huuuuge turn off for me. I don't like paying the same price to lease that other pay to own. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hate on Steam or anything. I own it, I've used it, I don't hate it; I just wish some things were different.

You lease physical game content too, so you know. Just because you spend money on a hard copy doesn't make it yours.

Just an idea I had, would there have been the level of vitriol if ACII had just connected once per gamer session, at the main menu? And, would this have been a weaker level of protection against piracy? I'm sure there'd have been some level of hate for the invasion of privacy but even so, it's an improvement.

I'm just thinking it would have taken the checks out of actual gameplay at least, and surely so long as you're checking once each time the game is played, you can force updates down into the game to defeat new cracks and the like, without screwing over players who get knocked offline whenever the phone rings. (My parent's internet actually does this! I've been house sitting, and let's just say WOW is far less fun when you can't promise to stay online for any period of time.)

I just find it hilarious that the average pirate probably isn't even aware of the DRM. They just go to their site of preference, go "oh cool, AC2", download, play.

Anyway, the DRM reminds me of BF2142.. EA Login server, not For The Win at all.

ark123:
I smell hackery shenanigans.
Anyway, kudos Ubisoft, it's not every day that we get to see a company your size completely humiliate yourselves like this.

It's ubisoft servers you could *sneeze* half a mile away and they break.

Lukeje:
May I be the first to call `sabotage'? This all seems a little too convenient...

It isn't an uncommon occurrence for servers to crash early in a game's life. The developers probably didn't anticipate as much traffic as they were getting, so the server overloaded and shut down. So I doubt it's anyone attacking the servers specifically.

Either way though, whether the server just crashed or if it was specifically attacked, it's a clear example of why Ubisoft fucked up badly. It's like they looked at Steam, saw it working just fine, then decided "We can do better than that." Well, no, you can't Ubisoft. Or maybe you can, but you certainly didn't. :/

First it was hacked, fail, then it went down, double fail.

Tragic. Friggin Hillarious. Epic Fail.

Zer_:

Icehearted:
Devil's advocate:
Valve had a similar problem with their Steam service (which I hate beyond all human comprehension) and it's still extremely popular. Bioshock, I forget exactly what happened with it, but there was something going on that made the game unplayable for paying customers. Had to do with unlocking it or something.

XBLA, Steam, Ubisoft's authentication is nothing new. Yes, I realize that the former two are supposed to be more about digital distribution and not DRM, but I defer to that Bioshock incident as an example of how Ubisoft and Steam are not all that dissimilar in certain functions.

Frankly, I hate them all in ways I cannot possibly articulate, but if that's what people want, then who am I to argue?

From what I recall, Steam never actually went completely down. It was the download servers that had a huge amount of traffic, meaning it just took longer to download the games. Otherwise people were still able to play their games. I was lucky since I used the Steam beta and already had all my games transferred.

I also recall a feature to convert old HL1 games to Steam, anyways, don't compare a failure like this to Steam. Considering the fact that Steam started almost a decade ago, you can't say they didn't deal with their problems quickly. The only time Steam had problems afterwards was for Half-Life 2's release. Beyond that Steam has been perfectly stable during all major title releases.

I took the easy route and will paste from wikipedia because I'm not up to fishing for specific articles, but they were all over the internet when it happened. Juicier bits in bold.

wikipedia:
The retail disk version of BioShock for Windows utilizes SecuROM copy protection software, and requires internet activation to complete installation. This was reportedly responsible for the cancellation of a midnight release in Australia on August 23, 2007, due to 2K Games servers being unavailable, as the game would be unplayable until they were back online. Through SecuROM, users were originally limited to two activations of the game. Users found that even if they uninstalled the game prior to reinstallation, they were still required to call SecuROM to re-activate the game. The issue was worsened by the fact that an incorrect telephone number had been included in the printed manual, as well as essentially forcing customers outside the United States to make expensive international calls to the U.S. In response, 2K Games and SecuROM increased the number of activations to five before requiring the user to call again. However, as no information had been provided by 2K on the existence of these measures prior to the game going on sale, or on the retail box of the game itself, many remain dissatisfied. Users also found that it was necessary to activate the game for each user on the same machine, which was criticized by some as an attempt to limit customers' fair use rights. 2K Games has denied that this was the intent of the limitation.

Two months after the initial release, 2K attempted to alleviate customer complaints by developing a special pre-uninstallation utility to refund activation slots to the user. This tool however does not address situations where the game has been installed on a PC which uses more than one user account as it only works once per PC (unlike activations which are counted per user-account), nor is it able to revoke an activation if the installation has become unusable, for example by hard disk failure, effectively rendering such activations permanently lost. 2K Games has specifically mentioned each of these issues in the revoke tool FAQ, and have stated that until software solutions are found for such situations they will handle any further requests for additional activations past the five-activation limit on a case-by-case basis."LOL" - Icehearted

As of June 19, 2008, 2K Games has removed the activation limit, allowing users to install the game an unlimited number of times. However online activation remains mandatory. The deactivation of the system was promised by Ken Levine in August, 2007, after retail sales of the PC version of the game were no longer an issue.

So at least it was mostly addressed, but it took a year. Again I make no bones about it, services like Steam, and this Ubisoft DRM aren't all too dissimilar to me. I hate them both, and want this "virtual ownership" crap to cease. Any system or console that resorts to these measures has not and will not see a dime from me when it's an exclusive part of their platform or DRM. As much as I hate XBLA and MS mojo-dollars, at least once I buy it I own it, no DRM jackass or anything of that sort. Still, I wish Castle Crashers and Braid came on a disc. I could physically own. I'm still playing Sega Genesis games for cying out loud, games made some 20 or so years ago. If anything happened to my HDD, I wonder if MS will still have their Xbox servers running with these games for re-download in 20 years.

I'm going to stop now, this post is obscenely long already.

Logan Westbrook:

It's unclear whether this is a worldwide problem

Ubi's servers go down ALL THE TIME.

I used to play the Rainbow 6 games a lot, and it was a common occurence that for days at a time you couldn't play multiplayer games because the master server or ubi.com was down. When that happened I would just go "oh well, Ubi sucks as per usual" and play the game singleplayer. Now we don't have that option.

This problem will happen again, and again, and again. Ubi's servers have always been bad. They haven't the resources or brains to make a decent game without bugs anymore so you can sure as hell bet they can't fix a server issue either.

Well a scant 16 hours later and still no sign the problem is fixed. Good going Ubisoft on a most epic FAIL.

Slightly Off Topic: The tip I sent in got published in the news seciton! Go Me!

You can find that pirates have already got it hacked and that means who's the DRM supposed to be stopping? Because they're playing it while people who actually bought the game are stuck with errors till they solve the problem.

Ubisoft I hope you learn from this, DRM is bad and customers are not happy with you using it.

Hubilub:
First the PS3, now the PC.

Now we just have to wait for every 360 in the world to stop working and the circle is complete!

...oh wait.

i c what yu did thar....

anyway: do companys like that do not have .. like.. 5 years olds sitting in the corporate company policy approval committee that points out obvious brain farts? Like making a drm that requires you to provide servers 24/7 for.. well. forever?
And that it generally isn't smart to... like exlude every customer that does not have a internet connection handy at all times?

Did noone point that out to them?

Wheres the 5 year olds every super villain should have to check their schemes?

Ah, DRM locking paying customers out of the product they purchased, while doing nothing at all to so much as inconvenience pirates, because they have of course already removed the DRM. This is definitely a highly effective system you've implemented Ubisoft, way to go!

You know what would absolutely astonish me? If a game publisher realized and/or publicly acknowledged that they aren't losing any money due to piracy, because pirates aren't their customers and as such they were never going to give them any money in the first place. Massive piracy figures have no meaning at all in relation to sales figures, because those numbers are representing PIRATES, people who do not pay for your products (because they're pirates!).

The people who are happy to pay you for things? Those are your customers! The ones downloading your work illegally? Not your customers! Units pirated aren't sales you could have gained if you could only devise a 'better' (read: far far more intrusive and annoying to the people actually paying for your software now) DRM solution, because the people pirating them are non-customers, and non-customers do not ever give you any money!

It's so far past time to stop this pointless crusade against piracy that it's long since stopped being even relatively amusing - it isn't fair that a bunch of thieving freeloaders get to enjoy the fruits of your labors without paying you for it, but it's pretty clear you can't stop them and all the systems you've designed to do so end up accomplishing is annoying the people who do give you their money to play your games.

Pure old fashioned spite is the only reason to persist with DRM as a 'solution' to piracy, given that finally stopping it wouldn't improve sales at all (remember, pirates aren't customers), it would just keep the freeloaders out, and that's often motivation enough. But you run a business, and your attempts to spite the pirates A) Don't work and B) Cause problems for your paying customers. Any way you look at it, spending money on 'solutions' that don't actually work, cost you sales from irate customers, and result in a ton of bad PR... well it's a pretty stupid business decision to make.

If shareholders are really clamoring for 'better DRM', publishers need to be frank and explain exactly why that's a terrible idea and a total waste of money that could be much better spent on actual development/advertising/what have you, all of which might actually have a positive impact on sales. Or just admit stopping pirates has nothing to do with DRM in the first place.

Icehearted:

Maybe it's because I'm thick or I'm somewhat sleep deprived (I'm betting that last one), but I don't see how any of that Bioshock stuff related to Steam.

As for Steam's "DRM" being similar to Ubi's, I really have to call shenanigans. First, because Steam's "DRM" is quite nice to the customer: you pay for the game, download it, then it phones home once, and you are done. Anything above that is the game's fault, not Steam's. Second, you can play offline, you just have to make sure you let the game phone home that first time, then restart in offline mode. Finally, the "virtual ownership crap" as you put it, really is not all that different with Steam than with a physical copy, the only difference is that for Steam you have to make the backup for yourself (and if you think you really OWN any game you've bought in the last 5+ years, you are fooling yourself).

Icehearted:

Zer_:

Icehearted:
Devil's advocate:
Valve had a similar problem with their Steam service (which I hate beyond all human comprehension) and it's still extremely popular. Bioshock, I forget exactly what happened with it, but there was something going on that made the game unplayable for paying customers. Had to do with unlocking it or something.

XBLA, Steam, Ubisoft's authentication is nothing new. Yes, I realize that the former two are supposed to be more about digital distribution and not DRM, but I defer to that Bioshock incident as an example of how Ubisoft and Steam are not all that dissimilar in certain functions.

Frankly, I hate them all in ways I cannot possibly articulate, but if that's what people want, then who am I to argue?

From what I recall, Steam never actually went completely down. It was the download servers that had a huge amount of traffic, meaning it just took longer to download the games. Otherwise people were still able to play their games. I was lucky since I used the Steam beta and already had all my games transferred.

I also recall a feature to convert old HL1 games to Steam, anyways, don't compare a failure like this to Steam. Considering the fact that Steam started almost a decade ago, you can't say they didn't deal with their problems quickly. The only time Steam had problems afterwards was for Half-Life 2's release. Beyond that Steam has been perfectly stable during all major title releases.

I took the easy route and will paste from wikipedia because I'm not up to fishing for specific articles, but they were all over the internet when it happened. Juicier bits in bold.

wikipedia:
The retail disk version of BioShock for Windows utilizes SecuROM copy protection software, and requires internet activation to complete installation. This was reportedly responsible for the cancellation of a midnight release in Australia on August 23, 2007, due to 2K Games servers being unavailable, as the game would be unplayable until they were back online. Through SecuROM, users were originally limited to two activations of the game. Users found that even if they uninstalled the game prior to reinstallation, they were still required to call SecuROM to re-activate the game. The issue was worsened by the fact that an incorrect telephone number had been included in the printed manual, as well as essentially forcing customers outside the United States to make expensive international calls to the U.S. In response, 2K Games and SecuROM increased the number of activations to five before requiring the user to call again. However, as no information had been provided by 2K on the existence of these measures prior to the game going on sale, or on the retail box of the game itself, many remain dissatisfied. Users also found that it was necessary to activate the game for each user on the same machine, which was criticized by some as an attempt to limit customers' fair use rights. 2K Games has denied that this was the intent of the limitation.

Two months after the initial release, 2K attempted to alleviate customer complaints by developing a special pre-uninstallation utility to refund activation slots to the user. This tool however does not address situations where the game has been installed on a PC which uses more than one user account as it only works once per PC (unlike activations which are counted per user-account), nor is it able to revoke an activation if the installation has become unusable, for example by hard disk failure, effectively rendering such activations permanently lost. 2K Games has specifically mentioned each of these issues in the revoke tool FAQ, and have stated that until software solutions are found for such situations they will handle any further requests for additional activations past the five-activation limit on a case-by-case basis."LOL" - Icehearted

As of June 19, 2008, 2K Games has removed the activation limit, allowing users to install the game an unlimited number of times. However online activation remains mandatory. The deactivation of the system was promised by Ken Levine in August, 2007, after retail sales of the PC version of the game were no longer an issue.

So at least it was mostly addressed, but it took a year. Again I make no bones about it, services like Steam, and this Ubisoft DRM aren't all too dissimilar to me. I hate them both, and want this "virtual ownership" crap to cease. Any system or console that resorts to these measures has not and will not see a dime from me when it's an exclusive part of their platform or DRM. As much as I hate XBLA and MS mojo-dollars, at least once I buy it I own it, no DRM jackass or anything of that sort. Still, I wish Castle Crashers and Braid came on a disc. I could physically own. I'm still playing Sega Genesis games for cying out loud, games made some 20 or so years ago. If anything happened to my HDD, I wonder if MS will still have their Xbox servers running with these games for re-download in 20 years.

I'm going to stop now, this post is obscenely long already.

You realize that I haven't spoken a word about Bioshock in my reply. That's a problem with SecuROM and not Steam.

Zer_:
You realize that I haven't spoken a word about Bioshock in my reply. That's a problem with SecuROM and not Steam.

Now that you mention it, yes. I did, however, mention them as a rudimentary example of what I am saying I feel is basely wrong with such systems of copy-protection. Bioshock actually exemplifies this more than this recent Ubisoft guff, as Bioshock was already a huge hit, it was already selling insanely well, and still they felt a need to cripple it with needless DRM.

The choice to bring it up was mine, and only as a good benchmark for why despite how wrong I feel all of this is, it is still widely accepted by the consumers. Ergo Ubisoft and Steam are not really all that different.

This is why I will never have respect for you if you buy a game with DRM. You deserve whatever bullshit is handed to you if you are that much of a sucker.

7ru7h:

Icehearted:

Maybe it's because I'm thick or I'm somewhat sleep deprived (I'm betting that last one), but I don't see how any of that Bioshock stuff related to Steam.

As for Steam's "DRM" being similar to Ubi's, I really have to call shenanigans. First, because Steam's "DRM" is quite nice to the customer: you pay for the game, download it, then it phones home once, and you are done. Anything above that is the game's fault, not Steam's. Second, you can play offline, you just have to make sure you let the game phone home that first time, then restart in offline mode. Finally, the "virtual ownership crap" as you put it, really is not all that different with Steam than with a physical copy, the only difference is that for Steam you have to make the backup for yourself (and if you think you really OWN any game you've bought in the last 5+ years, you are fooling yourself).

I like that long post snip trick... gotta remember that :)

I have, in my hands, a copy of Mirror's edge for the PC, I also have Mass Effect 2, GTA4, hoo boy I have a lot of games, and they're on a physical disc, of which I actually own and can maintain of my own accord, without having to dial in anything, without having to get connected to a server, I just input a key, or put a disc in my console, and off I go. That's ownership of a tangible property.

Digital distro means you own squat. You pay for it, but they can deny you play at their leisure. I'm going to reach a bit (because it's late, and I'm way too tired to think good and hard of an example in gaming even if I know they're out there) and point to that Kindle fiasco where Amazon basically decided to reach out and delete a book people had paid for. Again, I know it's a reach, but the principal is the same. The complacency of 'you don't actually own the games you buy' is what permits this kind of thing Ubisoft and Steam have created to permeate the market much deeper than they should have.

I own a copy of God of War 2. No activation required, no negotiations, the game is mine to play and enjoy. The intellectual property may not be, but the game is. That's the line they're blurring, and I mean no offense when I say this, but statements like the one you've made prove they've been succeeding at blurring this line with their customers.

Again with the long post... sorry I'm verbose (though this is a topic that bothers me quite a bit), but the sleepier I get, the more long-winded I can become.

This is really just amusing for me.

Icehearted:

Zer_:
You realize that I haven't spoken a word about Bioshock in my reply. That's a problem with SecuROM and not Steam.

Now that you mention it, yes. I did, however, mention them as a rudimentary example of what I am saying I feel is basely wrong with such systems of copy-protection. Bioshock actually exemplifies this more than this recent Ubisoft guff, as Bioshock was already a huge hit, it was already selling insanely well, and still they felt a need to cripple it with needless DRM.

The choice to bring it up was mine, and only as a good benchmark for why despite how wrong I feel all of this is, it is still widely accepted by the consumers. Ergo Ubisoft and Steam are not really all that different.

Steam does not limit your installations, on the contrary in fact. You can go onto any computer and download all your Steam games at any time. Already that's a huge plus for Steam. The only gripe you seem to have with Steam is the lack of Physical copy but I digress. My physical copy of HL1 is probably not even working as it has been collecting dust for the past 6 years. My Steam copy recently went to letting me play some nostalgic games of Natural Selection.

Try as you might to stop the digital revolution, it's going to happen one way or another. If I was to pick any digital distribution platform, it'd be Steam by a long shot. Steam may contain some DRM, but it's hardly what you'd call restrictive.

Also, pertaining to Steam's performance. I've run TF2 on a single core, Radeon X1950 pro machine with very acceptable performance. Steam can sometimes take some time to load, but once it has loaded it keeps a reasonable memory footprint. It uses barely any CPU cycles either.

Taking bets on how long before Ubisoft files for bankruptcy.

And now Ubisoft, you have tried the whip hitting your paying customers aproach with an epic failure as a result. Maybe you should try the carrot approach instead? Who knows, maybe it works better?

The only option they have is switching solely to console development, or making a team with the sole purpose of monitoring cracks. Checking each and every google link related to *game* + crack to see if something bypassed their system. If it did, they'll have to fix it. It's sad, and speaking as a PC gamer who has spent over $160 on games this year, I think it's dead. The PC is a far superior gaming console, but all you asshole pirates killed it. The thought that "Well they rammed the game with DRM, so I'll pirate it!" will only lead to more severe DRM, which will only lead to more pirates. Pay the people for the fucking game, they spent years of their life making it, pay for it if you want to play it. Stop using the argument that if they put DRM in it, I'll just pirate it. It'll only make things worse down the line, and I think we might be past the point of no return. Pay for the game and enjoy it. Maybe if enough people buy it, they'll stop seeing us all as pirates. Christ.

Who didn't see this coming, seriously...

The biggest blunder in modern video gaming, nice. At first I was gonna make a wall-o-text post, but I reconsidered. Ubisoft does not deserve my ramblings. Fucking idiots, that's what they are...

I love how people that bought it despite being warned have the balls to complain on the forums.

thats the interwebs flipping you the finger, Ubisoft.

fuck your customers with DRM, some raged-out hacker-gamer probably fecked em too.

Buyer beware n stuff. Buy crap, you get crap. Enjoy AC2 (suckers)

Thats why I simply do not consider any Ubisoft published title to be a PC title, I have jumped through enough hoops regarding DRM, and will just simply allow my wallet to speak on my behalf.

Wont do much good though as the majority of PC gamers will roll over and play dead on command for thier publishing masters.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here