Henroid

The Business Side of Video (Space) Games EXCLUSIVELY ON IDLE THUMBS

Recommended Posts

So Deus Ex: The Fall has anti-jailbreaking 'tech' built into it. If your device is jailbroken, the game will display a popup when you attempt to fire any weapon - a necessity for the tutorial. I think this is a first for video games, if not jailbreaking detection and action based on it.

 

I'm just disappointed it isn't conveyed in the game logic. Like the guy's vision gets a glitch when he tries to pull the trigger. "What's wrong?!"

 

The comm cues in. "Your augmentations... they're... they're jailbroken!"

 

Edit - Now with more screenshot.

 

deusexthefalljailbroken.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So could that mean that someone has legally purchased the game and is unable to play it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So could that mean that someone has legally purchased the game and is unable to play it?

 

Isn't copy-protection great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So could that mean that someone has legally purchased the game and is unable to play it?

 

That's probably what it will mean in most cases, since the pirated copies will most likely include a crack to circumvent this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably what it will mean in most cases, since the pirated copies will most likely include a crack to circumvent this.

 

Pile up the corpses of their customers! If even just one pirate is thwarted, the cost is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's a lawsuit there, at least in europe where it was decided it was legal to jailbreak iPhones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Square has noted today an update is coming out for the game to remove the hostile reaction to jailbroken devices. But there's a catch.

 

They said they're doing this because they did a poor job at communicating this would happen. It means it was intentional, and that they likely will do this again on future apps (only better note that it will be needlessly hostile).

 

I don't understand the motivation here. Jailbreaking isn't illegal, which also means it can't be against Apple's TOS or EULAs or whatever. It isn't paramount to piracy. Square literally gains nothing by locking software if your device is jailbroken. There's no piracy prevention, there's no corporate handjobs to give out, there is literally nothing to gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with them being stupid and locking their software on jailbroken machines, so long as they properly communicate it before hand. I think it's dumb, but it's their call as long as they are honest and aren't cheating people out of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with them being stupid and locking their software on jailbroken machines, so long as they properly communicate it before hand. I think it's dumb, but it's their call as long as they are honest and aren't cheating people out of money.

I don't deny that being fair or the right way to do it if you're gonna do it, but again, I don't see how jailbreaking hurts Square's software they're selling you.

 

Like imagine if iTunes stopped working on your PC because you have Winamp installed also. I dunno why you'd have both in the first place but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like imagine if iTunes stopped working on your PC because you have Winamp installed also. I dunno why you'd have both in the first place but still.

 

It feels even more extreme than that, like games refusing to install on an overclocked PC. Yes, it's a sign of a power user, which pirates often are, but the act itself has almost nothing to do with piracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels even more extreme than that, like games refusing to install on an overclocked PC. Yes, it's a sign of a power user, which pirates often are, but the act itself has almost nothing to do with piracy.

Coming up with metaphors is hard. This one is way better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so Wasteland 2 has been delayed in similar fashion as Tim Schafer's latest project. Some friends of mine are now calling Kickstarter / crowd funding into question. I think they're jumping the gun on that judgment, and have told them as such, but some of what they had to say had merit.

 

The big thing this brought up was publisher / developer relationships - specifically how developers can and do do this to publishers. That's not to say it's all the time, or that every instance is out of malice (unless your name is Denis Dyack). But it happens. The difference here is that developers are now doing it to their crowd funding sources. What can be done to prevent it (on the developers' part)? I got into a discussion about this when the Tim Schafer thing happened a couple weeks ago and suggested that, even if the original budget mark is surpassed, design should be kept conservative and not get crazy with ambition. I know video games often get choked on creative freedom, but there is such a thing as adding too much (because funds aren't infinite in nature). I know that budgeting isn't a precise science and all, but I imagine there are way, way safer methods of ball-parking your budgeting.

 

If possible it'd be cool if Chris, Jake, Nick, or Sean could weigh in on this (not the Schafer or Wasteland 2 things specifically, just the nature of budgeting). Maybe I should email it in to questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowrun Returns is out in four days, and should that game show up for sale as a product that is in any way complete, not all of the big kickstarters are running into problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it your friends don't work in a field where you create new stuff all the time? Because slipping deadlines happens in a lot of projects, not just video games. The higher percentage of the project consists out of "new stuff" the higher the risk becomes that you will have to "pick two". With pick two I'm referring to the common project management triangle. There are different triangles out there, but a common one is {scope, within budget, within time}. (Although, dropping time usually means you will also lose on budget because of manpower.)

 

When a publisher has the control they usually will reduce the scope. And this is very noticeable, and often the complaint by reviewers and players. They complain that the game feels rushed or unfinished. So, now the publisher has been cut from the picture (with crowdfunded games) the gamers are behaving like publishers. How ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If possible it'd be cool if Chris, Jake, Nick, or Sean could weigh in on this (not the Schafer or Wasteland 2 things specifically, just the nature of budgeting). Maybe I should email it in to questions.

 

I'd like to hear about this from their perspective as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the delays to Kickstarter projects I've backed have bothered me. I don't back things with an expectation of everything running perfectly, and don't put in any more money than I'd miss if it went wrong.

 

The way people running campaigns talk to backers sometimes bothers me though: I thought the wording on the Wasteland 2 update was really weaselly, as if the only way it could be more full of smiles and "OMG you overfunded us this is the best thing ever and the game is going to take longer" is if it had my little ponies and sparkles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a publisher has the control they usually will reduce the scope. And this is very noticeable, and often the complaint by reviewers and players. They complain that the game feels rushed or unfinished. So, now the publisher has been cut from the picture (with crowdfunded games) the gamers are behaving like publishers. How ironic.

That's very astute. Nice.

 

Anyway delays in crowd funded projects don't bother me at all. There are only two things that bother me about crowd funding at this point.

 

The first applies to the developer; it's when budgeting (despite surpassing goals by large margins) suddenly becomes an issue. It gives the appearance that they're changing the game's design to fit as close as possible to the max budget they actually received. I said this elsewhere on the net but unless they specifically stipulate that additional funds means a bigger game / more features, devs should not be committing themselves to this at all.

 

That leads right into the second thing that bothers me; the expectations of those backing. Where a project does not clarify - or even specifically states otherwise - people like to fill in the gaps and apply some unfair expectations. Such as "more money should mean a WAY bigger game!" I asked someone earlier tonight if they ever consider the "should" part of this whole thing and they didn't seem to get my point (edit - as in, "you could add more to the game, but should you?"). Just because more features can be added doesn't mean the game is better for it. A game with 4 main goals originally that constructs those goals extremely well has better chances of being a positive experience than a game with 12 goals that are all far from the same amount of quality and care put into just 4 (granted, those could be handled poorly too) (I'm using arbitrary numbers here btw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way people running campaigns talk to backers sometimes bothers me though: I thought the wording on the Wasteland 2 update was really weaselly, as if the only way it could be more full of smiles and "OMG you overfunded us this is the best thing ever and the game is going to take longer" is if it had my little ponies and sparkles.

 

I think I've said it before in the Wasteland 2 thread, that Brian Fargo's framing and tone when communicating with backers (and more pointedly, fans) has been my major and only gripe about the Kickstarter he led. I mean, in this case, thanks to the title of the update and the hurry I was in, I only really realized their ship date had slipped when I read through it again after work. I kinda wish Fargo was more willing to appear firm on anything, good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What elmuerte said!!

 

The fiercest complainers about slipping deadlines (that I saw for the Double Fine thing in particular) hadn't even backed the project they were supposedly outraged by. It just feels like a temper tantrum of the "BUT I WANT IT NOOOOW" variety. Some people continue to treat Kickstarter as a store.

 

I think at the start of a project, when the game only exists in design documents, it's rather impossible to juggle all the hypotheticals and come up with a realistic release date. Especially when a game gets overfunded. I think my point is that release estimations in the babby forming phase of game development are called estimates for a reason and should never be read as fact. As for that last thing, I think developers are entirely capable of making those calls themselves and do. I can only imagine that being funded directly by the fans brings its own brand of pressure. At the end of the day, when the game does come out, people are only going to care whether it's good or not. So it'd better be damn good!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe kickstarter should introduce an upper limit. So, you can back a project until the deadline was reached, or when the upper limit was reached. That way you can protect a project from scaling out of bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now