Crysis Warhead Comments by Christian Donlan

I hope Warhead goes to show all those divs who branded Crysis nothing more than a tech demo were wrong, wrong I say! There be plenty of great gameplay in them there open jungles see.

Death to the pirate parasite scum!

Good review. I was expecting this to be a "more of the same but still kinda decent" 7.

Guess this goes on the pre-order list then :)

I hope Warhead goes to show all those divs who branded Crysis nothing more than a tech demo were wrong

People who called Crysis a tech demo (or Far Cry, for that matter) don't have the foggiest idea what that expression even means.

Ill be downloading this one fer sure. (y)

Sold long before this but a definite buy now. Psycho was so r0xx0r :)

All those whining about Crysis - cry me a river please. The game was bloody excellent even if you played through on medium [as I did the first time] or on a hybrid setting [as I did with my 9800GTX installed]

Good review btw.

I suppose the Shue comments refer to the abysmal "faint" scene in BBTF2?

>It's a shame it's got SecuROM really

What? In that case no buy. I don't support this (sadly for the games makers).

I understand the DRM is not something folk want, but consider Cryteks stance here for a moment. They slaved away working their asses off on the original Crysis only for it to be pirated by the filthy scum out there who can all afford new hardware, but refuse to pay for the software they actually run on it. And so they decided that Warhead would be their last chance to let us prove we support them properly or else they would no longer make PC exclusive titles. Something that now is a rarity in itself.

So now we have a game 6 days away from release that not only is being sold at an extremly affordable price, but now it's getting rave reviews also, just like Crysis did. They obviously felt they had no option but to include the DRM this time around. They couldn't afford to be fooled twice, it 's simply bad for the business, and the business they are in is getting a healthy return on all their hard work. Something they very much deserved with the first game.

And so as it stands right now I fully support their decision, and would much rather embrace the DRM than the thought of them shifting away from the PC platform as their primary development home.

So I for one can't wait for the game to arrive, DRM or no DRM. I'll be showing my support either way.

They're even selling it on Steam (next to on EA store), seems like Crytek has more autonomy than I would have thought.

"m$ must have gotten to eg to try and get some sales on its shit vista. "

You really think Crysis or Warhead can't be played on XP, or won't look good then?

"I understand the DRM is not something folk want, but consider Cryteks stance here for a moment. They slaved away working their asses off on the original Crysis only for it to be pirated by the filthy scum out there who can all afford new hardware, but refuse to pay for the software they actually run on it."

As a dev myself I understand... but at the same time I cannot support SecurROM. So I prefer to vote with my money here... there are plenty of good games and sadly I won't be playing SecurROM games.

Then clearly, you don't understand.

Thankfully Steam will be the shining light for Warhead sales wise this time around.

> Then clearly, you don't understand.

I have no desire to have some game install borderline rootkit junk on my system. While I love games.... they have no right to mess around with my PC . Case closed. The SecurROM company has a history of fucking up computer systems. If you wanne support this type of crap.. go ahead. There are friendlier ways for the consumer to protect software. Stardock has a clue... the Crysis people have not.

sweet, my system can easily run this game, and at top whack too.

@Tehran
"Fucking pirate parasite scum. You like games? Get out your fucking wallet."

Was that directed at me? Just cause I won't buy it, you assume I'll pirate it? No, I simply won't play it.

@Haloboy

Do you know what SecuROM is? And how it runs? It more than a simple bit of copy protection. It installs itself deep into the OS, with no word of warning when installing.

I understand that developers want to protect their games, but SecuROM is not the way to do it. Besides Spore was cracked before release and has thousands of seeders. The pirates still pirate the game, fairly easyily, while the legitimate consumer doesn't just get inconvenienced they got totally shafted with additional software being installed that is hard to remove and I have no control over. Not only that I may also have a limited amount of installs (I still play games that are over ten years old before you use the who needs more that 3 installs argument)

Sins of Solar empire has done OK considering it has no DRM...

The devs/publishers need to find news ways to deter pirates without fucking me over. Then I'll buy their game.

If any game contains any obnoxious DRM that installs itself in the OS it instantly goes on my no purchase list however if I like the game then I'll just pirate it because I can. Spore I was all set to buy then EA said securom was on it and they instantly lost my business but I still wanted to play it so I had the choice of pirating it or waiting till EA get their head out of their arses and got rid of it. Since my only choice was to pirate it I did. DRM schemes have not stopped any piracy since they were first introduced and the only effect they have is to increase piracy so why bother with them? DRM is their to stop piracy and it has no effect on it so what's the point in it?

Since my only choice was to pirate

Of course it was.

Idiot.

The DRM discussion again?

You do realise that DRM doesn't stop piracy at all, right? The old copy protection methods, CD checks etc, at most stopped people from sharing their games with their friends. That's fine, that was their objective.

The new ones still do that, but mess things up for the real customers, without preventing any more piracy. They just screw people over who've actually paid for it.

The people implementing these schemes - particularly ones with limited online activations - obviously either are so disconnected from the real world they don't realise it doesn't stop piracy at all(Spore and Mass Effect are all over the web, go and look), or they have an ulterior motive that rests on everyone using up their activation limits over time: They either don't want you reselling your game, or they want you to buy it again later on. Or maybe pay for the activation limit to be removed.

You can't use the old argument that "It's either this or go under due to piracy" when it doesn't stop piracy. It's like saying "You can either buy a car that constantly generates the horrible smell of rotting fish, or you can risk crashing into someone". The statements are unconnected, you're putting up with needless discomfort without any advantages being given to anyone, except the guys that make the DRM programs.

Since my only choice was to pirate it I did.

How about just not playing it? It's only game you know.

If you don't want to buy because of DRM don't (I'm not) but it's not an excuse to pirate it.

It's not one of those "you get three installs" DRM thingies again, is it? That's what stopped me from buying Mass Effect.. :(

I collect games. Games that need a server to be online will be useless in ten years time.

How about just not playing it? It's only game you know.

If you don't want to buy because of DRM don't (I'm not) but it's not an excuse to pirate it.

But he wants to play it. And the selfish needs and wants of someone like him are worth more than any other considerations - be it the devs who worked for years on the game, or the fact that pirating it will only mean the DRM will only get worse. It's basically a toddler's behaviour pattern.

""Since my only choice was to pirate it I did. "
How about just not playing it? It's only game you know."

Seems stupid to miss out on a game just becouse its SecureROM, no?
If EA (and others) are stupid enough to -still- use that medium I couldnt care less about pirating.

When they stop treating their customers as thiefs, ill stop acting like one.
And in this case EA has to take the first step, becouse I have nothing to gain from buying a version that is not equal, but WORSE, than the one I can get for free.

Its all just so stupid. Normally I wouldnt stand behind pirating games, but..
(To make it clear; I havnt pirated anything (but music) since the PSX-days. Simply becouse I like the touch of games and their cases. Ive got that shitty collector-bug.)

"or the fact that pirating it will only mean the DRM will only get worse"
Thats just bollocks, Lou.
To begin with, it might increase the number of games with DRM, but that will increase the number of pirated copies at the same rate.
Sales numbers will show that games with DRM actually decrease sales, and sooner or later the industry will learn and take after the music industry.

Wish I could stay and chat, but sleep is vital atm ;c

Great idea. Now people only need to stop pirating games without DRM, and publishers will realise that it's just the DRM that's to blame...

"Sales numbers will show that games with DRM actually decrease sales"

Is that sales like BioShock PC selling extremely strongly, or Spore remaining top of the individual formats chart since it was released?

"Sales numbers will show that games with DRM actually decrease sales"

What a load of sanctimonious shite.

Obviously you haven't seen the charts lately, Spore's sales are exploding in the skyward direction.

If someone can provide evidence that Crytek are actually including SecuROM in Crysis Warhead, I still couldn't care less. While, given the cracking of Spore within hours of it's release, it is something of a token gesture, who can blame them for wanting to at least try and secure their products from the scum/pirates who think it's their god-given right to pirate years of work for free. Show a little loyalty to our industry and there will be no need to use DRM.

I wasnt gonna buy this.. But now I might buy this now I know it's got Securom on it.

Just to piss off all those internet tards who are buying into all this hype all of a sudden about securom being the next "starforce" evil in the world - while not realising the people who start these rumours are the pirates who would prefer to NOT to have to crack a protection system on each new game.

"Show a little loyalty to our industry and there will be no need to use DRM."

Amen. EOD.

Can we shift things back to discussing new Crysis now then? Crysis was awesome, Warhead looks like being even better. Crytek need to be shown that the rabid user base that have followed them ever since Far Cry are more than willing to splash out cash to fully support both them and anything they decide to release. And if what they say is true and most of the performance troubles have now been ironed out, there's more freedom from start to finish to play as you wish and the multiplayer has been made playable well...

ROLL ON FRIDAY!

I like how when people are claiming DRM reduces sales, the game's position in the charts proves that it doesn't.

But when people are claiming piracy doesn't significantly reduce sales, the game's position in the charts has nothing to do with it.

Also, great, we've all agreed that this awful straw man of the chronic games pirate that copies 20 games a month that he otherwise would have bought at retail price on the release date, thus costing the industry thousands of pounds is a bastard. Great.

Nobody however has come up with a convincing reason why the latest spate of rights-infringing DRM is somehow acceptable, despite the fact that it does precisely nothing at all to prevent piracy.

Why do people always asume DRM is to do with piracy? SecuROM has been cracked, as proved last week with Spore the pirates can still get games out before retail. No PC copy protection is ever going to work, if someone can make it someone else can crack it and thats the problem with an open platform like the PC. What DRM does is kill the second hand market. The vast majority of people who download games wouldnt buy the game if they couldnt download it, some people who download games will buy the game if they like it. The effects of piracy have always been exagerated as the companies state that every download is a lost sale, while everyone else knows this isnt the case. The second hand market though has people who are willing to pay cash for games just not full price, by stopping the game from being resold these people will either pay full price or buy it in a sale. Either way publisher gets cash rather than retail store making huge profits.

If everyone who pirates games dropped dead tomorrow the piracy problem would be wiped out, but DRM would still exist on games. Publishers would say its on to stop piracy and its working as nobody pirates games anymore

@Bumhug: Yeah, exactly my point. Everyone being pro-DRM completely ignores this issue and instead pounces on the most recent person to say they've copied it, because they're an easy target.

If everyone's so pissed at this SecuROM DRM bullshit, why not just buy it on Steam?

That way you can support the developer and skip the dodgy DRM for a trusted one.

You're confusing a few things here. Noone is "pro-DRM", but for all your sarcasm in your earlier post about sales numbers and DRM, you're just as willing to make bold claims.

Bioshock has already been mentioned as a game where the DRM most likely did work - it wasn't cracked for a week or two after its release (let alone before, which seems to be the standard these days), and lo and behold, look what Gamasutra hd to report about the opening weekend:

"While the Xbox 360 version is the more popular of the two in the U.S., BioShock on PC nevertheless manages to make a strong overall sales impression that few PC titles manage to achieve. Interestingly, though, the PC port outsells both the regular and limited Xbox 360 editions in Europe, where BioShock's PC version emerges as the week's biggest-selling software title on any platform."- something pretty much unheard of otherwise in this day and age.

Proof? No. But there are lots of signs that there is a direct relation between a game being available on warez sites before its release (or lack thereof), and sales. No, I don't like it either - I haven't pirated a game in 20 years, yet I am a affected by those who do.

No idea why it doesn't work for Spore. Anyway, that wasn't the point. Don't like DRM? Fine. Don't buy the game. Write an Email to EA, explaining how you spent your money elsewhere. But don't download it, and make the situation worse for all of us, just because you think yo have a God-given right to dictate your own terms of sales.

@UncleLou: I wasn't actually saying that piracy didn't affect sales, I was pointing out that "DRM doesn't affect sales because this title had DRM and sold lots of copies" was exactly the same as saying "Piracy doesn't affect sales because this title got pirated and sold lots of copies"; both of them are equally wrong for the same reason.

Maybe "Pro-DRM" was the wrong choice of words. But I see plenty of people in these comments threads that've ended up talking about this issue who try and defend this "limited installs" form of copy protection and I simply can't see how you can defend something which does not prevent piracy and still punishes legitimate customers.
You may be right about Bioshock, but it certainly hasn't helped either Mass Effect or Spore, as they were both cracked more or less immediately. You could just argue that Bioshock would've sold that well anyway.

I suppose the whole "The mega-corporations are destroying our rights, man! we need to stick it to the man, by pirating, man! man!" style of argument from some of the commenters that disagree with these new copy protection measures isn't helping the matter, though.

Yeah, fair enough, pretty much agree.

I don't get the "3-limited installs" mechanism, anyway - what's the intention behind this? To keep people from installing the game, and giving the game to someone else (either with a no-DVD crack or because you don't need the DVD anyway, in the case of ME and Spore)? Kill the second-hand market? Or is there a reason behind the install limit that directly tries to prevent that it gets cracked in the first place (even if it doesn't work). I've already googled around a bit a while ago but found absolutely no answers.

I wish someone from the games press would insist on a direct answer from EA on this point.

I've just bought my copy on amazon!

Thanks Securom! I bought this game BECAUSE of you!

Hopefully Warhead will now not only be seen as a new graphical tour de force, but also become known far and wide as yet more proof that PC gaming is as healthy as ever right now. It could still be a long while before we see anything Crysis related on a console, so I intend to enjoy the exclusivity it has while I still can.

QUICK EDIT: Psycho rawks!

Is there only me who doesn't actually care if it installs DRM?

Saying that I am sure I already have it form bioshock, it has made no difference to my system.

Securom is by any definition a virus.

5 - 7 hours long -- I can wait until the price goes down for this one

@dsmx: well Microsoft's own Rootkit Detector certainly regards Securom as a rootkit!

@UncleLou: regarding no rights to "dictate terms of sales" - consumers do have that right, and have the right to return products which are not functioning, broken or which do not function as indicated. There are consumer rights laws on this. If the back of the box had a comment saying "Can only be installed 3 times", that would be fine. However, I think EA might find retail sales drop to nothing if that was clear from the point of sale. So, goods have been misrepresented. Consumers DO have rights regarding terms of sale. EULAs have zero enforcement ability over statutory rights, and a EULA that can not be read before purchase or installation is equally worthless and has zero legs to stand on. Hence why HMV have already taken back Spore here if returned(Dublin).

Still no comment from EG on how many times a purchaser can install Crysis Warhead before it locks up.

Any bets as to how many days before the superior cracked version of warhead will be up on the pirate bay?

@UncleLou: regarding no rights to "dictate terms of sales" - consumers do have that right, and have the right to return products which are not functioning, broken or which do not function as indicated. There are consumer rights laws on this.

Yes, of course. That's not what I was talking about though. I meant people don't have the freedom to take something for free just because they don't agree with the terms.

>Is there only me who doesn't actually care if it installs DRM?

Nope i dont care either.

All these scare stories come from the pirates. They did the same with starfox (and won) now they're on securom.

Yes they'll get around it anyhow - but it's effort for them, they'd rather just get it, copy it, and put it out (rather than make the effort to hack the protection out of it). Hell starfox pissed off the pirates quite a bit as it usually ended up needing ALL the files to be altered in one way or the other (so the crack became an install) - and not to mention you could get hours into the game THEN find a starforce protected bit the pirates missed (they hated that) - thus the internet backlash where everyone knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who had their computer "die" because of it (but no-one actually had it happen to them).

Quite spooky when you think about it - how fast internet rumours/bandwagons start.. Dunno when this securom hate started - Its been used in games for YEARS - hell during the starforce problems people were saying "well if you MUST use drm - can you at least use securom rather than starforce?)

Hell the last game i worked on before getting out of the industry almost 8 years ago had securom in it.. But apparently its only now people "hate" it.. after having it for years...

@Red Moose:

I have a tin of beans in front of me.. Nowhere does it say on the packaging "Can only be eaten once"

Hey.. and i've just noticed some kitchen tissue.. that doesnt have "can only be used a few times before it falls apart in your hands".

I'm gonna go and complain.. this is SERIOUSLY effecting my CONSUMER right to sell this bog roll second hand after i've finished using it.

Securom's been around for ages. It hasn't limited your installs up 'til now, though. That's what everyone hates. Noone gives a damn about the other aspects.

>Noone gives a damn about the other aspects.

Erm what about all the posts in this thread about it being a virus which breaks your pc and all that garbage?

The limited install thing doesn't HAVE to be used by the publisher.. AFAIK only a few games use it...

But at the end of the day.. i'll buy this - complete it within a day.. play online for a bit, etc etc.. Why would i want to uninstall it/install it multiple times? I have 3 TB of disk space! This isnt the wii here!

Ah, fair nuff, I can only speak for myself and i'm not against any form of copy protection, or securom in general, just the install limits. Which you have to admit, are pretty wank. I mean, these are PCs we're talking about, sometimes they die and you need to reinstall things.

Also, you have to reactivate some games if you change your hardware too much. And y'know, one of the points of having a PC is to be able to upgrade it. Especially if you're a gamer.

And it doesn't stop piracy, which is my whole point, how do you defend something that messes with legitimate customers and leaves the pirates alone? What is the point in that?

smelly, not everyone has 3TB of space. need room for pron too.

Holy crap 9/10?

You must be joking, Crysis is never that good in any shape.