Dunno. Will I even care then?
If it's a great game and I saw it cheap, for $5 -- I'd say, "Why not?"
Will the stupid shit be patched out by then?
Who knows. That would be nice, though.
Maybe I'll have a PS3 and just play it on there.
That's one solution, sure.
From some readme file on Rockstars site: From what I've read, dual core systems are struggling, and quad core doesn't even run it all that hot. Do they really expect people to be playing this game when they can eventually max it out?
Numerous years down the line, if you see GTA4 PC for $5 and have a bad-ass that can run it, you're good to go to run it on its maxed-out settings.
It's like Joe Smoe who missed Doom 3 PC (for some reason) and decided to buy it from Best Buy today on his new PC -- yeah, he'll be able to run it on Ultra. Why should he be denied the right to run it on Ultra?
Also -- if GTA4 PC is a great game, why not run reinstall it if you want to give it another go?
Still from time to time run Vampire: Bloodlines -- usually, every Halloween, it gets reinstalled, I run through the game fully, then uninstall it.
Won't they have GTA5 by then and games that look/perform even better?
Probably -- that or one of those non-numered GTA games; those side GTA games that don't take place in Liberty City.
All the Lib City ones get a new engine and a new number, basically.
It just seems silly to pull the "this game is made to look better in the future"....fuck that. Make it look good and run well NOW, when its still relevant.
I have no problem w/ them keeping those settings intact -- it just shouldn't be named as such. It should be like Doom 3 -- those setting we can't currently run should be titled like "Ultra." I mean, who in there right mind ran "Ultra" when Doom 3 came out?
Though, for GTA4, if "Medium" is the setting MODERN High-End PC's can handle, shouldn't that be have been considered like "High?"
If its good, I'll be playing it still in a few years. And if its good enough for that, then I won't give a shit that the visuals have aged slightly.
Good point.
Does anyone even know if these games will work in a couple years with all this DRM crap on there? I mean we already saw what happened with Starforce-protected games when Vista came out.
And StarForce patched their drivers for Vista, after everybody complained about many of their SF-protected games not working on Vista.
Of course, we can always toss out the point that most SF-protected games already been cracked, anyways.
Some game companies officially removed their SF-disc check so their game could work on Vista -- i.e. X3: Reunion and Beyond Divinity.
Nope, everyone just assumes they will. Or that they will all get patched to remove the stuff. We have yet to see any of that happen.
People are also still waiting on Spore to get that revoke feature it was planned to get.
And if anyone points at Bioshock as having the DRM removed, you can punch them in the balls for being easily mislead. The online check is still there, the DRM is still there, the only change is they stopped caring how many machines you install it on. Which doesn't solve jack shit.
Bioshock PC was unofficially cracked, a long time ago.
But, yes -- honestly, Bioshock PC should have its DRM removed. The game's $20 or less, nowadays. Everybody and their cousin will pick it up, for that kind of cheap price. So, why have the DRM on the game when the game's old?
The "real point of the DRM" was to make sure those wanted say Bioshock PC first ponied $50 in the first week of release -- of course, with games often getting leaked out BEFORE the DRM is wrapped around the game, this so-called "Real point of the DRM" is quite useless.
And D, the DRM was already cracked out of the games...which is the other problem. Why even bother when it doesn't even do what its supposed to?
About dev's including DRM -- yeah, no real need for it, since they always get cracked. I don't know how much these companies spend on DRM for one game, but I think it's a waste of money.
GTA4 is on torrent sites already, and the cracks are already coming out.
No surprise.
