gog must make them a decent amount, and they sell a lot of copies of everything they do, despite people pirating a lot more than they sell because of the lack of DRM (which goes to show you that all the Robin Hood-type anti-DRM nonsense these guys spout off is BS, they just wanna steal).

Love CD Projekt, my favorite game company right now for their RPG's and GOG.

@renger6002 @downloadthefile @mdinger true enough. my point really is that these companies all spend enormous amounts of money on R&D, and always online servers are an enormous investment that they wouldn't make if it weren't prompted by the need to protect from what they must believe is rampant piracy. EA probably has more accurate piracy figures than you or I do, and I see the extent to which they're spending money to prevent it, so obviously it's a lot.

stores don't introduce massive security systems after five thefts in ten years because it's not cost effective. they build them if they're losing a sizable amount of money, more than it would cost to develop protections. Hence, my logic.

@bamarolltide16 @kipsta77 I swear people who think that Bioware hatred comes from just the ME3 ending (which I didn't even mind that much in retrospect) honestly just don't know what Bioware's promised for their games vs what we get. There are tons of problems with ME3 and DA2 that are far worse to me than even the SimCity nonsense because the design choices are so far from what fans have wanted and expected based on their forums. I won't get into it now but there's a long list of thigngs going on that don't have anything to do with ME3's end.

@mdinger I disagree, it's rampant and it can be seen by the tens of thousands of people who download from the 5-10 major sources of pirated games at any given point for up to a week or two after the game's release. It's millions of copies that get stolen. Of course, SimCity lost a real copy sold (at least one in myself) based on their DRM.

@Rangermanlv @downloadthefile this post is the dumbest opinion on pirating and Witcher 2 I've ever read. So basically your point is that if 5 million people play the game, but only 1 million pay, it's fine because the 1 million all legitimately bought it, thus they have what you deem to be "enough money" based on zero information of overhead, etc. If you baked 5 million cupcakes but only sold 1 million of them and the other 4 million were stolen, would you be happy because you sold 1 million or angry because you've only earned 4/5 of what you deserve?

second, the guy doesn't like DRM because he doesn't support the ways DRM affects your computer and because he believed that people would want to buy his game more if they didn't use DRM, this was not the case though.

I'm tired of people saying what "enough money" is for other people. Money is a system of credit. He gave people a product, and only received credit for having giving it to 1/5 of the people he actually provided it to.

And obviously you're a pirate, or an idiot, but most likely both. How about you create something that gets stolen numerous times and still act lik everything is just fine?

People steal game, game maker puts in defense, people steal game in response to defense, more defense, people steal in response to more defense, more defense, now we have nothing. PC gaming is proclaimed dead unless it's the one year generational transition, and we need to be practically filmed playing the game every time we log in.

"We wouldn't steal if there were no DRM." Really? Witcher 2, no DRM, was stolen 4 times to everyone 1 copy sold. Does no one have virtue in this world? If you can't afford something, you don't get to have it. If you can, buy it. What happened to rewarding people who do the right thing? Come on. I'm disgusted by the people more than EA. EA is overreacting to a situation which is obviously very real.

Half of you are probably pissed just because it's impossible to buy OR steal the game. Theft is rampant and somehow because it's not a physical product, people don't think devs deserve compensation for their work. In the case of Witcher 2, amazing work.

@VicBStard So if it were a great game but you couldn't get into it for 15 hours out of 20, it should still get a 9 or even an 8? Please. And he doesn't like a lot of the core game aspects anyway, if you read it. He's not a fan of the online concept even if it functioned as intended because it's not a great concept.

Okay, so we see that 100,000 people played the beta. I guess that means we should open up about 100,000 slots for online play, right? And no one built a city for longer than the 3 hrs the beta lasted, so I guess we won't need that much space to save each individual city.

Idiots.

I didn't realize that the cities were as small as they were. People loved making massive cities on the old SimCity games. The devs obviously know this, because I know this. Now, however, they want us to make these tiny cities? Because we need to interact with other people? The people loved doing this one thing, now we're going to remove that ability entirely in favor of this far more confusing DRM justifying method.

This should be a game mode, not the primary way to play. This size restriction is absolutely ridiculous. I wanted so badly to buy this game but now even if they solve the server problems I'm probably going to pass on it. Then there's Cities XL, which would be fine if it didn't take multi-core processors and use only one core of them. So I get the processing power from my i7 that's the same as my old Pentium 4 when I play Cities XL, a modern game with modern graphics. How are game developers so stupid?

So let's say KVO really enjoyed the four hours he played out of 25 he could have played had there been no server issues. Would it really be a responsible review for him to give it a 9.5??? Come on, if your product is gonna be fixed in weeks or even months as some have said, it shouldn't have been released until that time.