I didn't say that everyone should see it my way, only that I can't see being an unpaid beta tester.
I didn't say that you said everyone should see it your way. You said (paraphrased) you couldn't understand why anyone wants to be an unpaid beta tester and I simply posted that I see it differently.
Gaming is my primary hobby. Even though I watch my money, the $20 difference between a day one purchase and waiting 6 months is relatively trivial and sometimes, I simply feel like playing game "x". Since I only buy a handful of anticipated titles a year, I don't feel like waiting.
I appreciate you see it differently. As a non-drinker, I don't really get why people waste $20 on beer every day/week/month, but diversity makes the world go around and it doesn't matter if I don't get it.
1). Even if you d/l it from Steam, it still comes with the SecuROM fiasco (which is apparently causing problems in some anti-virus software like AVG as well as those who wish to play their copy of the game over multiple computers).
You say "fiasco", I say "what was the problem again?" Activation was clearly indicated to me, and in my experience, activation means "tying the software to that computer".
2). If you don't have widescreen, then you're affected - The game was intended for widescreen & supposedly stretched to accommodate a "normal" screen.
Not stretched, sorry, so I have no complaint.
3). I don't require SM 3.0, the game does & that's affecting a lot of people.
It's tough not having the right hardware. And? See below.
Really, from my understanding of the situation, the pirates have already taken care of the SecuROM issue in their copies. So, the copy protection problems are once again only hurting the valid consumer.
I'm glad that you don't have any issues with the game but not everyone has had the luxury of sharing your flawless experience.
In a perfect world, copy protection systems wouldn't be required. We don't live in that world and while I know lots of people disagree, I believe copy protection achieves the intended goal. I worked in IT for over 10 years and often got asked by clients why their Nero-ed copy of The Sims didn't work; if I were 2K, I'd put some form of CP on the disc. Perhaps this one is worse than other choices but I'm not really seeing the issue so far.
By the way, I haven't gotten Bioshock to work yet as I posted elsewhere but the issue seems to be at my end as best I can tell. So, no, I haven't had a flawless experience but I have limited sympathy for people who don't read the tech specs and then rant about being ripped off (directed at the internet at large, not specifically you).
Dhruin
" You mean you require SM 3.0? This was always a requirement"
Really I thought the minium said 128 meg and dx9c support.
Isn't that why so many people are confused, as they have cards that with both listed features but it didn work on their machines becasue they are SM2?
From Steam's tech specs for Bioshock:
Minimum: Operating System: Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista, CPU: Intel single-core Pentium 4 processor at 2.4GHz, System RAM: 1 GB, Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550), Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card, 8GB of free hard drive space.
I guess they may have changed it in the past and caught people off guard but this is exactly what I looked at to judge if my system was up to scratch.
Edit: Nope, I checked. This is our newspost when the specs were first released in July:
I forgot to post this one yesterday...the system reqs for Bioshock have been released:
Operating Systems:
* Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista
Minimum System Requirements:
* CPU: Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processor
* System RAM: 1GB
* Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).
* Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
* Hard disc space: 8GB free space