I can only think that having no demos is a way to cut costs.

It's funny really, when you think of games like Doom that were big successes despite giving away a third of the game for free.

When everyone was hyping "episodic gaming" I thought we might see more shareware-like releases. Telltale do this, but then they're one of the only developers to use that model.

So did you just ignore my second paragraph on purpose or...? I mean, I even clarified this and yet it seems like you didn't bother reading it.

Sometimes a game will require an 8800 minimum but runs like shit on anything less than a 460 GTX. Sometimes a game recommends a 260 GTX minimum but runs fine on an 8600. Minimum requirements are not an exact science, and they're frequently just pulled out of a hat. Someone with a midrange computer (aka, not an Atom but not an i7) would probably like to know which side of the spectrum the minimum specs fall on, overly cautious or complete bullshit.

I have never known a game to understate the minimum requirements, they usually overstate them. If you have an example however I am all ears.

Oh and Laptops are always dicey for gaming people should always be aware of that. Almost every game has a disclaimer saying laptop chipsets may not be supported. An 8800 might not be enough if it's a lappy chipset.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, and it's probably a five activation limit with refunds on uninstall SecuROM job.

It's stupid, since the GOG version will inevitably be on The Pirate Bay within five minutes of the game's release. All the pirates go "Why try harder?" and pirate that, while the DRM'd version won't be pirated as much since it requires a crack (which will probably be released five minutes after the GOG version gets uploaded, since it's SecuROM). Atari and Namco conclude that DRM is the way to go for new, AAA games.

I remember playing Doom 3 back in the day on a computer that by all means shouldn't have been able to run it, and yet I made it all the way through.

The main point, however, is that it's hard to tell where the cutoff point is for midrange computers. If I had, say, a Geforce 260 and the minimum requirements were 8800 and recommended were 560 GTX, can I play it smoothly? For some games yes, for others no, and if there's no demo and no game store is willing to give a refund or buy it back, options are pretty limited.

I'm not condoning piracy here, which you seem to think I am. I'm saying I find it hard to blame someone for resorting to it if that's their only option to get a fair demonstration of how something will run. If demos were more easily available, spec requirements were more reliable, or DRM didn't tie retailers hands on the matter of used PC games, then it wouldn't be an issue, but as it is people with good-but-not-great systems are expected to plunk down money and hope for the best, which is amazing for publishers but pretty shit for the consumer.

If there were more reasonable ways to predict a game's performance, or avenues of recourse in the event that it doesn't work on your computer (like, say, reselling it at a slight but not complete loss), then this wouldn't be an issue, but in these days of no demos and games being tied to accounts you're pretty screwed if you get something like, say, that recent Stranger's Wrath port pre-patch (seriously, who the hell thought a port of an Xbox game from 2005 would choke brand new computers).

Because distribution access matters for retail. They said the GOG version was DRM-free. I don't know any other major distribution network that is completely DRM-free, so I automatically thought that any other version would have DRM. I agree it's not right, but why would they make a nice retail version and put DRM on it while offering a still nice digital version with no DRM if it were their decision? If it was to attract customers to GOG, why not make the retail version as bad as possible with no extras? It just makes more sense that it is the publisher's decision.

I don't get your response. Like I said if it is Atari's fault why didn't they sign with someone willing to release the game DRM free? A ton of retail PC games are DRM free, it's not like that would have been impossible.

I dunno, how many major AAA titles are released DRM-free? Though this may be a result of fatigue, I can't think of many or actually any major publishers who do that. Like I said, why not make the retail version as bad as possible if they wanted to attract users to GOG? Why offer the collector's edition?

I didn't say you were. My point is simply that downloading the full game is too much of a temptation to most people. If people who downloaded the game to see if it ran deleted it soon after finding out, that wouldn't be a problem but that's usually not the case. The game has been devalued by the ease at which it was obtained and now the user has played the game and likely finished it is it worth €45 to them? Likely not so even the honest ones will pay for it, but later when the game is heavily discounted. The dishonest ones won't pay for it full stop, they played it, they enjoyed it and they finished it. Why pay for it now?

Of course all this will be moot if there actually is a demo as it hasn't been announced whether there will be one or not. Needless to say a few comments here prove my point that even if a demo is available then people will pirate it anyway.

Because anybody who buys the retail edition and is negatively affected by the DRM would come away with a tainted view of the company and not want to do further business with them.

During the Witcher 2 Q&A awhile back I think they announced that there would not be a demo, which is unfortunate but I could be misremembering that.

A lot of retail games are still DRM free. Anything Activision releases that is not Call of Duty is DRM-free. THQ release a ton of games without any DRM, like Amnesia: The Dark Descent. EA bounces back and forth but often has no DRM, like on Mass Effect 2. There are smaller publishers like Viva Media or Southpeak who release a lot of PC-only software without any DRM, which should be fine since obviously Atari is not doing any marketing anyway.

Yeah, that baffles me as well. If you really want to convince a box guy like me to buy from GOG instead why make the boxed version so tempting? If it was just a disc in a sleeve or something I would totally buy it on GOG instead.

Well, this is why I was saying I don't have an issue with people who download a game to make sure it runs. What you're describing isn't that.

Probably Atari also help funding the development of TW2.