I only play games from Japanese origin, so don't ask me...
That's it, I've had it!!
|
10-04-2011, 03:06 AM
This will be all solved when they start selling games in flash disks I think. All they need is some good protection that will assure it's read only and not copy-able, so they will happily stop using internet and shit.
Maybe Windows can implement that, by recognizing a flash disk with bought software and blocking all other programs access to it besides himself. Or something like that. Then, as Flash usb drives are way faster then disks, specially as usb 3.0 gets more popular, installation will no longer be needed, everything will be able to run from its removable device, maybe even Windows! Only shit in my plan is that it totally prohibits patches and updates, also upgrades. Still, I think that's more or less the way for 5-6 years from now. And yet most people have internet, what if I want to play/install software in a plane/train without a connection or wifi? they should consider this kind of situation.
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit Creators Update
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 960 @ 3.6 GHz Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 2GB GDDR5 Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3 AM3+ Revision RAM: HyperX 8GB Dual Channel @ 1600Mhz 10-04-2011, 01:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2011, 01:35 PM by NaturalViolence.)
Optical discs cost a few cents each to mass manufacturer. Flash drives cost at least a few dollars each regardless of how low capacity/old they are because of how they are manufactured (you need to fabricate chips). Until this changes (and it has not changed in the last 50 years of chip manufacturing) games will remain on optical discs at least for the time being. When the switch from DVD to BD is made on PC (if it gets made) multi disc games will have hundreds of GB of storage capacity at there disposal for a few cents, I don't see another solution topping that for quite some time.
There is a reason the move from ROM to optical media was made in the first place outside of storage capacity. Any security measurements like the one you described would be cracked quickly and easily unless the memory itself was read only (ROM). HDD are still much much faster than flash memory and would still offer substantial benefit for installation. Digital distribution is a much better solution and it's the way the market it going so you better get prepared for it whether you like it or not.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony (10-04-2011, 10:45 AM)Runo Wrote: And yet most people have internet, what if I want to play/install software in a plane/train without a connection or wifi? they should consider this kind of situation.the problem is that this situation can also be used by pirates. also, didn't some steam games have offline mode too? or am i imaging things? o and to NV : hhd's are not faster then flash memory. that would mean hhd is faster then ssd drives, or even your ram since those are flash memory. no, i think you meant to say hdd's are faster then usb storage devices (and depending on the hdd , you are correct. but not much) (10-04-2011, 04:34 PM)DacoTaco Wrote: the problem is that this situation can also be used by pirates. Yeah, that's why I'm saying piracy protection shouldn't use the internet, yet they should find another efficient way to do it, so they profit as much as they want and don't get a negative impact on users side. Quote:HDD are still much much faster than flash memory and would still offer substantial benefit for installation.what Daco said @NV but even ROM can be copied can't it? I'm saying what is needed here is a method, regardless the media type, of giving the ability to read but not to copy. And of course, things would need to be copied to RAM when the system is running. This doesn't bring anything up on my mind. Let me see: If we tell the OS not to copy the software from it's media, the pirates will create a program that does. If we tell the OS to block them from doing it besides himself, they will crack this system, modifying the OS so it doesn't block them. But what if the OS is also running on a system like this, so it is read only? We could sell each copy of Windows, for example, in its own HD. this wouldn't end windows piracy, but would make it uncrackable. Still some internet activation system would be needed for it, as it is read only but not uncopyable. But this would mean they can't crack it to make it allow access to the removable media attached to the computer. The process that blocks the copy would be running and not read only, in the system RAM, but it couldn't be deactivated. Maybe I'm not in the right path here, but doesn't it make more sense for the piracy protection to be done by the OS, instead of the software? it's the OS that allows us copying and editing files, running any program we make, etc. What about a OS that, for example, refuses to play a song if it was downloaded? The developer and the pirate are limited by the OS, the problem is we need an efficient way of making the difference from what's piracy and what's not. Quote:Digital distribution is a much better solution and it's the way the market it going so you better get prepared for it whether you like it or not. This still doesn't kill piracy. When you download a game, it goes to your HD, someone Cracks and distribute it. The only current way not to have piracy is having a game that is only online multiplayer. Ubisoft tried to do this for single player in Assassin's Creed II, as it was needed to be conected to Ubi all time while playing, but cracks were made, and I use it as it increases FPS. The only reason online multiplayer isn't cracked is because well, you need to be connected to play Hmm, cloud gaming? yeah, but I'd hate it.
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit Creators Update
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 960 @ 3.6 GHz Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 2GB GDDR5 Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3 AM3+ Revision RAM: HyperX 8GB Dual Channel @ 1600Mhz 10-05-2011, 04:05 AM
there's this thing called private server... the game needs to be popular enough though for people to RE-ing one.
10-05-2011, 05:28 AM
Quote:o and to NV : hhd's are not faster then flash memory. that would mean hhd is faster then ssd drives, or even your ram since those are flash memory. Yeah that's what I meant. Average 4GB usb flash drives have max sequential read speeds of around 20-40MB/s and sequential write speeds of half that. A typical 7,200 rpm HDD is 2-2.5 times as fast in sequential read benchmarks and 3-3.5 times as fast in sequential write benchmarks. I never realized NAND was a type of flash memory rather than a different type of memory all together. Quote:of giving the ability to read but not to copy. As far as I know that's not possible. All you have to do is: 1. Read in all the data and store it to a temporary location 2. Write the data to another form of media 3. Make a program or piece of hardware that tricks other software into believing your media is the correct type (ROM or whatever) BAM! Copies for everyone! Quote:Maybe I'm not in the right path here, but doesn't it make more sense for the piracy protection to be done by the OS, instead of the software? it's the OS that allows us copying and editing files, running any program we make, etc. What about a OS that, for example, refuses to play a song if it was downloaded? The developer and the pirate are limited by the OS, the problem is we need an efficient way of making the difference from what's piracy and what's not. Wow! Runo you've come up with the best strategy ever for making linux popular. All we have to do is convince microsoft to do this . Quote:This still doesn't kill piracy. When you download a game, it goes to your HD, someone Cracks and distribute it. The only current way not to have piracy is having a game that is only online multiplayer. Ubisoft tried to do this for single player in Assassin's Creed II, as it was needed to be conected to Ubi all time while playing, but cracks were made, and I use it as it increases FPS. The only reason online multiplayer isn't cracked is because well, you need to be connected to play Tongue What I meant was your idea about a future where games are distributed on read only flash drives is flawed because the market is clearly moving towards digital distribution.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 10-05-2011, 05:52 AM
(10-05-2011, 05:28 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote:and now you've learned about flash memory and its types. i know of NAND, NOR and the other type that was meant to change everything but i never heard a thing of later (can't remember the name). and then there is temp flash memory (like ram) which is faster ofcQuote:o and to NV : hhd's are not faster then flash memory. that would mean hhd is faster then ssd drives, or even your ram since those are flash memory. eitherway, the reason flash memory is so "slow" is the usb interface or the controller inside the flash drive. ive seen flash drives do quicker shit then 20-40MB/s (ssd's being one). 10-05-2011, 07:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2011, 07:31 AM by NaturalViolence.)
Makes sense. But USB 2.0 is capped at 480 mb/s (60 MB/s) which is about 2-4 times the sequential read speed of most flash drives, so I would have to assume that MOST USB flash drives are not being bottlenecked by the bus and are just plain slow compared to a typical 7,200 rpm HDD.
Their has to be some other difference (probably the controllers if I had to make a random stab in the dark) between typical USB flash drives and SSDs that accounts for the difference in performance besides the bus.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 10-05-2011, 04:41 PM
well, SSD's use SATA which afaik has a much better data transfer namely 1.5Gb/s(150 MB/s) ,3Gb/s(300 MB/s) or 6Gb/s(600 MB/s) depending on which version.
which is overal better then IDE (PATA) which had 167MB/s ...and that aren't even numbers of ram flash memory (got unlazy and looked up the raw data) also, to answer your question about the speed thingy; i dont know if thumb drives have cache, but cache does make hdd's faster at some times |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)