Levine got 'nasty f***ing threats' over copy protection

by Justin McElroy { Sep 11th 2008 at 10:00AM }

When we say we want to lock BioShock creator Ken Levine in a box, allowing him to subsist on nothing but our love, it's in a fun way. Because we care about him and we're meant to be united into infinity. But, as KennyL recently told PC Zone, he has also gotten some threats that weren't nearly as nice as ours, over issues far more pedestrian than eternal love. "When we had the copy protection issues come out, I was out there talking about the product, I didn't run away from that. And frankly I got some nasty fucking threats," Levine said.

We know the mandatory internet connection and two-install limit was bad, but getting threats over it? That's just horrifying. C'mon Ken, why don't you climb into this unmarked van with tinted windows and tell us all about it?

Tags: copy-protection, ken-levine

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Sep 11th 2008 10:12AM

Thanks to Joystiq, that will be my new phrase when I fight someone: "I hope you brought kryptonite, Bitch."

FOXHOUND @ Sep 11th 2008 10:20AM

Well, since FIGHT NIGHT ROUND4 was announced... done and done. ;]

BananaBoat @ Sep 11th 2008 11:01AM

This should be the defacto line for anyone about to get into a fight.

"Your mom is a slut!"

"....I hope you brought Kryptonite, bitch"

tooPrime @ Sep 11th 2008 10:13AM

There is a strange game journalist culture surrounding certain game designers. Maybe they have strong personalities and can articulate their design philosophies well, sweeping bloggers and the like off their feet as they watch them at GDC or E3 or something, but I personally don't give a crap about any of them. BioShock is a good game and if Ken L. made that, then good for him, but just because I like the game doesn't mean I need to have a man-crush on the designer. Other people helped made that game, why does he get all the credit? I think people would have had more realistic expectations of Spore if they didn't think Will Wright was God.

ZeroCorpse @ Sep 11th 2008 10:50AM

Well, said!

Cliffy B., Ken Levine., Hideo Kojima, Tobias Boon, John Romero, Will Wright, Peter Molyneux, Lord British (Richard Garriot), and so on... They're mere mortals after all, and with the rare exception of Lord British's first projects, they had whole teams working with them to make their games.

Wanna worship someone? Worship Roberta Williams, Fred Ford, Paul Reiche III, David Crane, Alan Miller, Bob Whitehead, Larry Kaplan, and Gunpei Yokoi.

Each of these people were innovators who created games ALONE, or created some revolutionary gaming technologies. Yes, later these people had crews working with them, but they all started out in an era where it was one person's idea programmed straight to the screen. Haven't heard of them? That's a shame, because these people were far more pioneering than the likes of Cliffy B. or Ken Levine. They may not have had the same tech to work with, but they cranked out some of the most classic games ever on their own.

If you're a gamer and you don't know those names in the second group, then you probably have no business worshipping the people in the first group. . . Or you've at least got your priorities backwards. Pioneer game designers weren't rock stars or celebrities. They weren't egomaniacs like Cliffy B. or Hideo Kojima. A lot of the time they weren't even given credit for unleashing their creations upon the world.

Personally, I have a lot more respect for Roberta Williams than I ever will for someone like Cliffy B.

Stevie Case, however, falls into the category of "pro gamer turned media whore" and deserves to wallow in the shallow end with "Fatal1ty" and the Frag Dolls.

Vcize @ Sep 11th 2008 11:03AM

Uh, that has to do with time more than anything else. In 20 years, no one that wasn't gaming in 2007 will know who Ken Levine or Cliff Blezijeasfjinfski are either.

John Adams did a lot more for our country than George Bush, but I guarantee you more people know who Bush is than Adams.

Evan @ Sep 11th 2008 11:15AM

I could not disagree more. Currently, most of the game industry treats it's talent like it's disposable - hiring and firing people at will, closing or dissolving entire studios, etc. A game is only as good as the people making it. Recognizing the people behind the games will ultimately improve the quality of the games, if it leads to publishers hiring the best and most appropriate designers and other talent for the biggest games (instead of what they do now, which is to get whoever happens to be available or worked for them the longest).

I'm sorry if recognizing game designers hurts your ego because you only play games instead of making them, but the industry needs it's personalities if it's going to grow and mature.

Evan @ Sep 11th 2008 11:22AM

Note: I'm disagreeing with tooPrime, not ZeroCorpse. How tooPrime's short-sighted and ignorant comment has gained a half-heart in rank is beyond me. As for ZeroCorpse, I tend to agree, but that shouldn't preclude modern game designers from being recognized. After all, we still recognize film directors who work with hundreds of others to create a film, and even though hundreds of people are involved, the director still has the most significant impact on the film.

tooPrime @ Sep 11th 2008 11:43AM

"I'm sorry if recognizing game designers hurts your ego because you only play games instead of making them, but the industry needs it's personalities if it's going to grow and mature."

I think you misunderstand me. My "ego" has nothing to do with it. In fact I have no really problem with Ken L or Clifford B or any successful game designer. Recognizing game designers is fine however I think praising their games are more of a complement than praising their personality and I think sometimes his hero worship confuses the two. I think the focus has gotten off the games they made and rather shifted to the personalities. I don't care if Will Wright is gregarious, I care if he can make good games. When I hear game journalist talk about how much they like a game designer personally, I think that meeting and listening to game designers personally is a luxury few outside of their profession have and I don't think how nice or dynamic a designer is in real life has any effect on their game. I think it dilutes the focus from games. The most recent example I can think of is Spore. People seemed to be wrapped up in the majesty that is Will Wright and not the game it self. Fable is another good example. Before Braid came out people were on the Johnathan Blow bandwagon even before he ever released a game. I just don't like that his article is a hand job for Ken, not Ken himself. This article is written in joking tone, however I think it speaks to a larger problem. I really don't real like rereading this so forgive any spelling mistakes or nonsensical sentences.

theturtle363 @ Sep 11th 2008 11:44AM

so, what you're saying evan, is that it's okay for the majority of game makers to still be treated as hire and fire filth, as long as the guys who probably do the least work get treated like celebrities. Yeah, that's what the industry needs.

Waffle Slayer @ Sep 12th 2008 7:07AM

@tooPrime: Its okay to admit your first man-crush. We're here for you and you don't have to fight them feelings anymore...

tooPrime @ Sep 11th 2008 11:56AM

theturtle363 has a good point, and for my man-crush, I already have one on Iamchris4life.

PiemanPieman @ Sep 11th 2008 12:01PM

ZeroCorpse:
Nevermind that Cliff Bleszinski started making games alone when he was 16. Sure they may not have been as popular as some of those people, but I remember them. Even now I can hum the theme of Dare to Dream.

WRE @ Sep 11th 2008 12:28PM

I have a total man-crush on both Justin Timberlake and Ken Levine, so you guys can just shut up!

Taco_Hell @ Sep 11th 2008 2:19PM

Man-crush? I'm in man-love with Tim Schafer, then again, I think everyone is.

tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 11th 2008 10:14AM

Well instead of bitching about it they could have either pirated it or played the 360 version. No point whining about it so much really.

Rob @ Sep 11th 2008 10:24AM

Actually, there is. With enough complaints, they may learn and change.

tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 11th 2008 10:27AM

1000 loud people on the internet isn't going to offset millions of customers (at least in a game like Spore's case) that probably won't even run into the securom problem or even know about it.

Anam @ Sep 11th 2008 10:39AM

I find it really strange when people bitch about other people bitching, only to say things like "well, your complaints won't change anything."

First, if it won't make a difference then why do you care?

Second, even if we never see the data, EA will certainly know how many preorders were cancelled around the time of this protest. It probably won't be millions, but it might be significant enough for them to consider changing their policies.

Third, didn't they change the limit to 5 activations for Red Alert following this protest? So obviously it does matter somewhat.

fischju @ Sep 11th 2008 11:01AM

Or they could not be a dumbass and download the crack for it, like I did.

Roto13 @ Sep 11th 2008 11:03AM

"1000 loud people on the internet isn't going to offset millions of customers"

No, but 2000 1-star reviews on Amazon might be enough to drive more people to pirate a game, hurting sales.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

BananaBoat @ Sep 11th 2008 11:04AM

Paying for the game and then cracking it isn't helping, just as pirating isn't helping. The only damn thing that helps is neither buying the game, nor downloading it illicitly. Why? Well, the more people that download their game (believe me, they check) the more they can say "Look! Our DRM is needed because of all these filthy pirates!"

Fighting DRM is only successful when you do it with your wallet. Pirating a game just because it has DRM isn't only just exacerbating the problem, but it's actively proving the DRM peddlers right.

Kael @ Sep 11th 2008 12:43PM

"Well instead of bitching about it they could have either pirated it or played the 360 version."

This is true. But I often feel like the only person on Earth to see the friggin' irony! It can't be emphasized as much as it needs to be to get the people in charge to realize how stupid they're being; their anti-piracy methods not only do nothing to curb piracy more than a CD check, they actually ENCOURAGE and INCENTIVIZE piracy.

You know, I want game developers to be happy and successful when they make good games, and pirating should be fought to help ensure they are. But it's astonishing to see supposed professionals, whose job it is all day to think of ways to fight piracy, dream up and implement with great expense a "solution" that does nothing more to prevent or even just annoy pirates than a CD check does, yet also enrages paying customers and levies arbitrary restrictions on when and where they can play the game they paid for.

What's worse, this wasn't a one-time screw-up, but the same impotent scheme is inexplicably being used with more and more games, and it's essentially just a new type of nag screen that instead of trying to get users to pay, tries to get them to avoid paying altogether.

"Sorry, you've reached the install limit. Please upgrade to the cracked version today to continue playing!" THIS is copy protection? THIS is what they come up with?

I have a better solution; one that I'm sure will work. It's strange to think that I alone, no one special or with any formal training in the subject, could work out a simple solution that will actually DISCOURAGE piracy, when the movers and shakers in the industry who get payed the big bucks not only do no damage to piracy with their efforts, but do a little to help it out. What a messed up world. The most messed up part being, of course, that I have no way to make a difference, and I'm forced to just sit back and watch professionals make fools of themselves, and be the only one laughing (and on the inside, crying).

DangerMouse @ Sep 11th 2008 10:17AM

KennyL made me chuckle.

zuburi @ Sep 11th 2008 10:24AM

It's a Sklar!

theturtle363 @ Sep 11th 2008 10:31AM

Does anyone else think he looks a lot like that one doctor from House? The jewish one who used to be a plastic surgeon but quit to work with house because of something with his wife? He also plays a defense lawyer on Law and Order sometimes

Vcize @ Sep 11th 2008 11:00AM

Sorry man, but I had to downvote you for knowing that much about House.

FSK405K @ Sep 11th 2008 10:33AM

Maybe if some of these people making the threats actually were men of action and not of words, publishers might take them seriously and question using such anticonsumer DRM.

Vcize @ Sep 11th 2008 11:01AM

Wait, so you're saying they should actually mame kill him instead of just saying they're going to do it?

Sounds kind of harsh, even for SecureRom.

FSK405K @ Sep 11th 2008 3:48PM

Otherwise they're like the guys who over rely on bluffing in poker.

AwesomeTown @ Sep 11th 2008 10:34AM

Come on, people. If you're going to make threats, you got to direct them at the right people. I'm sure it was more the 2K execs who wanted the SecureROM in there in the first place. Please, I'm not condoning threats at all, but someone needs to tell these people (nicely) they are only hurting paying customers.

ZeroCorpse @ Sep 11th 2008 10:50AM

Agreed. While I don't get this current worship of "producers" of games, I hardly think Ken Levine was the one who said, "Hey! Let's cripple the game for PC users!"

It was some jerkoffs somewhere in the corporate structure who did that.

Dirty @ Sep 11th 2008 10:49AM

Threatening someone for trying to protect their intellectual property is ridiculous. Come on people, this is not acceptable. Speak with your wallets and your minds.

Coldness @ Sep 11th 2008 10:52AM

Who's threatening Levine? I don't quite get it... Over copy rights protection? And why him?

BananaBoat @ Sep 11th 2008 11:06AM

People don't understand that it's the publisher (in this case, EA I believe) and not the developer (that'd be Ken L) that slap DRM on their games. Once the game is done, the developer has almost zero power over that sort of thing.

kchenisp @ Sep 11th 2008 3:42PM

That depends on the copy protection in question. I'm not sure how bad Securom has gotten, but we know that the more invasive schemes like StarForce require source code integration, and the dev is responsible for making sure it works with the game. It's more than likely that a standard contract from any of the big publishers includes a clause that the developer must implement any copy protection measure that the publisher wants, irrespective of whether this ultimately requires effort by the devs.

Of course once the contract is signed, the dev is legally bound to use whatever DRM the publisher asks for. The point is that the dev is fully in power to refuse that clause, insist on one that forbids DRM, or shop the game to another publisher (like Stardock) before they agree to any contract. The reason they don't do this is because they get more $$$ by doing EA's bidding than they would by trying to negotiate these terms or signing with a smaller publisher.

Publishers are the ones who provide the impetus for DRM, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the devs are essentially bought out to go along with it. You might as well say that politicians aren't responsible for corruption, the lobbyists are. It's true only in the most asinine sense. Bottom line is that the publisher wants DRM and the devs sold us out to get the most profitable contract. Both parties are responsible for DRM, and it's only a question of semantics as to who is more responsible. Devs know they are riding a gray area here because the nature of the publishing model says that they essentially have the luxury of not worrying about sales. So they can be against DRM, blame it on the publisher, and at the same time they type the code that puts it into their game. If they had to self-publish the game, as Blizzard does, then they would have to worry about sales and would probably end up doing the usual -- put Securom or something even worse on the disk just to satisfy their own paranoid fear that not doing this will bankrupt them when they otherwise would have made billions. The simple fact is that you don't know how any dev would really act if they didn't have the publisher acting as an umbrella.

The only entities that can be measured as good or bad are the publishers, and we've seen examples of both good (Stardock), and plenty of bad. The question now is, why aren't devs signing with the good publishers? Why are they signing with ones we know to be bad? Of course it's always about money, and devs, no matter how talented they might be, can still be greedy bastards just like everyone else (as above, sites like Joystiq seem to encourage cults of personality -- but even game designers are only human). Giving them a free pass on the DRM fiasco is wishful and naive. Now, those devs that are actually walking the walk, putting their own finances on the line to make PC gaming more equitable for paying customers, like Stardock and Gas Powered, you can give them props. Most other devs still need to put up or shut up.

DrXym @ Sep 11th 2008 11:01AM

I'm not surprised he got nasty threats. The copy protection in Bioshock was hideous and made even worse because it was inflicted on Steam users too. There was absolutely no reason at all for doing this and some people got understandably angry. Is it any wonder the PC scene is dying when studios are shitting all over their legitimate customers and forcing them into the arms of the crackers?

Vcize @ Sep 11th 2008 11:05AM

What do white people have to do with it?

religiousjedi @ Sep 11th 2008 11:02AM

Wait, wait...you censored the quote in the title, but not in the text?

O_o

JerJerBinks @ Sep 11th 2008 11:19AM

Frankly, I wish game designers would just STFU and make more games. They are becoming more Bono-like with each passing year, and I stopped listening to U2 in the 80's.

luthan @ Sep 11th 2008 11:40AM

he is right in front of my work building!

Anam @ Sep 11th 2008 12:01PM

Why is he just standing there like that? Why won't he move?

ZippyDSMlee @ Sep 11th 2008 11:52AM

I can;t tell whats worse BSs as a consoletard shooter or the copy protection they put on the PC version....

Dirty @ Sep 11th 2008 12:46PM

If your going to make a moronic comment at least have it make sense.

Tridus @ Sep 11th 2008 11:48AM

So it turns out that if someone buys your game, then gets told they aren't allowed to run it because the authentication server is down and the game thinks they're a filthy pirate, they might react badly?

Who knew that treating customers badly would result in customers treating you badly? This is a shocking development.

turry @ Sep 11th 2008 12:28PM

Serious crush on Levine, right here.

The guy is sexy.

Bones3D @ Sep 11th 2008 4:02PM

Game publishers need to start treating PC games the same way as console games. Just pop in the disc and play away with no other action required from the user.

The problem with DRM at this point is that it's literally destroying the PC gaming market. It's not stopping piracy nor does it make the product any better for legitimate users. I know people who used to mock console gamers for using inferior hardware that now play console games exclusively just to avoid the DRM.

However, our game consoles aren't going to remain lax on the DRM front for long. Microsoft and Sony are both poised to move their systems to download-only distribution of games in the next couple years. The only thing currently holding it at bay is storage costs and low-rated broadband connections. Once these factors are eliminated, the little plastic discs we currently love so much won't need to exist.

At some point, the method of "buying" games could change in such a way that you will only "buy" the manual for $40-$50, which includes a serial number that will act as a download voucher on Xbox Live/PlayStation Network. Once used, that voucher code gets tied to your name and system and will not be transferable to anyone else once you tire of it. Game "rentals" will become pay-to-play demos that offer a discount to the full version.

Following the death of PC gaming, Piracy efforts will shift exclusively to game consoles, either to figure out ways of parsing out the system/user tie down requirements, or to cripple the DRM methods itself by forcing it to generate false positives on thousands of legitimate users' systems.

By then, DRM on consoles will become so invasive and convoluted, that we'll see the same anger and frustration from users we're seeing now in the PC gaming market. However, this time around, the DRM will simply be tolerated as an inevitable problem of gaming in general, since the only remaining options either require too much effort or will depend on users to simply not play any games at all. (And we all know just how willing us Americans are to deprive ourselves of entertainment and indulgence just to make a point about something...)