Final Fight: Double Impact's PSN requirement is anti-sharing DRM

In before people who had no problem with Ubisoft Drm have a problem with this.

Hey, they're right, adding this feature will effect sales. I'm not buying it now :P

screw that i love game sharing between my two PS3 consoles if more games have this then they wont find me buying their games or DLC

@ KeenCommander

haha yeah right, they're a company who's purpose is to make money selling games, they're not just going to "just deal with it" when it comes to losing profit...

on the other hand the way they decided to tackle the problem sucks, and will probably cause them to lose sales.

Why did they need to do this?

There's games on PSN that have sharing disabled, rather than this.
Three games, in fact.


Why can't they just do that?

They've just lost a sale. I was going to buy this the other night, but ended up getting waylaid doing other non-gaming things. Very glad of that now.

Now join us, PS3 brethren, in our crusade to eradicate DRM from the face of the planet, once and for all! We PC gamers cannot do it alone!!!

I would buy it with a friend of mine. He would pay me half the game, and I would purchase, then he would download it and we would be happy.

Now, we will not. Thanks Capcom! You saved me some money! :)

I'm calling shenanigans on that letter. It sounds like something written by a junior high student.

I wish Capcom would decide of their Capgods (Mega Man revivals, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom for North America) or Crapcom (abandoning my beloved Clover, this nonsense.)

That's funny. I remember Shane Bettenhausen on the old 1UP Yours touting this as the secret best feature of PSN, many years ago.

this only makes me wonder how many indie developers and major studios slack off on releasing games on psn because game sharing is so rampant... i liked the idea of game sharing, but its not really friendly to their bottom lines. i say they pull the whole game sharing shit.

that's why i use an emulator, im not paying 10 bucks for this nonsense. The industry just wants to take control of their customers.

Have any of you guys had an issue with Final Fight where the menu keeps scrolling through?

i spend far, far more on games because of sharing than if it didn't exist. as in, I'd only bought 1 game over the course of the year before I started sharing. Now I've got over 100 games. That's hundreds of dollars Sony got out of my wallet because of gamesharing - because while I'm not ok with spending $10 or $15 on a game I only might like, I don't mind spending a split of that at all. If Sony wants to keep getting my downloadable money, sharing is a must.

Does everyone automatically steal things nowadays because they don't get their way, even when in the right?

Or is this just something recent?

Wow. You're so wrong it's hilarious. I'm a big fan of Final Fight. I bought the game on Amiga back in the day and re-bought it for the Gameboy Advance when they re-released it a few years back. My Amiga stuff is now long gone, but I could post a photo of the GBA cartridge if I had the time to go digging though my old stuff. I was really looking forward to this PSN version to get a more up-to-date copy of the game playable on a modern console. How many times have you bought this game now?

As for "not giving a shit" about the developers or "getting a job" I am a software developer myself and could afford to buy the game many times over out of my disposable income if I decided to do so. In a concept that's clearly alien to you messageboard trolling know-it-alls though I object to what they've done on principle. If my five year old nephew comes over to visit I let him use my PS3 with his own PS3 user account. He keeps his own scores, saves and trophies. At his age he's not going to buy any game, he has no income, but why shouldn't he be able to play games I've bought on my PS3 when he's at my house? Why do I want to support more games being made when doing so means they're all going to be restricted like this? Companies don't have a right to a profit, if they don't offer they product I want then I reserve the right not to buy it.

As a developer I don't tell our corporate customers they can't have the features they want. We'd be out of business in no time if we did that.

It is a joke when you think about because say your ps3 dies and you normaly have 4 more downloads to just copy you stuff again, now because of this what happens? You have to rebuy? I'd be mad. Digital content unlike durable content is it's always available, no need to store make room for new titles its always ready and available for sale at FULL Price, up until now stuff has been on sale regularly.
When you consider the 5 download idea that makes it basically $2 for a $10 game, why not just sell games at that $2 for one copy, then if you system dies you rebuy it? I'd be happy paying that or say $1 for a $5 game, etc. not $10, $15 or $20 that might get corrupted or lost should my system die..

Well, totally lost me as a customer. I actually have never done any of that PSN game sharing stuff, and yet they still find a way to lose my business. A lot of my time my PS3 is on, it is not signed in either due to me just not signing in, or being up north for a month in the summer where we do not have the internet. You know, there are still places where you cannot jack into the internet wherever and whenever you want Capcom.

They just lost my purchase. Would have bought this just for the trophies. I don't even know what this game sharing is but my kids have sub acounts n will likely have their own individual PS3s once they're old enough. If I purchased a game why not allow me to let them play it under their acount or system. AND I can't play offline? BS.

LOL at the wailing and gnashing of teeth... "OMG they lost me as a customer because of the new DRM!!!"

When will people finally get it through their heads that piracy DOES have an impact and the activities of pirates ruin it for the rest of us?

I love Capcom's games, but locking save files isn't cool. Neither is this!

If I had known about this before buying it, I wouldn't have bought it. Poor form, Capcom.

You know, now that I think about it, CAPCOM has been seriously pissing me off lately. Has everyone forgot about the on-the-disc DLC for Resident Evil 5?

And BTW, i'm tired of this "let's not make anything new let's just release old crap and charge for it" philosophy of downloadable games.

And while we are on the subject, can't ANY developer make something different for a change? How many "Modern Day" type shooters do we need (I love BFBC2 so don't flame please), but lets see some Sci-Fi for once. Bring back Space Combat Sims!

Wow. I was sort of thinking about buying this to play with a friend of mine this weekend, but now I probably won't bother. I hate DRM, and I refuse to give my money to company in order to support a product that uses it. God job, Capcom, here's one less sale you could have had.

In my case, it's my kids that play share my games with me. If I would've known about this before my purchase, I wouldn't have made it. Haven't tested this in my house yet, but I'll be testing it tonight when I get home. If they don't allow sharing through sub account under the same master account, they're going to get some feedback from me.

While I do that something should be done about piracy, gamesharing is something different altogether. It's a digital workaround for people that have children or multiple consoles, and would normally be able to take their physical copy and share it between them.

Limiting a game to one profile on one system is unacceptable, and the reason why Sony has been getting my business instead of Nintendo. This DRM os even worse. If I have to purchase 4 copies of a game just so the four members of my household can play, I'll just not purchase any.

Was waiting until I got my paycheck today to buy this, not going to do it now. Like how they didn't mention it with all the DRM backlash companies have been getting.

Can't say I really blame them. The ability to share games is kind of a joke, and has led to some pretty rampant pseudo-piracy. Personally, I think you should only be able to activate your content on one console (which can be deactivated at will or refreshed every so often incase it dies on you or something), but if you're logged into the PSN, you can run your content on any PS3 you want, you just *have* to stay logged in and connected online.

This way the guy who isn't always able to connect his PS3 online to play games still gets to do his thing without any problems, and the guy who has multiple consoles in his house or signs in on other consoles and wants to play his downloaded games still have a viable option.

Seriously, this system is perfect. Sony, Microsft, and Nintendo need to fully implement it accross all their platforms. Like nao. kthxbai

I don't understand why they would do this on a remastered game from the LATE 1980S. If I purchase a $60 PS3 game from Gamestop, I can let as many friends borrow the game after I'm done, let them all keep it till they've beaten it, then take the game and sell it back to Gamestop. Yet they're trying to prevent more people from playing a game that's been dead for more than 20 years now that only costs $10 on the PSN today? Unbelievable.

I think they're doing this because they know it's an impulse buy. The game is still cheap and "Nintendo hard" so getting hours upon hours of playtime out of it is unlikely. So why not incorporate DRM to get more people to buy a nostalgic game kids today have more than likely never heard of?

This is bullshit.

Sony allows it's users to let up to 5 systems download the content they purchase.

Capcom can kiss my ass. I won't buy it.

This is plain stupid of them. I was thinking of biying it to play with my kids, since my ps3's are my "family" consoles (I have 2 of them). This makes it a poor purchase for me since it no only make it so my kids can't play without me signed into my account (which o don't want to do because of family controls on sub accounts); but would also restrict me from being able to play from the room of my choice in my own house. Not to mention that we wouldn't be able to play at my parents house since they don't have an Internet connection for us to hook up our system to. If I buy it, it will be on the 360 now; but I don't know if I want to support the game with on any system with the DRM they've put in place.

I guess we'll keep playing Wipeout HD, Sing Star, and Little Big Planet for now.

I can easily say, just like some one else did before me, that Sony only had my money some times because of the 5 system sharing thing.

I'm not ok in paying US$ 10,00 in something you can easily find on emulators all around, but I'm more than ok to pay US$ 2,00 or US$ 5,00, in some cases.

If you really think about it, the smartest thing was game sharing. If you take me for example, I spent several hundreds dollars already, and if there wasn't, I would spend none. So, Kudos for Sony.

However, if they really intend to stop game sharing, maybe they could charge less for the games. If Mega Man 10 was US$ 2,00 instead of US$ 10,00, I would get it, sure.

Best regards to all!

Gotta love that stuff. >:-\