GSC May or May Not Be Using Always-On DRM for STALKER 2

OK, so according to an interview with GSC’s Sergey Grigorovich over at KP, STALKER 2 will use always-on DRM. The quote:

Part of the content will be located on the server and downloaded as the game progresses. Permanent internet access is required. Text information, code and quests will be loaded through that connection. Software piracy is an issue for us, we try to fight it, but within reason.

That sounds pretty definitive, right? Well, apparently it isn’t definitive, because here is a GSC statement given to RPS:

The idea of implementing DRM came in as a possible anti-piracy solution. You know the severe level of commercial piracy we have here in ex-USSR region. This said however, there is no firm decision to go for DRM with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 as of now. Be assured, we do realize how uncomfortable this solution is for the players, so we’ll continue looking for most effective, yet acceptable for all, way of protecting the game by the time of its release.

So, yeah, that’s weird. That’s what you call “backtracking.”

Follow Phil on Twitter: @philrowen

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

3 Comments on GSC May or May Not Be Using Always-On DRM for STALKER 2


On October 10, 2011 at 2:02 pm

how about arresting these big pirates wait no you dont i purchased what turned out to be a pirate copy of a game and told the company they did nothing

Chris Atkins

On October 12, 2011 at 9:50 am

DRM riddled games have and always be a burden on paying customers who support the industry and the companies who make great games such as GSC. It saddens me to see that such a great developer that was once promising is turning the route of EA, Ubisoft, and many others. Always on DRM has been a disaster every.single. time… and has always caused games to be sluggish or unplayable. For example, Splinter Cell Conviction was unplayable for days at a time when first released because Ubisoft didn’t have enough servers to handle the load during launch. If I purchase a product, especially one that is mainly single player oriented, there is absolutely NO excuse for not being able to play it when I put it into computer. I paid $49.99 for a product, and for that price it better damn well work.

Not to mention the fact that DRM does aboslutely nothing to counter piracy, these companies pay millions of dollars for the software to protect their games, then cause paying customer the agony of dealing with all of the problems that follow, all the while pirates break the DRM in a 24 hour period after launch, usually even before that because of leaks online.

PC gaming is not dead, there is a large supporting populace of players who are more than devoted, but if the industry continues down this route I don’t know how I can justify spending thousands of dollars on PC parts to play a broken piece of version of the same game that is available on a $200.00 console, and is playable the moment you put it in the system.

Oh and a little bit of light reading from a new study ;)

Jig Mc6alliger

On October 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Sorry GSC, your ex-employees at 4A games took me away from you. Just like when Ferruccio Lamborghini told Enzo Ferrari that his clutches were making too much noise, Enzo insult the tractor manufacturer Ferruccio. So he starts making his own cars better than Ferraris. 4A games engine is much more efficient than GSCs engine, the the guys at GSC shouldve listened to their own engineers.