Ultra Street Fighter 4 Discussion Thread

PC Gamer wrote:

Minimum Requirements


OS: Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz and up
Memory: 1 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 9.0c/Shader3.0 and up supported (operation on-board is not guaranteed)
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 and up (except for NVIDIA GeForce 7300), VRAM: 256MB and up (operation sharing with main memory is not guaranteed) or ATI Radeon X1600 and up VRAM: 256MB and up.
Hard Drive: 4.5 GB free hard drive space
Sound: DirectSound, DirectX9.0c Compatible Audio
Other Requirements: Online play requires software installation of and log-in to Games For Windows – LIVE
Recommended hardware

OS: Windows Vista/Windows 7
Processor: Intel Core2 Duo 2.0 GHz and up
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 9.0c/Shader3.0 and up supported (operation on-board is not guaranteed)
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 and up, VRAM: 512MB and up (operation sharing with main memory is not guaranteed)
Hard Drive: 4.5 GB free hard drive space
Sound: DirectSound, DirectX9.0c Compatible Audio

PC Gamer wrote:

The addition of Games for Windows Live is as frustrating as ever – but we expected that anyway. Even more upsetting are the strict security measures that Capcom have implemented to prevent the rampant piracy that hit Street Fighter IV in 2009. Stay signed in to GFWL and everything will work out fine. Try to play without an online connection however, and you won’t be able to save progress in the challenge rooms or the settings menu. Even more annoying is that you’ll only get to use 15 of the 39 characters in local play and won’t get to access any of your DLC. You’ll need an online connection to play, basically.

PCGamer wrote: »

Even more annoying is that you’ll only get to use 15 of the 39 characters in local play and won’t get to access any of your DLC. You’ll need an online connection to play, basically.

Sven wrote: »

I understand there's some very strong opinions here and around the net.

Let me ask a few questions of the users here and perhaps we can come to a better solution for all folks involved. What I'm proposing is a constructive dialog and I'll take this feedback back to the team.

But first some ground rules for this discussion to be constructive:

Any posts dealing with complaints about GFWL will be summarily ignored and/or deleted depending upon the language used. That is a non-negotiable point at this point in development and it's not constructive to make that an issue. We have used GFWL with no problems on several releases and it works great on SSFIV:AE.

Any posts outright dismissing the need for DRM of some form are also not feasible, especially given the history with SFIV. Sorry, but that's another reality in which we live. Blizzard and Valve both use DRM in their games... and when they do have offline forms, they have reduced functionality/features. This is not new or exclusive in any way to Capcom.

Now, that said, it is in no way our intention to punish legitimate users. That's definitely not the purpose here. It is to attempt to ensure that our content is only enjoyed fully by legitimate users.

Question 1: Without using a secure network authentication mechanism of some kind (SSA, Steam CEG, Impulse GOO, SecuROAM, etc.) how can we validate that a copy is legitimate versus pirated?

Question 2: If it isn't what we've proposed, what form of limitations would be acceptable in the event that there in a "non trusted" mode, assuming that it can be secured?

Question 3: If there were a network validated install and we put in an offline mode that would allow you to have funtionality for some period of time, but require revalidation on a frequent interval, would that be acceptable?

Question 4: There seems to be a lot of supposition that the pirates will instantly crack whatever protections we put in place. One never knows, that could well be true. Personally, I'm not quite as defeatist. One at least has to try. Now, if we promised to "sunset" those protections in the event of a crack being created so that legitimate users don't have a substandard experience to pirates, is that an acceptable solution?

Happy to hear any other proposed solutions that could work and I'll see what we can do with the team.