Interesting article regarding piracy

[WabeWalker]

The game is rated 6.7 by user if yo can't even read..

I also bought this game, but not because it doesn't have DRM, its because I am a fan of PoP.

This game disappointed me, and by many others.
Why WOULD PLAYER BUY SOMETHING IF THEY DON'T THINK ITS GOOD?

Do I have to repeat myself ? Or you still going on with your own logic without realizing this GAME IS CRAP..?

Huh?

What are you even talking about?

At this point I can only assume that you haven't read a single thing I've written. Here, let me spell it out for you for a third frickin' time.

Prince Of Persia 2008 didn't have any DRM on it at all and yet Skidrow still pirated it - who cares if the game was rated 6.8 by users. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

And by the way, writing something in big bold lettering doesn't make your point, which is completely off the topic of what I was writing about anyhow, any more valid. In fact, it just tells me that I'm wasting my time arguing with you - that you're the type of person who will just ignore what a person writes and then respond with big bold lettering.

 

[Intel_Hydralisk]

Wabe, did you even play PoP 2008?

I'm going to be brutally honest - I loved the earlier PoP games. PoP 2008 was god freakin' awful.

 

[WabeWalker]

Wabe, did you even play PoP 2008?

I'm going to be brutally honest - I loved the earlier PoP games. PoP 2008 was god freakin' awful.

What does that have to do with the game not having any DRM? Is this some new kind of argument of which I'm not aware?

If a game is perceived to suck, then it's okay to pirate it? Huh? What kind of twisted fucking logic is that. The entire point is that the game didn't have any DRM on it, which is what gamers have been screaming for... it was in fact the first game in years that had zero DRM on it... and yet Skidrow still pirated it.

How come you guys can't see how fucking sick and twisted it is when people champion Skidrow for hacking Ubisoft's recent DRM when this group, in the past, pirated the shit out of a game that had zero DRM on it.

What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

 

[phide]

So much for a civil discussion.

 

[shansoft]

What does that have to do with the game not having any DRM? Is this some new kind of argument of which I'm not aware?

If a game is perceived to suck, then it's okay to pirate it? Huh? What kind of twisted fucking logic is that. The entire point is that the game didn't have any DRM on it, which is what gamers have been screaming for... it was in fact the first game in years that had zero DRM on it... and yet Skidrow still pirated it.

How come you guys can't see how fucking sick and twisted it is when people champion Skidrow for hacking Ubisoft's recent DRM when this group, in the past, pirated the shit out of a game that had zero DRM on it.

What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

something wrong with US? uh HUH....?

personal insult?

Pirate will exist no matter what, they want stuff for free as I mention before.

And you are making this game to look good and saying it should sell well..

BUT THIS GAME IS CRAP

ANY MORE COMMENT? This is a BAD EXAMPLE TO SHOW..

IT WON'T SELL WELL BECAUSE THE GAME BLOWS....

Understand it? You are making a straw man argument there, complete ignorance what other people are saying and making it to your own statement with one specific problem into other that does not even make sense.

its like saying Penguin is bird, then Penguin can fly..

Make no sense...

 

[bigdogchris]

yeah, I hope while all these laws are being passed they add some laws to allow transfer of ownership of licenses, including dlc addons, to forbid rootkit drms from being installed on machines, to ban restricted usage of software (need to be always online), to require digital downloads to be available in the future.

Yeah, there are a lot of laws that can be passed, and since you bring it up I think the paying consumers need some protection also.

I agree, digital copy laws need to protect the company who creates the content but the consumer also needs to be protected by now allowing them to install all this junk software on our systems without knowing about it or putting it in tiny print. I'm totally for absolutely zero DRM in games in a law that passes protecting companies more so against digital copying.

 

[Parmenides]

Just call it stealing, then more people will be happy with the definitions. Starting with common ground, I think we can all agree that piracy can at least sometimes be stealing compensation.

What does that have to do with the game not having any DRM? Is this some new kind of argument of which I'm not aware?

If a game is perceived to suck, then it's okay to pirate it? Huh? What kind of twisted fucking logic is that. The entire point is that the game didn't have any DRM on it, which is what gamers have been screaming for... it was in fact the first game in years that had zero DRM on it... and yet Skidrow still pirated it.

How come you guys can't see how fucking sick and twisted it is when people champion Skidrow for hacking Ubisoft's recent DRM when this group, in the past, pirated the shit out of a game that had zero DRM on it.

What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

Simmer down Wabe. Not everyone who hated the game is a pirate nor pirated the game. He could be very anti-piracy for all we know. He was just making a point about the game. I never played it, but the thought of a 10 hour game for $30 does not appeal to me at all. Will you hear me making excuses about pirating it? No. If it sucks, don't get it. Since I think $30 for 10 hours is a bad deal, I'm going to pirate it now? Of course not. Some people make that excuse, but not everyone here on the forums. And no, I'm not praising what Skidrow did. But it too is a sick injustice when someone tries to please PC gamers (no DRM, not a 'console port'), and still gets pirated. Dragon Age, the game you hate, was made for the PC gamers first and with merely a disk check. It was a gift to the PC community. And what happened? It was being downloaded before release date. That's injustice. That's a shame. At least I think it sold really well. Maybe PoP 2008 isn't the best example? At first I thought you may have made a good example to prove your point when you first mentioned it (It's a game I never heard about before). But I also wondered if there was another side to the story, and if there was I'd hear about it soon. Sounded too good to be true for UbiSoft trying to cater to the PC gamers. As it turned out in the discussion, The gameplay hours is a huge turnoff for me. Doesn't make piracy any more right. The excuse to pirate 'because it sucked' is still of course wrong. It just isn't the best example of a game developer going all out for the PC community, then getting the shaft.

 

[Derangel]

What does that have to do with the game not having any DRM? Is this some new kind of argument of which I'm not aware?

If a game is perceived to suck, then it's okay to pirate it? Huh? What kind of twisted fucking logic is that. The entire point is that the game didn't have any DRM on it, which is what gamers have been screaming for... it was in fact the first game in years that had zero DRM on it... and yet Skidrow still pirated it.

How come you guys can't see how fucking sick and twisted it is when people champion Skidrow for hacking Ubisoft's recent DRM when this group, in the past, pirated the shit out of a game that had zero DRM on it.

What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

No one is saying that is alright to pirate bad games, dude. They're saying it sold poorly due to it being a poor game. No DRM was nice. It being a fairly good port with on a few bugs was nice. Them pricing it cheap was nice. However, bad games simply don't sell on the PC. Piracy had nothing to do with PoP08 failing. It tanked on consoles too. Are you going to blame that on piracy as well?

 

[WabeWalker]

No one is saying that is alright to pirate bad games, dude. They're saying it sold poorly due to it being a poor game.

The entire point of my argument was that Ubisoft released a game that was completely DRM-free, and yet it was still pirated.

Then along comes this other guy above who starts posting in big red letters how the game sold poorly because it was a bad game - huh? What does the game being bad have to do with it being DRM free and Skidrow pirating it?

I thought people wanted DRM free games?

Ubisoft provided a DRM-free game, and yet people still pirated the shit out of it. What kind of a message is Skidrow sending to Ubisoft when they still pirate a DRM-free game? What it tells me is that Skidrow doesn't give a solitary shit about gaming, and will pirate anything and everything - and these are the morons we're choosing to champion?

Don't make me link to the thread in which everyone was praising those guys - it's right here in this forum. Everyone was singing their praises. They're not champions. Like all other pirate groups, they do what they do because they're ant-social hooligans who steal and destroy, rather than create.

Don't believe me? Google it then. You'll find that Skidrow pirated the living daylights out of Prince Of Persia 2008 even though it contained no DRM of any sort. The notion that developers need to spend less time on DRMs, and more time on 'creating decent ports' is completely fallacious. That's not going to do one solitary thing to prevent piracy. Clearly the pirates, and the people who pirate games, have proven that DRM or no DRM they're still going to pirate a game.

The idea that people pirated Prince Of Persia 2008 because it was a 'bad game' - which IGN awarded a score of 93 - is yet another excuse in a long list of excuses which people use to justify pirating games.

This whole argument is just bogus. I might even print up the article that's been linked in this thread so that I can use it as toilet paper. Jesus, look at this whole thread: what a bunch of drama queens we've got here. I swore off the DRM debate a month ago, but I keep on getting sucked back into it because of all these non-logical posts I read.

Sometimes when I visit this forum I nearly pass out from the things that I read.

 

[shansoft]

The idea that people pirated Prince Of Persia 2008 because it was a 'bad game' - which IGN awarded a score of 93 - is yet another excuse in a long list of excuses which people use to justify pirating games.

This whole argument is just bogus. I might even print up the article that's been linked in this thread so that I can use it as toilet paper. Jesus, look at this whole thread: what a bunch of drama queens we've got here. I swore off the DRM debate a month ago, but I keep on getting sucked back into it because of all these non-logical posts I read.

Sometimes when I visit this forum I nearly pass out from the things that I read.

The game is rated 6.7 by user if yo can't even read it correct..

ENOUGH WITH YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENT... You have fail to proceed and fail to compromise every single post in this thread..

you are just making it like "THIS IS A GOOD GAME BECAUSE REVIEW SITE SAYS SO", while the "EVERY OTHER PLAYER who plays it SAYS ITS HORRIBLE".

What you are doing is nothing but pure ignorance and keep going on and on within a circle.. Because you know you have fail it with bad example..

 

[jiminator]

not sure what your point is. they "pirate" everything including service packs, patches and pretty much anything else you can imagine. why would you expect them to handle this game any differently? there have been lots of games without drm that have been pirated heavily and also sold very well at the same time, oblivion being one of them. drm or lack of drm does not make a difference to pirates. it may change the "time to market" for them. good games will sell well and be pirated heavily, poor games less so.

as for the reflex games, thanks for the stats. while interesting I don't know they represent mainstream gaming companies. i pretty much don't know anything about them. maybe if their stuff was pirated more heavily some more people might talk about them, which might get me interested in their games. I'd like to see similar data from all the mainstream gaming companies, data which does not reflect a 10 to 1 "lost sales" ratio or other talking points that are not based on reality.

 

[Blazestorm]

What you are doing is nothing but pure ignorance and keep going on and on within a circle.. Because you know you have fail it with bad example..

You're also missing the point he was trying to make.

Pirates claim they want DRM-Free games, and one of the reasons they pirate is because of DRM. So ubisoft released a game that was DRM-Free and it was still pirated.

There is no noble cause, people are just cheap... including myself

 

[Deleted member 174368]

You're also missing the point he was trying to make.

Pirates claim they want DRM-Free games, and one of the reasons they pirate is because of DRM. So ubisoft released a game that was DRM-Free and it was still pirated.

There is no noble cause, people are just cheap... including myself

That point is wrong. As I've stated before, intrusive DRM is an incentive to pirate, but the lack of DRM isn't going to drive millions of pirates to buy the game. DRM can only prevent sales, not increase them. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.

Also:

there have been lots of games without drm that have been pirated heavily and also sold very well at the same time, oblivion being one of them. drm or lack of drm does not make a difference to pirates. it may change the "time to market" for them. good games will sell well and be pirated heavily, poor games less so.

Pretty much this. There have been a lot of games without DRM that have been pirated to hell and back. The only driving factor behind this piracy is the popularity of the game. Nothing else.

 

[Blazestorm]

That point is wrong. As I've stated before, intrusive DRM is an incentive to pirate, but the lack of DRM isn't going to drive millions of pirates to buy the game. DRM can only prevent sales, not increase them. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.

I never said they were going to buy the game, but at least they wouldn't be pirating it because the company is doing what people wanted (getting rid of DRM).

I pirate almost as many games as I buy, most of the time I pirate games I already own copies of so friends who are too cheap to buy them can play with me at a LAN or something.

And yea I agree, a game that is popular is pirated more than one that's not... same goes for movies and music. You make shitty movies, even pirates won't want to download them.

 

[Derangel]

The entire point of my argument was that Ubisoft released a game that was completely DRM-free, and yet it was still pirated.

Then along comes this other guy above who starts posting in big red letters how the game sold poorly because it was a bad game - huh? What does the game being bad have to do with it being DRM free and Skidrow pirating it?

I thought people wanted DRM free games?

Ubisoft provided a DRM-free game, and yet people still pirated the shit out of it. What kind of a message is Skidrow sending to Ubisoft when they still pirate a DRM-free game? What it tells me is that Skidrow doesn't give a solitary shit about gaming, and will pirate anything and everything - and these are the morons we're choosing to champion?

Don't make me link to thread in which everyone was praising those guys - it's right here in this forum. Everyone was singing their praises. They're not champions. Like all other pirate groups, they do what they do because they're ant-social hooligans who steal and destroy, rather than create.

Don't believe me? Google it then. You'll find that Skidrow pirated the living daylights out of Prince Of Persia 2008 even though it contained no DRM of any sort. The notion that developers need to spend less time on DRMs, and more time on 'creating decent ports' is completely fallacious. That's not going to do one solitary thing to prevent piracy. Clearly the pirates, and the people who pirate games, have proven that DRM or no DRM they're still going to pirate a game.

The idea that people pirated Prince Of Persia 2008 because it was a 'bad game' - which IGN awarded a score of 93 - is yet another excuse in a long list of excuses which people use to justify pirating games.

This whole argument is just bogus. I might even print up the article that's been linked in this thread so that I can use it as toilet paper. Jesus, look at this whole thread: what a bunch of drama queens we've got here. I swore off the DRM debate a month ago, but I keep on getting sucked back into it because of all these non-logical posts I read.

Sometimes when I visit this forum I nearly pass out from the things that I read.

As almost every single motherfucking person in this thread has said: NOTHING WILL STOP PIRACY. What YOU do not understand is that we're not trying to say there is a way to stop it. But there are ways to get people to buy games. Not punishing people that buy games is a good start. Blaming piracy for the failure of a bad game (well, ok, bad is a little harsh for PoP08) is a huge back step. Who gives a fuck what IGN rated the game? Professional reviews mean dick when consumer response on ALL FUCKING PLATFORMS has been pretty unanimous disfavor of the game. It tanked on EVERY platform it was released on. And really don't get me started on my feelings about IGN and their shit quality.

No one is saying that it was pirated because it was a bad game. It was pirated because it was there and people are douchebags. It tanked because it wasn't good. Plain and fucking simple. And where did I say I didn't believe you? I really don't give a shit which groups did or didn't release it. The whole crux of your argument is bullshit because the game never had a chance of selling well even without piracy. Ubisoft suits are fucking retarded. They blame piracy, and piracy alone, for their games failing on the PC. When the games are rarely ported well and rarely supported well (that appears to be changing, but we'll see how long it lasts).

The article is only bogus because it doesn't follow your bat shit arguments that have no place in a conversation with adults becasue you are incapable of seeing simple truth or even attempting to fucking understand what people are saying. Instead you go off on insane tangents utterly ignoring every fucking thing people say to you. So if you want to give another bullshit response to my post without addressing anything in it. Don't fucking bother. I'm not interested in reading your brand of drivel any longer.

 

[phide]

People will pirate everything. If you give someone 11 tracks of a 12 track album for free, they'll pirate the remaining track.

That's not to say, though, that those who upload a torrent for the remaining track to a tracker are requesting for others to download it without compensating the content creator. Part of it — and this is something that's uttered by so-called Freedom of Information advocates — is that the availability is what's important, not the fact that others can download it for free. If it's digital, these guys want it online, but not specifically so others can download it freely without supporting the creator. The goal is to create a wealth of digital information that can be exchanged freely: If people want to "cheat" and partake of it without compensating the content creator, that's a side-effect of the availability of that digital content, not necessarily the intended result.

As Trent Reznor's said, everything digital has ultimately become free. If people want to acquire something digital freely, there's nothing stopping them. Rather than fighting against it, you can, at least in part, try to embrace it. Gain loyalty with your potential customer base rather than treating them as criminals (which is the primary function of DRM). Run your own torrent tracker. Try and, at the very least, maintain some control over the 'underground' distribution if only to be able to present your content as you intended.

There's something very naive and infantile about the various attempts publishers have made to try and control their customers via DRM schemes.

 

[Intel_Hydralisk]

*blah blah blah*
What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

I honestly didn't read any of your posts because I'm not here to argue with you and I find that reading anything you write that's over 4 or 5 lines a complete waste of time. You need to stop being so defensive and assume that everyone here is trying to put on some argument. I'm just pointing out that it was a terrible game and Ubisoft's justification in adding DRM because PoP 2008 was pirated is pretty poor.

Also, there's nothing wrong with me. The only statement I was making is that PoP 2008 was a really bad game. I honestly don't care what your stance is / arguments are for or against DRM because I think everyone on here already knows that regardless of what anyone says, it's pretty much pointless to say anything to you and expect anything back that's worth their time.

Anyway, I let this topic go on for about 6 pages before posting as soon as I saw that you posted in it. Took a light poke, and I see that's how you're going to respond, typical.

 

[shansoft]

You're also missing the point he was trying to make.

Pirates claim they want DRM-Free games, and one of the reasons they pirate is because of DRM. So ubisoft released a game that was DRM-Free and it was still pirated.

There is no noble cause, people are just cheap... including myself

look at my last sentence.. I said PoP is a bad example... I know what he is trying to say..

look at my previous post..

 

[defiant007]

Kind of misleading, the success story of Blizzard they cite is because of the multiplayer component in their games. Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo are all tailored for multiplayer. People still pirate SC all the time because the only multiplayer worthy server worth playing on is ICCUP, which doesn't require a valid key. Warcraft and Diablo on the otherhand are slightly less fortunate from a pirate perspective because the good servers are Battle.net (but I hear the Chinese have a solid private WC3 server), which does require a valid key, although with all the hacks going around, that part could be argued.

Blizzard is alive and well because its games have a multiplayer component that usually requires a legit copy for a good multiplayer experience. Small indie developers and developers with single player-centric games have alot more to lose if their game isn't sporting a solid multiplayer experience that requires authentication.

Way to misconstrue the point completely, its a worthy of example of demonstrating that even despite piracy and a tolerable form of DRM, starcraft and other blizzard games are some of the most successful PC franchises in history, not because of draconian DRM, but because ultimately they deliver games which people consider are worthy of purchasing, and because they continue to deliver content and support for those games which cultivates and maintains strong PC communities.

Pointing to MP components and saying that is evidence of why Blizzard succeeded is asinine and disingenuous, because you should know there are plenty of games with MP which have failed because they are shit games. And as you point out, it is still possible to play pirated versions of starcraft online, but despite that it is still one of the best selling PC games of all time.

Further, the SP campaigns of blizzard games are not tacked on fluff, they are substantial games in their own right which by themselves are more than worth purchasing to experience. Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are acknowledged as being some of the most epic SP campaigns in the RTS genre, and I still consider Warcraft 3 to be one of the best story driven RTS games that I have played to date.

 

[defiant007]

It's bullshit. Someone playing the game who didn't pay for it is a thief. If the thief didn't pirate the game they would have to buy it otherwise they wouldn't be playing. If someone doesn't want to play the game they won't steal it (why bother?) but if they do want to play it they will either steal it or pay for it. So if they steal it then it's a lost sale.

Why yes, I DO work in the gaming industry and yes my employer IS affected by pirates.

And all those in lower socioeconomic classes in China, Russia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe where software is priced beyond the average wage or is simply not available....they would be paying for it right? Yes, all those people are lost sales

 

[defiant007]

Prince Of Persia 2008 didn't have any DRM on it at all and yet Skidrow still pirated it - who cares if the game was rated 6.8 by users. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with the argument, and in any event, what are you trying to convince us of? That everything of a digital nature is pirated?! Well no shit sherlock, no one arguing with you is disputing that piracy does occur, the real issue is to what extent it occurs and the factors which contribute to its existence.

Taking an over simplistic approach by pointing to the fact that Skidrow circulated a non-DRM game over the internet proves nothing other than demonstrating piracy exists, it ignores the fact that even if Skidrow did not do it some other p2p group would have, and further ignores the fact that it was a shit game that was not well received by audiences on any platform. Moreover, Ubi failed to make a demo available of the game. To what extent can you disprove that the majority of downloaders did not simply try it out and then delete it in disgust

You seem to have adopted a very narrow view that everyone who pirates uses DRM as a weakly veiled excuse to do so, which seems to be consistent with your modus operandi of adopting sweeping generalizations to give strength to poorly conceived arguments. It is but one factor in the overall shit cake publishers have been trying to force down consumers throats in recent times.

 

[Derangel]

It's bullshit. Someone playing the game who didn't pay for it is a thief. If the thief didn't pirate the game they would have to buy it otherwise they wouldn't be playing. If someone doesn't want to play the game they won't steal it (why bother?) but if they do want to play it they will either steal it or pay for it. So if they steal it then it's a lost sale.

Why yes, I DO work in the gaming industry and yes my employer IS affected by pirates.

Incorrect. Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Some are, sure, but not all of them. Its bullshit to say otherwise and just goes to show how much you buy into the shit spoon fed to you. Piracy sucks and yes it does hurt the industry, but what the article is saying is that putting the blame solely on piracy is a bad way to deal with it. How often to bad games fail on the PC? Almost 100% of the time. How often to good games fail? Far less often. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some coalition between that. Those piss poor DRM filled console ports released tend to do fairly poorly as well. That isn't due to piracy. Its due to dumbfuck lazy developers and moronic publishers.

 

[jiminator]

Pirates claim they want DRM-Free games, and one of the reasons they pirate is because of DRM. So ubisoft released a game that was DRM-Free and it was still pirated.

someone should interview this pirates spokesperson that represents all pirates that you guys are quoting

 

[WabeWalker]

Incorrect. Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Some are, sure, but not all of them. Its bullshit to say otherwise and just goes to show how much you buy into the shit spoon fed to you. Piracy sucks and yes it does hurt the industry, but what the article is saying is that putting the blame solely on piracy is a bad way to deal with it. How often to bad games fail on the PC? Almost 100% of the time. How often to good games fail? Far less often. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some coalition between that. Those piss poor DRM filled console ports released tend to do fairly poorly as well. That isn't due to piracy. Its due to dumbfuck lazy developers and moronic publishers.

So if people were unable to pirate games - you're saying you would stick to the argument that sales wouldn't increase?

I don't believe that for one second. If people can get something for free then they'll take it. If there's no way for them to get it for free then they'll consider buying it.

That's just human nature.

The idea that people who pirate games aren't contributing to lost sales is just plain absurd - it's the weakest argument going, and it's also the single biggest excuse you'll see from pirates.

"Hey, I wasn't going to buy this game anyhow, therefore there's no lost sale here, therefore what I'm doing isn't really unethical. And besides the game is a piss poor port... you think I'd pay for that shit? And I would also like to add, having spent 30 hours playing this game, that it's actually not all that great... developers need to try harder... if they would just make better games then I wouldn't have to be a pirate anymore."

 

[WabeWalker]

I honestly didn't read any of your posts...

Then do me a favor.

Don't quote me and don't respond to my posts.

If you''re not going to read what I write (and it's pretty obvious that you're just spewing out a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with what I've written) then don't bother 'responding'.

It baffles me why a person would respond to something he hasn't even read, and will even admit that he didn't bother to read it. That's like the movie critic who rips apart the movie - and then it's discovered later on that the person didn't even go to the movie.

 

[Derangel]

So if people were unable to pirate games - you're saying you would stick to the argument that sales wouldn't increase?

I don't believe that for one second. If people can get something for free then they'll take it. If there's no way for them to get it for free then they'll consider buying it.

That's just human nature.

The idea that people who pirate games aren't contributing to lost sales is just plain absurd - it's the weakest argument going, and it's also the single biggest excuse you'll see from pirates.

"Hey, I wasn't going to buy this game anyhow, therefore there's no lost sale here, therefore what I'm doing isn't really unethical. And besides the game is a piss poor port... you think I'd pay for that shit? And I would also like to add, having spent 30 hours playing this game, that it's actually not all that great... developers need to try harder... if they would just make better games then I wouldn't have to be a pirate anymore."

I'm not saying all pirates aren't potential customers. If sales worked the way you seem to be arguing no game would ever make money on the PC, however a number of them do. That being said 70% of all titles released to retail (thats across all platforms) fail. That isn't due entire to piracy. Some it is, sure, but there are dozens of other factors that come into play as well. Piracy simply being there and something that can't be "solved" entirely, its something that companies need to combat with good games and acceptable DRM schemes (See: Steam).

 

[heatlesssun]

Incorrect. Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Some are, sure, but not all of them. Its bullshit to say otherwise and just goes to show how much you buy into the shit spoon fed to you. Piracy sucks and yes it does hurt the industry, but what the article is saying is that putting the blame solely on piracy is a bad way to deal with it. How often to bad games fail on the PC? Almost 100% of the time. How often to good games fail? Far less often. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some coalition between that. Those piss poor DRM filled console ports released tend to do fairly poorly as well. That isn't due to piracy. Its due to dumbfuck lazy developers and moronic publishers.

Who's to say what is a good game? I love SC Conviction, actually a lot of people do. 90% of the bad press is from people who at least say they didn't buy the game or pirate it, the game is automatically bad because of the DRM and I've read more problems about this game and AC2 than all other games in history combined I believe.

This argument that "better games will sell better" well maybe. They'll cost more to make as well. So let's make better games, that'll cost more, but if we don't use DRM we can save that money to make a better games. Ok, some logic to this. But if the game is better then it will be pirated more as well and I think that's the issue. So does the added cost of make a better game REALLY translate into a better margin?

All I know is that I pretty much done with reviews and opinions on tech like this when it comes to games with "draconinan" DRM. I HAVE to have a good Internet connections to make a living and while that doesn't cover down time for servers that's something I'm willing to live with if it's rare which thus fas with Conviction and AC2 not any problems on either end.

The thing is there's so much ink about the Ubi DRM and I would have NO idea that its even there without all the bitching.

 

[jiminator]

p2p certainly creates publicity for any product, along with a large audience that is eager for more. no doubt lost revenue, but there are gains in other areas. imagine for a moment that microsoft was successful at eliminating all piracy for their products the past 15 years. what would they be running in china? certainly not windows, which costs a months salary of a person that had a good job. more likely it would be a country running linux. but no, they have an established windows base. that means people are familiar with microsoft products and can get more microsoft products. no doubt a lot of these are pirated also, yet I suspect a lot of businesses and regular people are purchasing their software legitimately. so... what did all this piracy cost microsoft? in terms of real sales, probably not much. What does it get them? the future.

 

[Derangel]

Who's to say what is a good game? I love SC Conviction, actually a lot of people do. 90% of the bad press is from people who at least say they didn't buy the game or pirate it, the game is automatically bad because of the DRM and I've read more problems about this game and AC2 than all other games in history combined I believe.

This argument that "better games will sell better" well maybe. They'll cost more to make as well. So let's make better games, that'll cost more, but if we don't use DRM we can save that money to make a better games. Ok, some logic to this. But if the game is better then it will be pirated more as well and I think that's the issue. So does the added cost of make a better game REALLY translate into a better margin?

All I know is that I pretty much done with reviews and opinions on tech like this when it comes to games with "draconinan" DRM. I HAVE to have a good Internet connections to make a living and while that doesn't cover down time for servers that's something I'm willing to live with if it's rare which thus fas with Conviction and AC2 not any problems on either end.

The thing is there's so much ink about the Ubi DRM and I would have NO idea that its even there without all the bitching.

A bad game is defined by the majority. There is always going to be someone that likes a game that others don't and vice-versa. But when the majority dislike a game for valid reasons that says something about the game. That majority opinion is usually fairly well demonstrated by poor sales of a title. When I call something like PoP08 a not good game its due to that being the general opinion of it as well as my own thoughts on the title. As for something like Conviction, I don't consider the DRM complaints as a valid reason to call the game itself bad. I can think of many other things in that game which could be fairly bad, but I haven't played the game so I'm not going to form an opinion until I do. I'm really enjoying AC2 and the main opinion on the game itself has been pretty positive.

 

[KipCoo]

Who cares what the difference is? Seriously, I see this in every piracy thread. Who fucking cares?

To the other guy, he didn't mention anything about piracy being theft because it doesn't matter. People will take things for free, that's just the way it is. Movies, music and games will be downloaded or bought illegally.

The point of the article in terms of PC gaming was that if developers actually actually took the time to make a quality PC experience, instead of trying to make a quick buck maybe the people willing to buy games would do so more often.

There really is no need to differentiate copyright infringement from theft. The only people that care are the ones trying to justify their actions apparently in this thread. Bottom line is this, you are basically taking something that is not yours. What's the difference between a thief that steals a game from the store and the one that downloads it illegally from the internet? Just the means of how he acquires the game. From a moral standpoint it is wrong, and from a legal standpoint it's wrong. That goes for music, movies, etc.

Now making the excuse that the game isn't worthy to buy because it is of bad quality makes no sense...so why download it illegally and play it then?

Technology, the internet, acts as an easy gateway to take media without paying for it, and really is a moral test that many will fail, because people don't see a consequence to their actions. The swifter and likelihood the punishment, the less likely someone will commit the crime. That is one of the reasons why theft in general has a higher percentage rate than bank robbery. When downloading games, movies, music, etc. there really is zero chance they will get caught, so they do it any way. So the people that do this really fall into the opportunistic thief category, and are generally not bad people at all...just people making wrong choices.

The only way I see this problem from seizing, is if broadband companies monitor downloads, but then privacy becomes an issue. More than likely, new legislation will be brought into light, and will allow law enforcement to easily monitor people downloading illegal content. This would allow the government to fine people. Doubt this will happen, but I didn't think mandatory health care would pass either.

 

[WabeWalker]

A bad game is defined by the majority. There is always going to be someone that likes a game that others don't and vice-versa. But when the majority dislike a game for valid reasons that says something about the game. That majority opinion is usually fairly well demonstrated by poor sales of a title. When I call something like PoP08 a not good game its due to that being the general opinion of it as well as my own thoughts on the title. As for something like Conviction, I don't consider the DRM complaints as a valid reason to call the game itself bad. I can think of many other things in that game which could be fairly bad, but I haven't played the game so I'm not going to form an opinion until I do. I'm really enjoying AC2 and the main opinion on the game itself has been pretty positive.

So was Titan Quest a bad game? - the vast majority of people voted with their wallets by not opening their wallets.

Iron Lore went out of business because 'the majority' decided that Titan Quest wasn't worthy of their money.

I thought that Titan Quest was a great game.

 

[Derangel]

So was Titan Quest a bad game? - the vast majority of people voted with their wallets by not opening their wallets.

Iron Lore went out of business because 'the majority' decided that Titan Quest wasn't worthy of their money.

I thought that Titan Quest was a great game.

So did I, but as I said somewhere else in this thread 70% of games released to retail fail. Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil were also amazing games that failed pretty badly. The difference with Titan Quest is despite poor sales reception from people that bought it was mostly good (at least after a patch or two). Though a lot of people were turned off by just how much like Diablo II it was. For a long time I heard bad things about the game. I'm not saying every good game will succeed (at least I'm not trying to say that), but they have a much better chance of doing so then a bad game or one that turns players away. I'd love to know how well AC2 sold compared to the first game. Or how Conviction is doing compared to previous Splinter Cell titles.

 

[shansoft]

So was Titan Quest a bad game? - the vast majority of people voted with their wallets by not opening their wallets.

Iron Lore went out of business because 'the majority' decided that Titan Quest wasn't worthy of their money.

I thought that Titan Quest was a great game.

Titan Quest does have a pretty good sales ..
from developer of TQ
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=707489&postcount=39

but the cheating kill the MP.

also, months ago on steam have a massive sales on it, for myself I bought 3 copy of it

 

[Derangel]

Titan Quest does have a pretty good sales ..
from developer of TQ
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=707489&postcount=39

but the cheating kill the MP.

also, months ago on steam have a massive sales on it, for myself I bought 3 copy of it

That was a pretty interesting post, but that guy seems to work for THQ and not Iron Lore. Its pretty well known that TQ didn't do well enough to keep them alive. A lot (I'd venture to say most) small studios like IL live from project to project so if one project doesn't make enough to support the next they're doomed. All the money from the game now goes to the publishers.

 

[ikarinokami]

I love it when people attempt to tell me my job. Piracy is theft, the reason why generally they are sued by civil versus vs. criminaly, is that same reason O.J lost wrongful death but won homicide.

Piracy does meet the modern definition of piracy. a digital copy that is made open to public or used without the requisite permission is theft because you deprive the owner of the right to choose who can use the software without permission. The reason for it generally not being prosecuted is

1. most piracy is of federal juridisction, and most states have way more local crime than the federal government so they are not going to waste resources on it, not to mention the difficulty in getting in all parties in the jurisdiction for the trial. although the mpaa is very good about this, and you can usally get a P&A person to sign a corrob or show up at trial.

2. contrary to popular belief the federal law enforcement is tiny, however thier advantage is that they get to pick and choose the crimes they want to focus on, and they can move between states.

3. both supreme court and all state high courts i am aware have ruled that larceny will include intangiible property and property rights, but have also ruled that it's underpinnings at common law remain, so the need to prove intent is still required which is high burden.

4. because of this it much easier to write a copyright infringment statue. however I always charge copyright infrigment and petit larceny on the set of facts, and i have yet heard of single case where, the complaint was dismissed for being facially insufficient.

 

[doh]

And all those in lower socioeconomic classes in China, Russia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe where software is priced beyond the average wage or is simply not available....they would be paying for it right? Yes, all those people are lost sales

The inability to afford a luxury item like a video game is not any valid justification for theft. If they can't afford the game but steal it anyways then it is a lost sale because it's possible the person would have otherwise saved up their money to actually buy it. But given the alternative (e.g., stealing) the other option is not taken, thus a lost sale.

 

[phide]

...the game is automatically bad because of the DRM

That about sums it up, yeah.

This argument that "better games will sell better" well maybe. They'll cost more to make as well.

I don't quite agree with your logic here.

So let's make better games, that'll cost more

Not necessarily, no. The equation certainly isn't that simple.

The thing is there's so much ink about the Ubi DRM and I would have NO idea that its even there without all the bitching.

What you call "bitching" I call "necessarily creating awareness".

 

[phide]

I love it when people attempt to tell me my job. Piracy is theft, the reason why generally they are sued by civil versus vs. criminaly

I don't mean to tell you your "job", but I would hope that a practicing law professional, as you're apparently claiming to be, would be able to correctly spell "criminally". Just sayin'.

a digital copy that is made open to public or used without the requisite permission is theft...

Incorrect. It is copyright infringement. Why this must be restated so frequently is beyond my capacity to comprehend.

both supreme court and all state high courts i am aware have ruled that larceny will include intangiible property and property rights

Again, this has nothing to do with software piracy or copyright infringement. These relate to intellectual property theft, of which piracy is only loosely related. An individual downloading games for personal use is not even remotely similar to what encompassed by IP theft.

because of this it much easier to write a copyright infringment statue.

Statute. It's not a sculpture of copyright infringement's likeness.

 

[bigdogchris]

I disagree with those who keep bringing up Ubisofts 'DRM free' game example.

First off, there are going to be some people who pirate things no matter what, so please move on from that. The game could be released for $1.99 and some would steal it rather than pay for it. That has always been the case. There has always been piracy in some form or the other, even in the 80's. Piracy itself will never, ever go away.

Your argument that all of a sudden people would not share the game just because it's DRM free is saying that "drm free" was the selling point of the game. If the game still sucks, nobody is going to buy it.

Recent games like Dragon Age feature a simple disc check (simplest form of DRM available) and overall was a very good game by both users and critics (though it's not for everyone) and it sold very well.

Just being DRM free is not going to sell copies of a game. I'm sure there are some who would buy games just as a statement that they support DRM free games but overall, it's not a selling point. Just being a good game isn't going to help sell games either because of all of the bad press surrounded them if they have a lot of DRM (Assassins Creed II).

Good games on the PC that have simple DRM that is non-obtrusive (activation limits/or 365 online are obtrusive) and that are good games, still sell well on the PC.

 

[doh]

Incorrect. Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Some are, sure, but not all of them. Its bullshit to say otherwise and just goes to show how much you buy into the shit spoon fed to you. Piracy sucks and yes it does hurt the industry, but what the article is saying is that putting the blame solely on piracy is a bad way to deal with it. How often to bad games fail on the PC? Almost 100% of the time. How often to good games fail? Far less often. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some coalition between that. Those piss poor DRM filled console ports released tend to do fairly poorly as well. That isn't due to piracy. Its due to dumbfuck lazy developers and moronic publishers.

Don't delude yourself. The issue of a game's quality is a separate issue to the issue of piracy and theft. A poor quality game will not sell well but it will sell fewer copies when people don't pay for the copies they're using. Every pirated copy hurts sales figures because that is one more person playing the game that didn't otherwise pay for it before playing.

The premise goes something like this: To play our game you must pay for it ahead of time. It isn't a wild leap to get to the conclusion that people who are playing the game but didn't pay for it ahead of time have resulted in a lost sale.