Mass Effect 3 Leaked Online

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,930
Some like to test drive the car before purchasing it.

That's fine. That's what demos are for. I actually went to a Chevy dealership of all things to test drive a used C6 Corvette on the lot with about 29,000 miles or so on it and the list price was about $31,000. The bastards actually had the audacity to tell me that they had to check my credit reports and bank account before letting me test drive this vehicle. I wasn't dressed badly, or arrived in some piece of shit vehicle or anything.

So because they wouldn't let me test drive the car, so I told them to "get bent" and went to another dealership. Downloading a game with no demo and without paying would have been like me taking the keys from the salesman by force and driving the car anyway. That's grand theft auto and it is a crime. Should they have let me test drive it? If they actually wanted to make a sale, absolutely. Was I entitled to anything after the treatment I received? No. I can get what I want somewhere else.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,683
Problem with me is, you can't return a PC game. Once that seal is broken or that key is entered, your screwed if the game sucks. I do read reviews but there are some gems out there that I actually enjoy regardless of bad reviews but I would never have discovered them if I didn't try it out first. I remember when STALKER was released, noone heard of the game and it was an obscure russian title. I was like "wtf is stalker?" till I got a copy of the leaked beta build and fell in love yet it was hard to even get a copy of the game. Took about a month after it was released before I could get it.

There are exceptions to it where some games are guranteed to be good but for those odd ones, they need to be discovered.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
This isn't news. Every single Xbox 360 game is leaked the thursday or friday before release date.

Yeah, I'm guessing due to people getting a hold of copies going out to retailers around this time, which retailers hold in the back until release date.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
That's fine. That's what demos are for. I actually went to a Chevy dealership of all things to test drive a used C6 Corvette on the lot with about 29,000 miles or so on it and the list price was about $31,000. The bastards actually had the audacity to tell me that they had to check my credit reports and bank account before letting me test drive this vehicle. I wasn't dressed badly, or arrived in some piece of shit vehicle or anything.

So because they wouldn't let me test drive the car, so I told them to "get bent" and went to another dealership. Downloading a game with no demo and without paying would have been like me taking the keys from the salesman by force and driving the car anyway. That's grand theft auto and it is a crime. Should they have let me test drive it? If they actually wanted to make a sale, absolutely. Was I entitled to anything after the treatment I received? No. I can get what I want somewhere else.

Not sure why people keep using the tangible item situation to compare against software and copyright infringement. It's really not applicable.

Plus, many games don't have demos, or they have shitty beta demos which "do not accurately represent the quality of the final product" (as they say right on the intro screen).
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,758
Just what exactly have you done with your life or what makes you so deserving of the "right" to try before you buy a game? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

The sense of entitlement to try and game before I buy it has come from 20+ years of software demos. The system used to be a group would make the best game they could, release a demo, everyone would get to try out this new and revolutionary game and there would be much rejoicing as people would buy it.

The new system is not like this at all. The new system is to make the most mediocre game possible, for the least amount of money possible. No demo is released, because in these cases a demo would expose the game for the piece of shit it actually is. They use the rest of their budget on "marketing." Marketing is code word for paying magazines and websites to give, at least, somewhat favorable reviews to sell as many copies to unsuspecting gamers.
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
Not sure why there's a discussion about demos in here, ME3 did have a demo, it showed that ME3 is like ME2 just with cheesier dialogs. At least in the ME3 case the demo is a non-issue.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,475
That economic argument is bullshit. In a capitalist economic model, the person providing the good sets the price based on what they believe the market can handle. If they sell at $49.99, then the developer can choose to charge more, or less based on sales figures. They typically won't increase the price for the simple fact that it's going to generate bad press and piss people off, but they can also choose to drop the price of the game to sell more copies by volume and discourage people to wait for used copies or wait for further price drops.

In other words, as long as these companies make a decent profit and people keep buying games at $49.99, or higher then that's what game companies will continue to charge. Distribution models and physical vs. digital have nothing to do with it. These only effect profit margins on their end. Where people go wrong is that they assume that it's wrong or immoral for a company to charge $49.99 for a physical copy and $49.99 for a digital copy as the latter should be cheaper to "produce and distribute." So because the margin is higher on one version they are some how assholes for charging the same amount. They can charge what they want for whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It is that simple.

And most people don't know anything about game development costs. Development costs are huge these days. You've got all the equipment, salaries, software, building / facilities, distribution, packaging, bandwidth for digital distribution, licensing fees for any technology used to make the game, etc. Rarely are exact figures disclosed. So while it doesn't cost them hardly anything to sell you a digital copy of the game, they still need to recoup development costs and factor in a margin for profit to make the development of the game worth the effort on their part. And here is the real problem. What is classified as a "reasonable" profit margin is all based on who you talk to. Retail stores say 35%. Distributors may say 50%. It varies by industry. Many consumer electronics like TV's, receivers, and speakers may have upwards of 40% markup. Furniture is among the worst offenders with a margin of up to 60% from retail to you.

So because people don't agree with the markup and believe the profit margin to be excessive, they think they are morally justified in theft. Everyone's bar for what is fair is different. The fact is if you don't like it you should vote with your wallet. And not opting to buy something means you don't get to have it. You are not entitled to anything. This is what people need to understand. If you can't afford a $50 game then either you need to wait until it's cheaper or you need to find a way to manage your finances better or generate more income. I dare say if you can't afford $50-60 for a game (which is what the fuck they've been priced at for at least a decade) then you've got bigger problems and you need to get your priorities in order.

Your argument has little relevance other then to say 'piracy has not abnormally affected the marketplace', and I completely agree, with the economics, and the conclusion.

So, that being agreed, my idea, even ideal, is to find other ways to address the piracy problem, and companies are doing it.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
Not sure why there's a discussion about demos in here, ME3 did have a demo, it showed that ME3 is like ME2 just with cheesier dialogs. At least in the ME3 case the demo is a non-issue.

True, I think it just became a piracy discussion in general, though (as all of these threads are ought to do eventually :p).
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,758
Not sure why there's a discussion about demos in here, ME3 did have a demo, it showed that ME3 is like ME2 just with cheesier dialogs. At least in the ME3 case the demo is a non-issue.

I agree. And I am buying ME3 because I really enjoyed the demo. Just chiming on on the demo talk, is all.
 

vortican

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
146
Not sure why people keep using the tangible item situation to compare against software and copyright infringement. It's really not applicable.

What do you mean it's not applicable? Copyright infringement is akin to counterfeiting. I don't see any moral justification for either, which is precisely the point. Just because I may want to try something before I buy it doesn't give me the right to make a copy of it and use it any more than it gives me the right to drive a car around for a year before I decide to purchase it. It's not different just because it's a non-physical item.
 

vortican

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
146
So, lets focus on creating healthy content distribution, that minimizes and marginalizes the pirate.

It seems to me that is precisely what the industry is attempting to do through DRM. I don't see why that effort can't be supported by a recognition of the basic moral issues involved. I truly believe that many who steal software believe there's no moral issue at all (much less that they may be on the wrong side of it), which is a basic defect of the thought process at work in a digital vs. physical debate.

A healthy society does not accept crimes that deprive people of their property. That's precisely what our government is tasked to prevent.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,758
Just because I may want to try something before I buy it doesn't give me the right to make a copy of it and use it any more than it gives me the right to drive a car around for a year before I decide to purchase it. It's not different just because it's a non-physical item.

Sure it does. If you steal a car from someone, that person has lost tangible value. The company that made the car is not affected. Heck, maybe it will benefit them as that person has to buy another car now.

If you pirate a piece of digital software, the company may or may not be affected. Would the person that pirated the software have bought the software if they had not pirated it for free? If the answer is yes, then the company has lost an actual sale. If the answer is no, well, the company has not lost anything. And how do you factor in people that bought a game because of they pirated it to access, say, online only content?

Although a lot of people consider it a moral hard line, it's a pretty complex subject.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
Sure it does. If you steal a car from someone, that person has lost tangible value. The company that made the car is not affected. Heck, maybe it will benefit them as that person has to buy another car now.

If you pirate a piece of digital software, the company may or may not be affected. Would the person that pirated the software have bought the software if they had not pirated it for free? If the answer is yes, then the company has lost an actual sale. If the answer is no, well, the company has not lost anything. And how do you factor in people that bought a game because of they pirated it to access, say, online only content?

Although a lot of people consider it a moral hard line, it's a pretty complex subject.

Exactly. Apparently it needs to be repeated over and over to beat it into peoples' thick skulls, but copyright infringement is not theft. It's not called theft because it's not theft.

Morality is an entirely different issue, but let's at least be clear about the specification.
 

auspexd

Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
806
What I don't get about the piracy debate is that it seems to be equally defined by people with means screaming but, but, but, it's morally wrong... omg it's stealing and you wouldn't steal a car or compare it to some crime that is equally outlandish or oh poor games industry it works oh so hard slaving over a hot server farm for months to bring diversion to the masses and this is their reward, are you not entertained etc etc vs and people without means screaming I'm justifying my actions because of omg down with capitalism, dlc, game industry politics!!, I want a un-crippled demo or I'm just a spoiled child who wants it and wants it naow justifications.

I think part of the solution to this argument is at once more simple and complex than most people think if they really stopped and looked at it objectively. I wourld start by redefining the debate and asking what it is really about: Morality or economics. Apologies to Weber but it can't be both.

If it is about morality then both sides have already lost because by the time any meaningful social change (read: social morality as opposed to personal morality is normative NOT descriptive) comes about the technology that spawned this problem will have come and gone and come and gone again. If it is about economics then everything is worth what its purchaser will pay: People who have the means to pay and want to play will judge that it is worth the time and money to do so and people who don't have the means to pay but want to play will judge that it is worth the effort and risk to pirate.
 

Spewn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
3,459
So because they wouldn't let me test drive the car, so I told them to "get bent" and went to another dealership. Downloading a game with no demo and without paying would have been like me taking the keys from the salesman by force and driving the car anyway.

Try it next time and compare the results to those of downloading a game from thepiratebay. I think you'll find the outcome to be slightly different.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
and people who don't have the means to pay but want to play will judge that it is worth the effort and risk to pirate.

I agree with the rest of your post as well, and personally I'd say it's way more of a morality issue than economics, especially among the rabid anti-piracy advocates. A lot of the time they just seem like they want to sit on their high horse and look down at all those "filthy pirates".

Anyway, I wanted to address this one part. The thing about piracy is that, for a random end user, there is virtually no effort or risk involved. Which is why it's such a difficult "problem" for game companies to address. When they do things like introduce highly-restrictive DRM, they are only making piracy look more appealing, since in many cases it's actually easier to install and play a pirated game versus one legitimately obtained. Hell, I even hear all the tiem about people looking for cracks to games they legitimately purchased because of the bullshit DRM.

Honestly I think the only thing that is going to reduce piracy (notice I did not say "eliminate", because frankly that will never happen) is reasonable pricing and easy-to-use distribution without restrictive DRM. If you look at Steam sale numbers I think you can see the justification for that argument.
 

wtiger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
1,600
It'll only have a sizable impact on sales if it sucks; because word will get around before it's released and will loose a good amount of day 1 buyers.
 

vortican

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
146
If you pirate a piece of digital software, the company may or may not be affected. Would the person that pirated the software have bought the software if they had not pirated it for free? If the answer is yes, then the company has lost an actual sale. If the answer is no, well, the company has not lost anything. And how do you factor in people that bought a game because of they pirated it to access, say, online only content?

Although a lot of people consider it a moral hard line, it's a pretty complex subject.

It seems only complex to those who attempt to justify it. Intent does not matter. When you pirate a copy of someone else's work, you're making the presumption that YOU own it, and the creator is only entitled to the portion of the price that YOU decide to give them, be it 100% or 0%. Now, there are some companies that produce artistic works and then give them away, or ask you the price you're willing to pay for it. It's the creator's right to demand whatever price they wish, but by what right do you demand they fork it over for free? That's the point that seems to be missed. It's about control of the fruits of your labor, not whether or not the result can be easily replicated.

Companies that produce software make enormous investments in materials, labor, and all other costs that go into producing these works. They did so with an expectation of realizing a profit. Every copy which is produced, regardless of who does it, affects the value of that product. If someone gets it for free, don't you think that there's someone else that asks, "Well, why should I have to pay for it if that guy didn't?"

That's the very essence of the entitlement mentality.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
Again, the economics argument in relation to piracy is dubious at best, simply because it is so much an unknown as to the actual profit impact of piracy that it's really almost unusable as a justification against. And that's not even taking into account sales that only occur because the person pirated the game first and liked it, which is basically directly opposing the negative profit impact (if any).
 

TheBuzzer

HACK THE WORLD!
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
12,861
Well mass effect 3 for pc been cracked by reloaded. The only safest place still is PS3.
 

TheBuzzer

HACK THE WORLD!
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
12,861
Never mind about my last comment. People with TrueBlue dotto can play mass effect 3 on the ps3 now too.
 

auspexd

Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
806
I agree with the rest of your post as well, and personally I'd say it's way more of a morality issue than economics, especially among the rabid anti-piracy advocates. A lot of the time they just seem like they want to sit on their high horse and look down at all those "filthy pirates".

Anyway, I wanted to address this one part. The thing about piracy is that, for a random end user, there is virtually no effort or risk involved. Which is why it's such a difficult "problem" for game companies to address. When they do things like introduce highly-restrictive DRM, they are only making piracy look more appealing, since in many cases it's actually easier to install and play a pirated game versus one legitimately obtained. Hell, I even hear all the tiem about people looking for cracks to games they legitimately purchased because of the bullshit DRM.

Honestly I think the only thing that is going to reduce piracy (notice I did not say "eliminate", because frankly that will never happen) is reasonable pricing and easy-to-use distribution without restrictive DRM. If you look at Steam sale numbers I think you can see the justification for that argument.

I think there is risk and effort involved in downloading not much but some to be sure. Risk of trojans, malware and the like as well as the effort to find the correct "patches". I equate illegally downloading digital goods with speeding: When I, hypothetically speaking, break the legal speed limit, I don't think about the morality of breaking that law. In fact, hypothetically speaking, I hardly ever use morality to determine what I should so in a hypothetical situation; accordingly, I simply weigh the risk of an increase of an accident and the cost of a ticket vs getting to were I need to go at the speed I choose.

I think DRM like Steam is a great example. Steam has awesome sales and it hits the right point on the curve between convenience and security: It is worth what this purchaser will pay.
 

fausto412

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
461
And yet, while I already paid for it, I can't preload.

isn't that just stupid? devs need to figure out you beat the pirates by providing better value and better service. when the game is leaked online devs should just release and let the paying customers get at it.
 

FireBean

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
994
I just got the game now and I'm installing it. Man, EA does some stupid shit. I don't have alot of space left on my SSD so it said that I don't have enough space. I'm like o.0

It's installed to my storage drive, not my SSD...

Ended up having to edit an xml files in appdata/roaming to force it to download to a different location... God I hate Origin.
 

VRMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
434
If it's not a system you can buy into, then don't. It sounds to be like gaming just isn't for you. Or maybe console gaming should be more your style so that you can sell your old games or games you can't stand.

Just what exactly have you done with your life or what makes you so deserving of the "right" to try before you buy a game? Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Buyer beware is a concept that's been around since the history of trade in human culture across every continent and with every civilization past or present that has graced this planet. What gives you this belief that you or anyone else is so damn special that the rules and legality of software purchases do not apply to you?

The sense of entitlement and lack of moral fortitude indicates what a sad state the people of the world are in now. I've less faith in humanity than I did 10 minutes ago. (Which isn't saying much as I already knew society as a whole is in serious trouble.)

Everyone, at least in the USA, is used to consumer rights, that let you return a product you do not like. Call that entitlement if you like, but if I can go to a store and purchase a product, and return it if I don't like it, then why can't I do that with my software?
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?
 

Spewn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
3,459
Everyone, at least in the USA, is used to consumer rights, that let you return a product you do not like. Call that entitlement if you like, but if I can go to a store and purchase a product, and return it if I don't like it, then why can't I do that with my software?
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?

Because day 1 sales and hype.
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?
Two reasons; #1 because then companies would lose a lot of money since they turn out too many crap products and #2 because at least SP games are mostly so short these days that you could but it today, play all night, finish it, and return it tomorrow.

You could also argue that the current DRM scheme doesn't support returns but that's not a real hurdle since the DRM scheme could be adjusted.

Your comment about consumer rights in the U.S. is a bit misguided though. While consumers in the U.S. can sue for a few million because they spilled hot coffee on themselves the level of consumer protection is significantly higher in most European nations.
 

Chihlidog

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,166
Everyone, at least in the USA, is used to consumer rights, that let you return a product you do not like. Call that entitlement if you like, but if I can go to a store and purchase a product, and return it if I don't like it, then why can't I do that with my software?
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?

Best post in the thread. THIS is why developers get away with putting out crap games, and THIS IMO is the biggest reason people pirate.
 

vortican

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
146
Everyone, at least in the USA, is used to consumer rights, that let you return a product you do not like. Call that entitlement if you like, but if I can go to a store and purchase a product, and return it if I don't like it, then why can't I do that with my software?
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?

If you watch a movie and don't enjoy it, do you have the right to demand a refund for the ticket because that movie didn't entertain you? Good luck with that.

If the software didn't function because it was broken, or a bug in it prevented you from using it, you'd have an argument as long as it comported with the terms of your license. You are responsible for making a determination as to the likelihood that it will perform to your expectations on your particular computer and to entertain you in accordance with the price you paid for it.

A lot of the "consumer rights" we have in this country are frankly ridiculous. You have a right to receive a working product but it's never guaranteed to be appropriate for what you intend to use it, and it says so explicitly in the license.

I agree there should be a method for you to recover some value, perhaps in reselling it or transferring the license, but a 100% refund? I can't agree with that.
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
If the software didn't function because it was broken, or a bug in it prevented you from using it, you'd have an argument as long as it comported with the terms of your license. You are responsible for making a determination as to the likelihood that it will perform to your expectations on your particular computer and to entertain you in accordance with the price you paid for it.
The problem is that you agree to a "shrink-wrapped" license. By opening the box and/or installing the software you agree to the license terms. The license terms say that the software is sold as-is with no claim to fitness for a particular purpose or correct functionality.

That's really my beef with software in general. Publishers basically have a license to release stuff that doesn't work right. In business software that doesn't really happen because the long term reputation and profitability of a company is at stake. In entertainment they just close one studio and reopen another one escaping the reputation repercussions that come with releasing crap. All entertainment developers have to do is sell enough copies to make money before the general masses catch on that a product is crap.
 

Chihlidog

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,166
If you watch a movie and don't enjoy it, do you have the right to demand a refund for the ticket because that movie didn't entertain you? Good luck with that.

If the software didn't function because it was broken, or a bug in it prevented you from using it, you'd have an argument as long as it comported with the terms of your license. You are responsible for making a determination as to the likelihood that it will perform to your expectations on your particular computer and to entertain you in accordance with the price you paid for it.

A lot of the "consumer rights" we have in this country are frankly ridiculous. You have a right to receive a working product but it's never guaranteed to be appropriate for what you intend to use it, and it says so explicitly in the license.

I agree there should be a method for you to recover some value, perhaps in reselling it or transferring the license, but a 100% refund? I can't agree with that.

What games ARENT bugged? Precious few.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
If you watch a movie and don't enjoy it, do you have the right to demand a refund for the ticket because that movie didn't entertain you? Good luck with that.

Actually I'm pretty sure if you walk out before the movie is over you can often get a refund. I haven't done so myself but I've heard of it happening.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,116
Also, in regards to the "making a determination as to the likelihood that it will perform to your expectations" comment, let's go back to the car example (though it didn't really apply to the piracy argument). Would you buy a car without test-driving it first? Would you expect a person to just look at the outside of the car and make a "determination as to the likelihood" of it not being a piece of crap?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,930
Everyone, at least in the USA, is used to consumer rights, that let you return a product you do not like. Call that entitlement if you like, but if I can go to a store and purchase a product, and return it if I don't like it, then why can't I do that with my software?
Why am I out $50 because the product I just bought does not entertain me, or provide the functions that I need? I purchased a license to use the software. If I don't like the software, why can I not get a refund on that license?

I get what you are saying to some degree, but software licensing / purchases just don't work that way. Really it comes down to the fact that software is just too easy to copy / steal and that's the reason no one takes it back. Ever.
 
Top