106 réponses à ce sujet

[giveamanafish...]

Sooooo give them a FTP version of DA:I but put the "named" weapons/armor etc into micro-transactions?  you do know they would then just d/l the game free an then pirate the "micro-transaction bit an on top of that it would punish the legit player even more with more n more cash shops opening up.

 

Its simple, companies should offer a demo of there game, companies shouldn't hide content on disk for dlc, companies should make better games, companies shouldn't make 6-7 hour sp games an charge £40 - £50, companies should stop being greedy bankers an make something ppl know without fail is worth the money

 

You will always have pirates, companies will never beat them, the question is how many legit users there going to alienate before they relize that

 

 

Yes i did mean bankers, simply because there the top of the greed chain, exactly where game developers are wanting

lend me a million dollars no interest. I will pay you when I can. (Seriously, pm me)

 

You shouldn't ask how to combat, but why combat at all?

Anti-piracy measures made sense when most games were sold as physical goods, because the company has a limited stock of physical copies, and the production cost on a large scale is substantial.

Today, everything is distributed digitally. A digital good is reproducible at almost zero cost and you have an infinite stock (make a random file. Copy-paste it. It doesn't cost a dime, and you can easily multiply it). So in fact, there is no loss for the company when someone pirate their game (they still have an infinite stock). Moreover, there is no way to tell whether the person who pirated your game would buy it if piracy was not existent. The ratio is not 1:1 - there is no such thing as 'you either pirate or buy'. No.

Now the real question is, why combat it at all. Those who want to pirate it, will do so. Those who want to buy it, will do so. Unfortunately, the vein attempts of combating piracy end up hurting the honest customer, jeopardizing the trust of customers. Which is far worse than piracy.

 

Peace.

Free-riders do effect the paying consumer. Theft reduces total revenue for the company producing the product possibly causing bankruptcy or reducing the potential future development funds the company can use to improve the existing game or to develop ofher games, perhaps better ones.  Do people understand that the bulk of revenues for any business covers costs and does not go to profit and never mind that profit itself is simply a return on investment.

 

It's one thing to argue that a game does not produce value for money in your eyes.  Economies run on the exchange of mutual obligations. Don't buy it. Theft is theft, don't try to put some revolutionary spin on it.

[otis0310]

I can't beleive that such an ill conceived concept has so many responses.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Theft reduces total revenue for the company producing the product

 

Except that... it doesn't. They're also gaining free public exposure and free marketing.

 

"... those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't" - I see no reason why purchasing habits of music should differ greatly from games. It's entertainment, coming from the same portion of disposable income.

 

Also, this source - "...they buy roughly 30% more digital music. They also display marginally higher willingness to pay"

 

I could go on at length, but repeated studies show the same thing - the economic cost of piracy is negligible or slightly beneficial. Compared with the negative impact of releasing a buggy, half-finished game - piracy is small potatoes indeed.

 

You're just parroting the spiel of the RIAA. Follow the evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusions that you're claiming.

[MehBleh]

I hope this doesn't get me into trouble, but I crack every game I purchase unless I really want to do multiplayer, I haven't cracked DAI yet but I have no interest in the multiplayer aspect of the game so will likely end up cracking DAI as well at some point.  DRM penalise people who buy the game, it chokes the performance of your game, I hate it, it does NOTHING to stop piracy, anyone who wants to pirate something will, do not penalise the people who support those who create games.

 

The biggest misconception with pirating is that it costs the studios a lot in lost revenue.  This isn't the case, there is a huge difference between potential sales lost to pirating and recoverable sales.  If it was impossible to pirate, like with MMOs typically, it wouldn't result in more sales, those who pirate tend to not have the disposable income to afford games or whatever content they pirate, all you do by stamping out pirating is deny content to those who typically can't afford it.

 

The pirating of music has declined rapidly since itunes and other digital music sites, but it hasn't stopped music sales tanking, the lack of public awareness via sharing has cost the music industry far more than what it has gained from the significant reduction in piracy.  They have to rely a lot more on advertising and promotion and that is significantly more expensive than kids getting hold of music.  With the decline of radio as well it is a far harder market to break into for new artists.  Sending college kids to jail has done the music industry no favours.

 

What you lose is significant word of mouth promotion and the market of people who pirate, like the product and then purchase it to support the artist.  When i was a poor student I pirated like there was no tomorrow, now that I work I buy everything, and have purchased everything I pirated in the past when I was poor that lasted longer than 5 minutes.  I think people genuinely want to give money to software developers who make games they love, some just can't afford it at particular phases in their life.  Do we really want to deny entertainment to those who can't afford it?  Is this what we are about?

 

I have purchased DAO three times now, the first one was on disk, I lost it and bought it again and have purchased the ultimate edition a third time on steam so I would never have to worry about physical copies again.  I originally pirated DAO because I was a poor student at the time.  Perhaps that makes me a bad person, if I never got to see DAO when I did then Bioware wouldn't have got any of my DAO purchases, the expansion and the dlc, nor DA2 and the dlc, nor DAI.

 

Try not to think of everyone as just a $$$, there are real people behind the figures.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

I hope this doesn't get me into trouble, but I crack every game I purchase unless I really want to do multiplayer,.

 

That's your right - at least if you're in the UK.

[AWTEW]

Honestly, the game publishers and a lot of companies have made it much much worse. There is so much deceptive advertising, half finished buggy games released, that people have very little faith in they are getting there monies worth, (so they pirate). If you buy a pysically damaged, or broken product, than you are entitled to a refund. So is it really that surprising that people feel justified in pirating these days?

I used to be complelty against piracy, back in the day whe. dlc did not exist, games were tested properly, and i got my monies worth, but now :/ not really.

[giveamanafish...]

Except that... it doesn't. They're also gaining free public exposure and free marketing.

 

"... those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't" - I see no reason why purchasing habits of music should differ greatly from games. It's entertainment, coming from the same portion of disposable income.

 

Also, this source - "...they buy roughly 30% more digital music. They also display marginally higher willingness to pay"

 

I could go on at length, but repeated studies show the same thing - the economic cost of piracy is negligible or slightly beneficial. Compared with the negative impact of releasing a buggy, half-finished game - piracy is small potatoes indeed.

 

You're just parroting the spiel of the RIAA. Follow the evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusions that you're claiming.

Nothing you said or referred to invalidates the point that piracy is a loss to the company that produces a game and I am at a loss as to why you would even think the opposite.

 

!) Music like  a game is produced by individuals and individually they depend on sales of the music or game they produce for their income; the proceeds do not go into some giant pool from which each musican or game maker draws from. None of the studies state that people who illegally download music than turn around and buy music from the same band and that the initial losses to the producer of that music are  offset by future purchases of other music. Someone always loses.

 

(By the way, based on my experience, some music piracy is because of the way companies like Itunes set up their music libraries, they limit their libraries to what is popular in a region, and may exclude more esoteric albums to where there are maximum sales. Some UK published pieces are impossible to get legally in Canada. This situation only applies to games where there has been censorship -- India for DAI apparently)

 

2) There is a qualitative difference between music and games. Nature of product and how it's used. Price. Most albums are under $20, most songs can be downloaded legally for less than $2.00. A triple A game can cost about $60 to $100. .People may illegally download a song as a sample to see if they want to buy the whole album, thinking perhaps "it's not really stealing if I end up buying the whole album and it's only $2 loss of gross to the publisher if I decide not to anyway". You steal a game you steal the whole game. The attitude involved is different you are no longer a potential consumer, you are someone who likes to get free things. The thief is less likely to later pay for the thing especially given the larger outlay involved. (With DAI people had a chance to try a few hours of gameplay for free. So no excuse there.)

 

 

it's true that game publishers tend to release early and seem to use the public as secondary bug testers. From a consumer's point of view the solution is easy -- don't buy the game early or even wait until it's discounted -- if you want to be honest. 

[Kantr]

Glad that its been cracked, after some patches have been released, I look forward to getting rid of it from my LEGALLY PURCHASED game.

Good luck getting rid of origin or steamworks.

 

Denuvo descriptions (even though it encrypts the exe) is to protect origins and steamworks.

 

Honestly I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. EA is never going to release any game DRM free. Origin as it stands is as good a DRM solution as you can get (good as in not too obtrusive) better even than steam seeing as it doesn't forget that you have an account after a few months...

 

Maybe there are studies saying book piracy is not harmful, I wasnt saying that DRM is good just that piracy is not good.

[Kantr]

-snip- With DAI people had a chance to try a few hours of gameplay for free. So no excuse there.)

 

 

Eh not free, they had to sign up to this thingy where you pay X a month for free games.

[Teredan]

What a load of bullshit the true way to combat piracy is having a better service.

It won't make it disappear because people that just want to pirate will pirate but seriously some companies go through so much bullshit punishing their honest customers in the end while the pirates get the superior product.

[Kantr]

What a load of bullshit the true way to combat piracy is having a better service.

It won't make it disappear because people that just want to pirate will pirate but seriously some companies go through so much bullshit punishing their honest customers in the end while the pirates get the superior product.

Would you not agree steam is a good service and Origin? Ubisoft and securom is not the way to go

[giveamanafish...]

Eh not free, they had to sign up to this thingy where you pay X a month for free games.

Sample at a much reduced outlay. Doesn't really contradict the point anyone could get a good idea of whether they liked the game or not without resorting to thievery. Anyways complete playthroughs of those sample plays were all over Youtube, eh for free.

[Teredan]

Would you not agree steam is a good service and Origin? Ubisoft and securom is not the way to go

Steam is a good service but DA:I isn't on steam it's Origin exclusive which still ****** sucks.

 

I had to delete a stupid obnoxious sound file because the service doesn't have a disable achievement notification.

It has automatic cloud saves and then it just tells me my cloud saves are already used up...

etc etc... It's all the little things + the forced origins bullshit.

I avoid buying anything there if possible whereas I have no problems with gog, humblebundle and steam as services.

 

Really as dumb as it sounds good service is going out of your way to no annoy the customer and have them do as little as possible.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

!) None of the studies state that people who illegally download music than turn around and buy music from the same band and that the initial losses to the producer of that music are  offset by future purchases of other music. Someone always loses.

 

Actually, that's exactly what the study says. It's right in the article - didn't you read before hammering your drivel into the keyboard? That's what study after study shows.

 

(By the way, based on my experience, some music piracy is because of the way companies like Itunes set up their music libraries, they limit their libraries to what is popular in a region, and may exclude more esoteric albums to where there are maximum sales. Some UK published pieces are impossible to get legally in Canada. This situation only applies to games where there has been censorship -- India for DAI apparently)

 

I'm not sure what that gibberish is. It's completely irrelevant. and you seem to be reversing your position that it's justified. Someone always loses, but if it's inconvenient - then it's OK? That's what you seem to be stating.

 

 

2) There is a qualitative difference between music and games. Nature of product and how it's used.

 

First off, it's entertainment budget. It all comes out of the same chunk of disposable income. Your argument that it's different is absurd. It's like saying a study of people's eating of peas doesn't apply to carrots because the price of peas and carrots are different and they're used differently.

 

Food is food. Entertainment is entertainment. Music sales suffer every time there's a blockbuster in the theatres. Why? Because it's the SAME budget that people assign for entertainment. Once again, your drivel flies in the face of facts.

 

The rest of your post is just so much mental drool, and I think I can safely dismiss it on irrelevance or incomprehensibility.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

I wasnt saying that DRM is good just that piracy is not good.

 

So if you're not saying that DRM is good - then.. it's bad? So by your statement, both piracy AND DRM are bad?

 

What's your point?

[Kantr]

So if you're not saying that DRM is good - then.. it's bad? So by your statement, both piracy AND DRM are bad?

 

What's your point?

That DRM and Piracy is bad?

 

That piracy is not the way to go and the reasons people give are excuses meant to salve their conscience .

[giveamanafish...]

Actually, that's exactly what the study says. It's right in the article - didn't you read before hammering your drivel into the keyboard? That's what study after study shows.

 

 

I'm not sure what that gibberish is. It's completely irrelevant. and you seem to be reversing your position that it's justified. Someone always loses, but if it's inconvenient - then it's OK? That's what you seem to be stating.

 

 

 

First off, it's entertainment budget. It all comes out of the same chunk of disposable income. Your argument that it's different is absurd. It's like saying a study of people's eating of peas doesn't apply to carrots because the price of peas and carrots are different and they're used differently.

 

Food is food. Entertainment is entertainment. Music sales suffer every time there's a blockbuster in the theatres. Why? Because it's the SAME budget that people assign for entertainment. Once again, your drivel flies in the face of facts.

 

The rest of your post is just so much mental drool, and I think I can safely dismiss it on irrelevance or incomprehensibility.

NO. Or I'll come back when you master the skill of reading a full paragraph without getting your panties in a knot. Bye.

[Realmzmaster]

Piracy (IMHO) is theft. The fact that games are in digital format does not change the fact that it is theft. Let us for a moment say that it is not theft. It is still illegal and therefore comes with criminal or civil penalties if the person is caught.

 

Why do companies use anti-piracy protection, simple the same reason people use locks on their doors to slow down or frustrate the thief. It will not stop the thief but if the company can slow down the process of cracking the protection for three weeks to four weeks the company has a better chance of recouping its cost and making a profit. Some people waiting for the crack may decide that a three to four week wait is too long and buy the software.

 

The game industry is a business like any other business with a right to protect its product.  If the company cannot cover its costs (which includes paying all those people who bring the software to the public) and make a profit that company is headed for insolvency. 

 

A lost sale does have an effect on the company and the people employed along the distribution chain whether it digital or physical. If the company gets more in profit that may cause it to give its employees raises or employ more people.

 

Saying a lost sale has no effect is misleading at best. A percentage of pirated copies do represent lost sales, but some of those reliant people do not have to shell out their money to buy the product when they otherwise may have.

 

Most people do not have the capabilities to crack software protection. Those people rely on the few that do have that knowledge. If those few are delayed in cracking the protection then those people dependent on them will buy the product or have to

wait longer. 

 

Most companies do a cost/benefit analysis. Will the extra sales derived be enough to offset the aggravation that may be caused.

 

If even a tenth of those reliant people buy the game that is more sales and profit for the company.

 

Also many people who get a free copy never ever purchase a legitimate copy. Piracy still happens on a large scale even when there is a demo. For example Basilisk games (a small indie publisher)  produces the Eschalon series. The company always provides a demo of its games. The amount of piracy of the games is astonishing.

 

If people can get it for free they will which speaks far more to the moral compass of the person.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

NO. Or I'll come back when you master the skill of reading a full paragraph without getting your panties in a knot. Bye.

 

So says the troll that asserts things which the study he refers to specifically refutes.

 

Brilliant.

 

Bye. Your non-contributions won't be missed.

[Kantr]

Maybe they should strip the DRM and put in features that make the game unplayable (like batman arkham asylum) if the game is not legitimate.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Saying a lost sale has no effect is misleading at best. A percentage of pirated copies do represent lost sales, but some of those reliant people do not have to shell out their money to buy the product when they otherwise may have.

 

The statement makes no grammatical sense. Who are the "reliant people" and why don't they have to pay?

 

But I think your argument is against the assertion that "pirated copy == lost sale". But in this, you're flying in the face of repeated studies. People that pirate also buy more. They download a lot to sample what's out there, and spend more (than those who don't pirate) on purchases - buying what they like and ignoring the rest. So that offsets the "freeloaders" who just pirate and don't buy.

 

And it's absurd to suggest that every pirated copy out there is a loss. If some uni student has 100 games on his computer - are you seriously going to suggest he could have possibly found $60-100k to pay for them all?

 

Loss v gains from piracy seem to balance out - or that's what studies say. If you disagree with the studies, then do your own. But continuing to argue the point without any facts to support your position is just absurdity.

[Ezkiel]

Another one of those topics and regarding that DMR it already did its effect as it boosted sales at launch while hype magic was sky high what happens now isn't that much important anyway.

Also looking at every downloaded 'pirated' copy as stolen game is stupid imo as i know my self that half of those people would not buy game either way and if you can't get it that way then you probably would not play it at all.

I did download fair number of those as everyone else did, but i did buy fair number of those as well, some while they ware on sales and others at full price but if it really was impossible to pirate stuff it wouldn't make me spend more money it would just make me play less.

And DMR is not about stoping piracy its about control of the product so the end user can not lend or give it to anyone or modify it in anyway. So they can continue milking money out of it in years to come with 9.99$ DLC that barely add any content and similar crap.
 

[Realmzmaster]

The statement makes no grammatical sense. Who are the "reliant people" and why don't they have to pay?

 

But I think your argument is against the assertion that "pirated copy == lost sale". But in this, you're flying in the face of repeated studies. People that pirate also buy more. They download a lot to sample what's out there, and spend more (than those who don't pirate) on purchases - buying what they like and ignoring the rest. So that offsets the "freeloaders" who just pirate and don't buy.

 

And it's absurd to suggest that every pirated copy out there is a loss. If some uni student has 100 games on his computer - are you seriously going to suggest he could have possibly found $60-100k to pay for them all?

 

Loss v gains from piracy seem to balance out - or that's what studies say. If you disagree with the studies, then do your own. But continuing to argue the point without any facts to support your position is just absurdity.

 

Interesting that you seem to have a problem reading my post. The part you quote specifically states that a percentage of pirated copies represent lost sales. If the uni student has that many games on his/her system then he/she is nothing more than a thief if he/she did not pay for them. 

 

Also I do not need the studies. I worked in the software field for more than 30 years. I can tell you from first hand accounts the effects of piracy on employees and their families when a company cannot cover its development costs. The outcome is not pretty.

 

I have several friends whose work was pirated. Never made enough money and had to leave the field.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Interesting that you seem to have a problem reading my post. The part you quote specifically states that a percentage of pirated copies represent lost sales. If the uni student has that many games on his/her system then he/she is nothing more than a thief if he/she did not pay for them. 

 

First off, you need to go and figure out what the definition of "theft" is, as opposed to "copyright infringement". They're not the same, and your ignorance shines through in confusing the two.

 

Second, your logic still doesn't add up. The hypothetical uni student doesn't have the means or resources to buy so many games - and yet you're still insisting that everything on his HDD should add up to "lost sales" - which it would have to be if it indeed meets the definition of "theft".

 

Finally, I suggest you read a book on accounting. Every accountant knows there's a debit and credit column. If lost sales is in the debit column, then what's the sum of that same uni student who is pleased with the game and encourages his friends to play and buy it. What is the effect of his effusive reviews on his Facebook page? Turns and roundabouts, it evens out.

 

But since you question the "moral compass" of pirates - what about the moral compass of corporate employees who release buggy, unfinished, unplayable games that fail to meet "fit for purpose"? Then let's add up the economic gains by both sides.Let's go there. Let's have a full and open discussion on which is more wrong - to download a game and not pay, or to bilk consumers out of their hard earned money with lies and deception woven by the marketing department. Yes indeed, let's go there.

 

As to your friends who blame piracy on their lack of financial reward for their work, perhaps it had more to do with the fact that their work was garbage, and less due to piracy?

 

I'm sure John Romero makes the same claim as your friends. But that doesn't make Daikatana suck any less.

 

 

Also I do not need the studies. I worked in the software field for more than 30 years.

 

Aah, anecdotal evidence. My grandfather had plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a cup of whisky was the cure to many a common ailment. Now why should I listen to you, but not him? Sorry mate, but I'll put more trust in studies than your anecdotal claims.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

[Pasquale1234]

Actually, that's exactly what the study says. It's right in the article - didn't you read before hammering your drivel into the keyboard? That's what study after study shows.

I don't think the study means what you claim it means.

To me, it just means that those who consume digital music buy some and pirate some.

It does not mean that piracy ultimately leads to more sales - which is, I think, what you and whoever wrote that misleading title want it to mean.
 

First off, it's entertainment budget. It all comes out of the same chunk of disposable income. Your argument that it's different is absurd. It's like saying a study of people's eating of peas doesn't apply to carrots because the price of peas and carrots are different and they're used differently.

Food is food. Entertainment is entertainment. Music sales suffer every time there's a blockbuster in the theatres. Why? Because it's the SAME budget that people assign for entertainment. Once again, your drivel flies in the face of facts.

That, too, is a pretty radical interpretation of the text.