spores anti-piracy attempt, did they get what they deserved?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Well that is true too. But then again, all this protection crap exists for one primary purpose which is to try and stop piracy. I do not think that try to stop you to lend your game to your friend is their primary purpose.
IamGrunt
DRM has two purposes: 1).to prevent hacking and2). to prevent legit copy loaning/borrowing. Both of these are primary. The installation/hardware change limits kind of DRM is for the second purpose; it's easily cracked and no working hacked version of game will be affected by it à it clearly is aiming at legit copy owners.
As of now, dev. and publishers have lost the battle in preventing hackers, and thus at least they can do is to do their best maximizing legit copy profits.
But I just dont consider lending games to friends as stealing or piracy.
IamGrunt
Neither do I, however, apparently there's a group of corporate thinking anti-piracy crusaders does believe in that any kind of sharing is piracy.
I remember when I was in junior high, me and a couple of friends traded games for a few weeks because we did not have the money to get a copy.
IamGrunt
By corporate logic, you were once a thief - every time you trade games and loan your copy of Harry Potter to your friends, you're committing piracy^^"
There will alwys be hackers/pirats out there...
so why do they punish they guy who actually pays for the game?
[QUOTE="dziunglius"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...PC360Wii
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
Then they shouldnt have it unless its made freeware.... end of story. I cant believe this is even used as an excuse.
I'l go steal a 50 inch plasma TV of a back of a lorry because I cant afford one.... >>
agreed, you can't just steal something because you can't afford it. if you can't afford something, you save up for it, or be more realistic about what you want.
for example i would like an aston martin, but i know i can never afford that so i chose the best in my price range - not go out and GTA some dude driving an aston
So you are saying no copy protection will = more sales and less pirates? People pirate games to avoid paying $50.00.DeihmosYeah. Paying attention, it sounds like they're saying no copy protection and make the games cost $10-20 tops, and then they'll sell about as much as a $60 console game would have.
So you are saying no copy protection will = more sales and less pirates? People pirate games to avoid paying $50.00.DeihmosWell, like was touched on above. Less copy protection = less cost = lower retail price = happier retail customers = potentially more retail customers.
[QUOTE="Deihmos"]So you are saying no copy protection will = more sales and less pirates? People pirate games to avoid paying $50.00.guynamedbillyWell, like was touched on above. Less copy protection = less cost = lower retail price = happier retail customers = potentially more retail customers. copy protection's like... not even close to a dollar per game.
It used to be if you don't like a product, you just don't buy it. Now the proper response is to steal it? Makes no sense.
It used to be if you don't like a product, you just don't buy it. Now the proper response is to steal it? Makes no sense.
mysterylobster
To be honest, I think the proper response is to find the person responsible for deciding that the games should have limited activations and hit him until candy comes out. That wouldn't get rid of the protection, but it would make me happy. :twisted:
Kidding! Mostly.
Seriously, I'd like to know who the decision maker on this one was. Whoever it is should be a pariah in the eyes of gamers everywhere. As it is, all you can say is "EA did this" and "EA did that", I'd just like to know a name so I can hate properly. I have a hard time hating something as abstract as a corporation.
[QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="Orrendamente"][QUOTE="dziunglius"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...Orrendamente
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Nothing's free, games shouldn't be any different.
Get a job, make a budget, but, ffs, don't steal.
What about people in considerably poorer countries, in which a single game can cost upward to a months paycheck. Not to mention the fact that in these countries, no one cares whether these people crack a game or not because their is no law in that country about DRM.
Well, people in third world countries generally steal just to get by if they're really poor. I don't think they should be worrying too much about video games.
Yeah... and people in first world countries are generally ignorant idiots who think they know about all the troubles in the world, sitting in their comfortable computer chair typing away on their ergonomic keyboards, making speculations about details of life of people half way across the world that they cannot possibly know about and then go on to apply these pure speculations to the general public of their choosing.
M i rite or m i rite??
[QUOTE="Orrendamente"][QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="Orrendamente"][QUOTE="dziunglius"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...MasterYevon
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Nothing's free, games shouldn't be any different.
Get a job, make a budget, but, ffs, don't steal.
What about people in considerably poorer countries, in which a single game can cost upward to a months paycheck. Not to mention the fact that in these countries, no one cares whether these people crack a game or not because their is no law in that country about DRM.
Well, people in third world countries generally steal just to get by if they're really poor. I don't think they should be worrying too much about video games.
Yeah... and people in first world countries are generally ignorant idiots who think they know about all the troubles in the world, sitting in their comfortable computer chair typing away on their ergonomic keyboards, making speculations about details of life of people half way across the world that they cannot possibly know about and then go on to apply these pure speculations to the general public of their choosing.
M i rite or m i rite??
yeah since when did 3rd world country ppl become beggars and thieves......
The problem wiht piracy prevention software is that it doesn't prevent piracy. It might slow it down by a day at best. Meanwhile it puneshes legitimate buyers while the piraters are laughing it up.. the piraters get it sooner from foreign markets.. like people are downloading aussi spore almost a week before North American release, they have less restrictions.. and get it for free.
Essentially the more oppressive anti piracy software they shove onto their products the more they stack the deck in favour of piracy. Same with music from alot of pay sites.. you get it in an obscure non transferable format that wont even play on most MP3 players.. and you pay for that.. or you can get a free one in mp3 format.
People should take a page from Bethesda's book. They released Oblivion with no piracy prevention crap and it was number 1 and number 2 on the PC's top selling games list for months (regular and collectors edition) by April of 2006 it had already sold 1.7 million copies.. at $55 regular and about $80 collectors that's probably over 100 million dollars (I don't know for certain what it is since I don't know the breakdown between collectors and regular sales).
The real reason the PC is "dying" as a platform is that companies shovel out rehashed garbage 95% of the time and PC players wont stand for that. Look at EA sports.. they've been throwing out the same crap for the past 7 years with it's product then whine that the PC platform isn't suitable for sports games. No... it's fine.. we just aren't dumb enough to buy the same crap 8 years in a row.
Simply, good games and bad games are pirated... but good games also sell like hot cakes, unfortunatly.. good games are becoming increasingly rare.. everything is just graphics graphics graphics and no depth.
It used to be if you don't like a product, you just don't buy it. Now the proper response is to steal it? Makes no sense.
mysterylobster
this may be the most intelligent response in this thread.
A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
DudeDudeington
well, no, because different laws govern different types of property (you don't buy software in the strictest sense; it's not your property in the traditional sense of the legal definition; you can't sell it, for instance, like you could if you buy a tv), so that wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. the bottom line is that piracy = stealing, and ea has the right to protect their property. my analogy wasn't perfect (which is why i deleted it), but it's definitely more applicable than yours in this case.
OK, so the bottom line is pirating games is never something to be condoned, but with quite a few games never being released in demo form, on what basis do publishers expect people to judge whether a game is worth shelling out no small sum for? Are we to assume all such games are a steming pile of manure? I hate myself for buying Gears of War, for example, and have sworn not to make the same mistake again.jimmyjammer69
that's not something unique to the gaming industry though. you can't try out a 4-star restaurant, for instance. the best you can do is go by reputation or reviews. you can't try out sneakers on a basketball court before buying them. providing a demo is a service (or advertising, depending on how you look at it), not a requirement. if you don't want to make a mistake, the best you can do is not buy games that don't provide demos.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]OK, so the bottom line is pirating games is never something to be condoned, but with quite a few games never being released in demo form, on what basis do publishers expect people to judge whether a game is worth shelling out no small sum for? Are we to assume all such games are a steming pile of manure? I hate myself for buying Gears of War, for example, and have sworn not to make the same mistake again.JnWycliffe
that's not something unique to the gaming industry though. you can't try out a 4-star restaurant, for instance. the best you can do is go by reputation or reviews. you can't try out sneakers on a basketball court before buying them. providing a demo is a service (or advertising, depending on how you look at it), not a requirement. if you don't want to make a mistake, the best you can do is not buy games that don't provide demos.
Ummm.... yes, that's just what I said I was going to do. Also, I don't think the publisher has anything to lose by releasing a demo.
You don't even need online in this game since you don't interact with anyone.
All online gives you are downloadable creatures, which I'm sure will come in creature packs, which again will be pirated.
Mass Effect didn't use the online component either.
One thing I don't understand is, why don't we hear comments from big players in the PC gaming industry about this limited activation system. John Carmack said he likes EA. I would like to know his opinion of the copy protection scheme they have adopted. It seems like a "don't ask, don't tell" topic in the PC games industry.
If EA decides to use this system for all their upcoming games, I just won't ever play a game from EA again. EA thinks itself untouchable, but the gamers will lay him low before our feet.
[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...dziunglius
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
However, you cant really use that mentality on any other thing. Its like those anti piracy videos on DVD's that claim that stealing a car is the same as downloading movies, when it clearly is not. The "cant afford it" attitude would allow anyone to take anything, which would become quite a problem.
Most keep their mouths shut, because to talk about it is to draw the wrath of the community unless you have something positive to say. There's a mostly implicit agreement that something's broken as it is, though.Mass Effect didn't use the online component either.
One thing I don't understand is, why don't we hear comments from big players in the PC gaming industry about this limited activation system. John Carmack said he likes EA. I would like to know his opinion of the copy protection scheme they have adopted. It seems like a "don't ask, don't tell" topic in the PC games industry.
If EA decides to use this system for all their upcoming games, I just won't ever play a game from EA again. EA thinks itself untouchable, but the gamers will lay him low before our feet.
Falconoffury
People should take a page from Bethesda's book. They released Oblivion with no piracy prevention crap and it was number 1 and number 2 on the PC's top selling games list for months (regular and collectors edition) by April of 2006 it had already sold 1.7 million copies.. at $55 regular and about $80 collectors that's probably over 100 million dollars (I don't know for certain what it is since I don't know the breakdown between collectors and regular sales).DudeDudeingtonThe 1.7 million was both console and PC versions combined, and Bethesda noted that (despite being at the top of the PC charts), the console versions far outsold the PC versions. Also, they threw in SecuROM like EA and co. when they released The Shivering Isles, so I guess they saw some merit in changing their DRM-free plan after Oblivion. Dunno why.
Did EA deserve it? Yes.
But did Maxis, will wright and all that? no! I don't know about you but I'd be really hacked off if I'd spent years making a game and every one just stole it.
But Spore is great and I doubt people who downloaded it will be able to resist buying it for real when patches and expansions come along.
Aren't you guys getting sick of discussing this over and over. I mean you will never convince the pirates they are doing wrong and hurting our platform and this poll is a sad testament to that. Just enjoy your pc games while they last.
Oh and to the pirates, please take a walk off a tall building.
Why was it over the top? most of the content requires online anyway right?
No, no ammount of security warrants stealing. its obsurd to even think so, even if it is an inconviniance to the consumer. Which doesnt seem to matter with this games case because the online warrants the purchase, I would imagine it being rather bland without it.
PC360Wii
That underlined comment. /THREAD
Aren't you guys getting sick of discussing this over and over. I mean you will never convince the pirates they are doing wrong and hurting our platform and this poll is a sad testament to that. Just enjoy your pc games while they last.
Oh and to the pirates, please take a walk off a tall building.
dannyw7982
These two comments contradict. Please fix.
[QUOTE="dannyw7982"]Aren't you guys getting sick of discussing this over and over. I mean you will never convince the pirates they are doing wrong and hurting our platform and this poll is a sad testament to that. Just enjoy your pc games while they last.
Oh and to the pirates, please take a walk off a tall building.
Elann2008
These two comments contradict. Please fix.
They don't contradict, point A) says they are beyond help, point B) tells them what i would like them to do.
get it?
[QUOTE="DudeDudeington"]A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
JnWycliffe
well, no, because different laws govern different types of property (you don't buy software in the strictest sense; it's not your property in the traditional sense of the legal definition; you can't sell it, for instance, like you could if you buy a tv), so that wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. the bottom line is that piracy = stealing, and ea has the right to protect their property. my analogy wasn't perfect (which is why i deleted it), but it's definitely more applicable than yours in this case.
Not exactly. Some courts in the USA have treated software as property, subject to the right of first sale just like the hypothetical bicycles in the previous example. They have also issued other, contradictory, judgements, depending on the district. Some countries don't treat the EULA's as having any validity as well. As I understand it, this specific method of DRM EA is using may be illegal in some countries they released in. On the Bioware forums, a fellow from Germany was saying that his reading of German consumer law made this system questionable at best. I can't speak to how accurate he is, of course, I don't know anything about German law.
So, this becomes a maybe topic, not an absolute. What you post is not the actual truth, nor is in really wrong either. Well, the part about piracy being stealing is almost always correct, but the part about EA having a right to protect their property? Yes, they do have a right, but they are going overboard. Right now, they are doing the equivalent of using a firearm to defend themselves from verbal assault. It's a disproportionate use of force. Actually, not a good analogy, it's more like they are using a hand grenade. While facing away from the target. They aren't likely to hurt the target, but anyone else around is sure as hell in danger. Still a disproportionate use of force, but now with an additional component of endangering the public. It's not acceptable, period.
[QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="DudeDudeington"]A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
Royas
well, no, because different laws govern different types of property (you don't buy software in the strictest sense; it's not your property in the traditional sense of the legal definition; you can't sell it, for instance, like you could if you buy a tv), so that wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. the bottom line is that piracy = stealing, and ea has the right to protect their property. my analogy wasn't perfect (which is why i deleted it), but it's definitely more applicable than yours in this case.
Not exactly. Some courts in the USA have treated software as property, subject to the right of first sale just like the hypothetical bicycles in the previous example. They have also issued other, contradictory, judgements, depending on the district. Some countries don't treat the EULA's as having any validity as well. As I understand it, this specific method of DRM EA is using may be illegal in some countries they released in. On the Bioware forums, a fellow from Germany was saying that his reading of German consumer law made this system questionable at best. I can't speak to how accurate he is, of course, I don't know anything about German law.
So, this becomes a maybe topic, not an absolute. What you post is not the actual truth, nor is in really wrong either. Well, the part about piracy being stealing is almost always correct, but the part about EA having a right to protect their property? Yes, they do have a right, but they are going overboard. Right now, they are doing the equivalent of using a firearm to defend themselves from verbal assault. It's a disproportionate use of force. Actually, not a good analogy, it's more like they are using a hand grenade. While facing away from the target. They aren't likely to hurt the target, but anyone else around is sure as hell in danger. Still a disproportionate use of force, but now with an additional component of endangering the public. It's not acceptable, period.
i'd search myself, but that could take a while. do you know which cases? just asking, out of personal interest.
[QUOTE="Royas"][QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="DudeDudeington"]A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
JnWycliffe
well, no, because different laws govern different types of property (you don't buy software in the strictest sense; it's not your property in the traditional sense of the legal definition; you can't sell it, for instance, like you could if you buy a tv), so that wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. the bottom line is that piracy = stealing, and ea has the right to protect their property. my analogy wasn't perfect (which is why i deleted it), but it's definitely more applicable than yours in this case.
Not exactly. Some courts in the USA have treated software as property, subject to the right of first sale just like the hypothetical bicycles in the previous example. They have also issued other, contradictory, judgements, depending on the district. Some countries don't treat the EULA's as having any validity as well. As I understand it, this specific method of DRM EA is using may be illegal in some countries they released in. On the Bioware forums, a fellow from Germany was saying that his reading of German consumer law made this system questionable at best. I can't speak to how accurate he is, of course, I don't know anything about German law.
So, this becomes a maybe topic, not an absolute. What you post is not the actual truth, nor is in really wrong either. Well, the part about piracy being stealing is almost always correct, but the part about EA having a right to protect their property? Yes, they do have a right, but they are going overboard. Right now, they are doing the equivalent of using a firearm to defend themselves from verbal assault. It's a disproportionate use of force. Actually, not a good analogy, it's more like they are using a hand grenade. While facing away from the target. They aren't likely to hurt the target, but anyone else around is sure as hell in danger. Still a disproportionate use of force, but now with an additional component of endangering the public. It's not acceptable, period.
i'd search myself, but that could take a while. do you know which cases? just asking, out of personal interest.
Heh, not going to catch me out like that. :P Seriously, Wikipedia has a good page on this. Softman v. Adobe (2001) is a commonly referred to case, as the decision explicitly defines software as a product. A later decision in Davison & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc. (2004) contradicts this. A more recent decision in Washington state was Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc. (2008 ) which supports the first sale doctrine regardless of the EULA.
The situation isn't all that well defined yet, to be honest. One law says one thing, another says differently, another makes exceptions, another cancels exceptions... it's a snake pit of laws. Add to that the fact that some states have defined the first sale doctrine in different ways, some are still UCC states, some are UCITA states (Virginia and Maryland only, I believe) and you have a real quagmire. I don't envy the IP lawyers today, it's gotta be hard to figure out the rules. There are a lot of contradictions, and it appears that your results will vary depending on the personal views of the judge you get.
It's a tough subject, but I keep going back to the purpose of IP. IP and copyright was not put in place to guarantee ultimate control to creators. It was actually put in place to give creators a fair chance to profit, while guaranteeing they would not control the items forever. IP is supposed to enter the public domain, eventually. Recent laws passed at the lobbying of Disney have gone against that purpose, but I think the original purpose is such that these cases need to be decided with eventual public ownership in mind.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]So you are saying no copy protection will = more sales and less pirates? People pirate games to avoid paying $50.00.MakariWell, like was touched on above. Less copy protection = less cost = lower retail price = happier retail customers = potentially more retail customers. copy protection's like... not even close to a dollar per game.
I don't think you know that... I sure don't...
[QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="Royas"][QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="DudeDudeington"]A more accurate comparison would be if a store sold you a bike and it had a lock on it... you decided you wanted a break from the bike and needed more space.. but you could only lock it away with this lock.. unfortunatly this lock only came with 3 keys.. and one broke each time you undid the lock.
Furthermore, every ten days you would have to ride down to the bike store and go "hey guys.. It's me on the bike! don't worry noone else is riding it!"
Meanwhile down the street there is a dude passing out free bikes of the same brand with no lock and no need to ride by for comfirmation.
Royas
well, no, because different laws govern different types of property (you don't buy software in the strictest sense; it's not your property in the traditional sense of the legal definition; you can't sell it, for instance, like you could if you buy a tv), so that wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. the bottom line is that piracy = stealing, and ea has the right to protect their property. my analogy wasn't perfect (which is why i deleted it), but it's definitely more applicable than yours in this case.
Not exactly. Some courts in the USA have treated software as property, subject to the right of first sale just like the hypothetical bicycles in the previous example. They have also issued other, contradictory, judgements, depending on the district. Some countries don't treat the EULA's as having any validity as well. As I understand it, this specific method of DRM EA is using may be illegal in some countries they released in. On the Bioware forums, a fellow from Germany was saying that his reading of German consumer law made this system questionable at best. I can't speak to how accurate he is, of course, I don't know anything about German law.
So, this becomes a maybe topic, not an absolute. What you post is not the actual truth, nor is in really wrong either. Well, the part about piracy being stealing is almost always correct, but the part about EA having a right to protect their property? Yes, they do have a right, but they are going overboard. Right now, they are doing the equivalent of using a firearm to defend themselves from verbal assault. It's a disproportionate use of force. Actually, not a good analogy, it's more like they are using a hand grenade. While facing away from the target. They aren't likely to hurt the target, but anyone else around is sure as hell in danger. Still a disproportionate use of force, but now with an additional component of endangering the public. It's not acceptable, period.
i'd search myself, but that could take a while. do you know which cases? just asking, out of personal interest.
Heh, not going to catch me out like that. :P Seriously, Wikipedia has a good page on this. Softman v. Adobe (2001) is a commonly referred to case, as the decision explicitly defines software as a product. A later decision in Davison & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc. (2004) contradicts this. A more recent decision in Washington state was Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc. (2008 ) which supports the first sale doctrine regardless of the EULA.
The situation isn't all that well defined yet, to be honest. One law says one thing, another says differently, another makes exceptions, another cancels exceptions... it's a snake pit of laws. Add to that the fact that some states have defined the first sale doctrine in different ways, some are still UCC states, some are UCITA states (Virginia and Maryland only, I believe) and you have a real quagmire. I don't envy the IP lawyers today, it's gotta be hard to figure out the rules. There are a lot of contradictions, and it appears that your results will vary depending on the personal views of the judge you get.
It's a tough subject, but I keep going back to the purpose of IP. IP and copyright was not put in place to guarantee ultimate control to creators. It was actually put in place to give creators a fair chance to profit, while guaranteeing they would not control the items forever. IP is supposed to enter the public domain, eventually. Recent laws passed at the lobbying of Disney have gone against that purpose, but I think the original purpose is such that these cases need to be decided with eventual public ownership in mind.
i actually have no interest in catching you or whatever else you may think i'm trying to do. i'm a law student, and i've only taken the basic, mandatory property cIass so i have very limited knowledge on this matter. but you seemed to know something, so i asked you for cases, so i could read them (since i have access to lexisnexis and westlaw). like i wrote, just a personal interest. anyway, thanks. i'll look more into it! :)
A lot of the people who downloaded the game before hand will end up buying it. Some people just need a taste to see if the game is worth buying so they aren't supporting a game they hate.hooded1man
Thats why people download the full version of games. If there was a demo for Spore (not counting the creature creator) you would still see that many downloads...
I will say it once and I will say it again, maybe a million times more.
Number one reason and only reason people are pirating games, is because they dont have to pay for it. Its that simple.
Jd1680a
And you can't stop pirates. Devs need to realize this and need a new way of doing things.
[QUOTE="Orrendamente"][QUOTE="dziunglius"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...irelevent
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Nothing's free, games shouldn't be any different.
Get a job, make a budget, but, ffs, don't steal.
What about people in considerably poorer countries, in which a single game can cost upward to a months paycheck. Not to mention the fact that in these countries, no one cares whether these people crack a game or not because their is no law in that country about DRM.
People need food and fresh clean water to survive. You cant survive from a video game or a computer.
There is no way to jusifty in stealing anything but food and water.
[QUOTE="Jd1680a"]I will say it once and I will say it again, maybe a million times more.
Number one reason and only reason people are pirating games, is because they dont have to pay for it. Its that simple.
GodLovesDead
And you can't stop pirates. Devs need to realize this and need a new way of doing things.
Probably the only way to prevent piracy is all games go MMO style. What I mean MMO style, is everyone have to have an account and password each time you want to play.
Example, someone walks into Best Buy picks up a copy of Spore for $15. Installs it on the PC and have to go register the game on to an account, something like Steam. This person would have to pay another $35 directly to the publisher before he starts playing the game.
Only way to play any future PC games is to have an account.
[QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="Orrendamente"][QUOTE="dziunglius"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"]Sometimes it takes peopple a long time to realize the only way to conitnue FUNDING game creation is if the consumer BUYs the game not downloads it for free.... i realized that i wish others would...Jd1680a
Lucky you, you can afford it. There are people who can't. Don't forget about this.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Nothing's free, games shouldn't be any different.
Get a job, make a budget, but, ffs, don't steal.
What about people in considerably poorer countries, in which a single game can cost upward to a months paycheck. Not to mention the fact that in these countries, no one cares whether these people crack a game or not because their is no law in that country about DRM.
People need food and fresh clean water to survive. You cant survive from a video game or a computer.
There is no way to jusifty in stealing anything but food and water.
People in the US aren't dying from a lack of food and water. Other countries don't have the same laws regarding piracy that the US does. Just like you couldn't travel to Mexico and make a citizens arrest on a jaywalker, they aren't going to make arrests based on US law.
Well, like was touched on above. Less copy protection = less cost = lower retail price = happier retail customers = potentially more retail customers. copy protection's like... not even close to a dollar per game.[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]So you are saying no copy protection will = more sales and less pirates? People pirate games to avoid paying $50.00.guynamedbilly
I don't think you know that... I sure don't...
well, i do know. sorry. :) ditto for ingame advertising.. it hardly accounts for anything on a per-game basis when people talk about 'getting a discount,' it's like a dollar or two per title for the most part.The only thing I have to say is, if you pirate a game, at least have the heart to donate a bit of money to the company that made it so that they can continue making games.
Also, if you buy one of those "limited install" games, and you run out of installs for whatever reason, I think that it would be ok to pirate the game. I mean, you already payed for the game, so it isn't exactly stealing.
A lot of the people who downloaded the game before hand will end up buying it. Some people just need a taste to see if the game is worth buying so they aren't supporting a game they hate.hooded1man
I really hope you don't believe the bolded part, because that statement is so "far off," it's not even funny. The reason they're pirating the game isn't to try it before they buy it, but to try it without having to buy it at all. You actually think they're going to play it, say, "Ok, I'm going to go spend my money even though I could continue playing for free!" and travel to the store to plop down their $50 and walk away with a retail copy?
Yeah, that totally happened with Crysis, right? Wrong.
There may be a few 'pirates' out there who do purchase games if they enjoy them, but to say "a lot" of them will do that is almost as wrong as you can get. But that's OK, let the thieves carry on. Bums will be bums, much like idiots will be idiots, and their actions are only helping crush our industry and driving away developers in droves. Crytek seems to be next in line. Let's see what happens with Warhead
I voted neither. I'm getting Spores on Monday off my friend who bought it without realising he needs constant internet connection in order to play it, which he simply doesn't have. I had the same problem with Mass Effect when Virgin cut the internet off to my town for half a week. They should just stick to CD keys and leave it at that.
you probably shouldn't tell him he doesn't need a constant internet connection if you want the game for cheap, then. the constant internet connection part comes in because the game downloads new creatures and planets to visit from other users... otherwise, you can simply disable that and you won't need internet. mass effect didn't need it either, it was just a one-time activation upon install and it never needed the internet again.I voted neither. I'm getting Spores on Monday off my friend who bought it without realising he needs constant internet connection in order to play it, which he simply doesn't have. I had the same problem with Mass Effect when Virgin cut the internet off to my town for half a week. They should just stick to CD keys and leave it at that.
AirGuitarist87
[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]you probably shouldn't tell him he doesn't need a constant internet connection if you want the game for cheap, then. the constant internet connection part comes in because the game downloads new creatures and planets to visit from other users... otherwise, you can simply disable that and you won't need internet. mass effect didn't need it either, it was just a one-time activation upon install and it never needed the internet again.I voted neither. I'm getting Spores on Monday off my friend who bought it without realising he needs constant internet connection in order to play it, which he simply doesn't have. I had the same problem with Mass Effect when Virgin cut the internet off to my town for half a week. They should just stick to CD keys and leave it at that.
Makari
Well it needs internet to at least activate it, which he just doesn't have.
i bought a retail version of the game, but i have to say if they lost money becase of the 3 installation limit i think they would deserve it.
the fact that its being pirated proves the installation limit does not stop piracy, it just annoys people who have bought the game.
i think more PC devs/publishers should take a leaf out of stardock's book. no copy protection on SoaSe and that seemed to do ok
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment