Aeshi said:
1. So all they really need to do is host the entire game on said remote server?
That depends on what you mean by "host on remote server".
If by "host" you mean that the game is 'played' on the remote server, and all the user sees is streamed video for the game, then that's shooting yourself in the foot right there, because beyond being a rather expensive measure, most people aren't going to buy a game like that in the first place. That's the perfect way to REMOVE value from your game, which only replaces "Piracy" with "Noone is gonna buy", which isn't going to help things. And the whole concept breaks down if the game happens to be leaked (which IS eventually going to happen if it's that kind of game).
On the other hand, if you by "host" mean that the games content is streamed from the server, then there are ways around that, and hackers are perfectly capable of assembling a working cracked single-player version of the game in that way. It's not something new and it's been tried before.
Bottom line is that preventing players from pirating a single player game is the equivalent of trying to let people have a book they can read but can't copy. At best you can make it hard to copy, but at the end of the day it can ALWAYS be copied, even if it means retyping the whole book themselves.
If it was as simple as you think it is, then companies would already use it. But they don't, because it's not that simple.
Aeshi said:
3. And? Even if they do buy more games the games they buy probably aren't the ones they pirate. What they are doing is basically pirating from company X, giving money to company Y when they buy games from then trying to justify it by saying "well someone still got paid right?"
Noone is talking about justifying piracy here, because pirates don't feel they need to. Unless you end up in court and have to "justify" something in front of a judge, people don't need to justify anything to anyone except themself (as in, the only thing that prevents people from pirating is their own conscience, which is different for every person).
We aren't discussing justification here, we are discussing what companies can do to reduce piracy. Those two things are entirely unrelated.
Aeshi" said:
Yes to as in "Yes it's easier and more convenient" to use Steam than torrents.
I also gave an explanation for it two posts ago. All you need to do is go back and reread it, because you obviously missed it the first time.
Aeshi said:
[5. Can't think of anything to say]
If my point wasn't clear, then allow me to expand: There is plenty of examples of digital entertainment companies that - before massive platforms like Steam was available (or even iTunes/Appstore for Apple, which also sells music and other things than games) - thrived well because of Customer loyalty, even despite of piracy having shown it's face.
Customer loyalty matters a lot. In fact, the "Steam" argument itself isn't really appropriate since Valve allowed third party titles on Steam. There is still a massive difference between what games gets pirated the most, even when comparing steam titles, and while a lot of different factors play in, customer loyalty is a definite concern, and the companies that build it usually thrive well.
Ubisoft is a perfect example of a company that didn't build customer loyalty, and ironically they seem to have more trouble on the PC marked than other developers/publishers (despite the fact that they actually make good games). Mind explaining that?
