Pirating Game Dev Tycoon Dooms Players to be Ruined By Piracy

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Pirating Game Dev Tycoon Dooms Players to be Ruined By Piracy

and comes with no DRM means that gamers these days have no excuse for pirating the game.

"If years down the track you wonder why there are no games like these anymore and all you get to play is pay-to-play and social games designed to suck money out of your pockets then the reason will stare back at you in the mirror," warns Klugg, on a website set up [http://www.greenheartgames.com/game-dev-tycoon-free-full-torrent-cracked-download/] to specifically target people looking for a cracked version, asking them nicely to reconsider.

"We are just two guys working our butts off, trying to start our own game studio to create games which are fun to play," says Klugg. Amen to that brother. If you agree with him, and can spare the eight bucks, you can buy the game for Mac, Linux and Windows from the Green Heart Games website. [http://sites.fastspring.com/greenheartgames/product/gamedevtycoon]

Source & Image: Green Heart Games [http://www.greenheartgames.com/game-dev-tycoon-free-full-torrent-cracked-download/]

Permalink
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
I like this guy, not just for getting the message out in a clever way, but because he talks as a person to other people rather than a PR executive trying to reassure share holders.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
pirating a game made about making games makes the game make pirates.. pirateception! gamecept... pirgamcep... gampires...gam...

Incepinception!
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,982
0
0
It's a bit heavy handed but still kind of funny, especially that the pirates then went on the forums and started complaining.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
It's nice that they released a demo rather than just doing this with the only other option being the full game (Which is why piracy is even a thing to begin with! People like to try before they buy!). I'll give the demo a shot and if I like it then I'll buy it.

I also have to LOL at the pirates asking for help on the forum!
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
doggie015 said:
It's nice that they released a demo rather than just doing this with the only other option being the full game (Which is why piracy is even a thing to begin with! People like to try before they buy!). I'll give the demo a shot and if I like it then I'll buy it.

I also have to LOL at the pirates asking for help on the forum!
It isn't the first time pirates have done so.

The first Arkham Asylum game had a similar anti-pirate feature where Batmans cape wouldn't open for him to glide across a poison cloud.

Cue people asking for a fix to stop the 'glitch'

This is what they got in reply;

The problem you have encountered is a hook in the copy protection, to catch out people who try and download cracked versions of the game for free.

It's not a bug in the game's code, it's a bug in your moral code.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94524-Arkham-Asylum-Pirates-Get-a-Gimpy-Batman

I wish this was more common, because it sure beats out Always Online!

Captcha: mars rover (yes Captcha, those are the intergalactic penis drawing machines)
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
I liked the Serious Sam 3 anti-piracy thing. Tiny pink invincible scorpion monster chases you around constantly.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
This is a great way to not only promote anti-piracy, but to let everyone know who the pirates are and laugh at them. More games should have these kinds of things instead of systems that fuck everyone over.
 

Voltano

New member
Dec 11, 2008
374
0
0
While this could be a funny way of deterring pirates and teaching them a lesson, there are serious consequences the developers will have to contend with while doing stunts like these. "Titan's Quest" was a pretty good action RPG similar to "Diablo" at the time, and it had DRM that triggered a series of bugs in the game when it detected it was pirated.

The results turned out bad as several pirates reported the game was buggy and not as good, which discouraged legitimate customers from purchasing the game. Just as the Anodyne developers used piracy as a way to promote positive word-of-mouth feedback for their game, the developers for "Titan's Quest" accidentally made negative word-of-mouth feedback on their game due to DRM like this.
 

marurder

New member
Jul 26, 2009
586
0
0
Though I totally agree with the method and consequence of his actions by announcing it he screws it up. Wait a few days, the 'bugged' crack would have been analysed fixed and a new torrent will be available for download. The Dev should have kept his mouth shut on this one..
 

Calcium

New member
Dec 30, 2010
529
0
0
marurder said:
Though I totally agree with the method and consequence of his actions by announcing it he screws it up. Wait a few days, the 'bugged' crack would have been analysed fixed and a new torrent will be available for download. The Dev should have kept his mouth shut on this one..
But it's not really an anti-piracy measure, keeping quiet wouldn't accomplish anything. He doesn't 'screw' anything up by announcing it - by announcing it he just got his game a lot more publicity than it otherwise would have received. That's a win right there I'd say.
 

CorvusFerreum

New member
Jun 13, 2011
316
0
0
Mmhhh, is it wrong that I want to pirate the game now, just for the challange of trying to beat their system?

It's a fun idea though.
 

thesilentman

What this
Jun 14, 2012
4,513
0
0
Ah yes, another tale where the pirates fail (at first; just look at AC2). Such, such awesomeness. Now this is something I can get over, unlike always online DRM, which go to hell, shag Satan, perform many acts ranging from morally grey to unequivocably evil and I STILL wouldn't still call it evil enough.

... I apologize if I offended any religion with this post.

[small](AKA PM me if this offends you)[/small]
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
This is a legitimate work of art. The game is not my cup of tea but I have a lot of respect for people making a point in such a clever and subtle way. Fair play to them.

Who pirates the pirates...
 

evilneko

New member
Jun 16, 2011
2,155
0
0
I kinda wanna play the pirated version.

I want to see if I can beat it despite itself. >:3
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I don't like anyone in this story. I believe pirates are pulling us closer to a f2p future (not in a good way), but there isn't anything worse than developers who straight up rip off their competitors. Don't buy this game to show support for developers hit by piracy. Buy Game Dev Story to show support for the above, as well as support for devs who see their products cloned by douches like these.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
Witty, smart, cool, fun, adorable. Way to go.

However, I'd have to disagree on one thing: Global distribution and regional asshattery is exactly the one thing that can be used to somewhat justify not being happy with the world.

That is - of course - not part of this everything-free mentality, but it's the one thing that made me stop pre-ordering, made me wary of any distributor, annoys me with Sony and has repeatedly bit me up me bum with Valve.

Oooh, you now reside in Germany? Here, let me give you a localized German version, censored for your own good, as the uncensored version would be too harsh and probably land you in jail like pedophiles, rapists and other assorted wrongdoers.

Oooh, you're hailing from France now? How thrilling! Here, we're absolutely sure you want to play your games in French now, oui?

OOOOOoohh, you moved again? That can't possibly be true, now, can it! So, friend, customer, client, let me block your account for your own safety, you like that, now, don't you?

No. I don't like that. I also don't like getting censored, mutilated, dubbed or otherwise mangled versions of games I bought with real money. I don't like not getting what I want. I don't like getting random stuff accumulating in my online accounts that I cannot get rid off.
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
TopazFusion said:
It would be easy to get around though. In the sim, just make all your games "always online". That'll stop the pirates!



I think I love you, you mangificent mod you.

That was probably the best burn I have read all week...
 

AdamG3691

New member
Nov 18, 2009
313
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Calcium said:
marurder said:
Though I totally agree with the method and consequence of his actions by announcing it he screws it up. Wait a few days, the 'bugged' crack would have been analysed fixed and a new torrent will be available for download. The Dev should have kept his mouth shut on this one..
But it's not really an anti-piracy measure, keeping quiet wouldn't accomplish anything. He doesn't 'screw' anything up by announcing it - by announcing it he just got his game a lot more publicity than it otherwise would have received. That's a win right there I'd say.
That's true. Actual DRM doesn't work. This would have eventually been fixed anyways, just like The Sims 2'a and Settllers 3's gimmicky DRM was fixed.

This was useful for sending out an appealing message to the pirates, not for ruining their game experience out of spite.

JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
I agree with that, but this is only true because there ARE those 5-10% percent of players who buy it after hearing from it through piracy, because they feel the responsibility to support the developers.

I don't think that there is anything morally wrong with the 90% freeloaders either, who didn't actively harm the company, and I absolutely don't condone the shaming of copying as if it would be theft, and I'm concerned about the legal systems that are criminalizing it.

BUT it's still important to make people conscious about their personal contribution being needed. If just begging is not enough, then a little white lie about how they are harmed by piracy can also be effective.

Seriously. If you do have money, buy as many games as you can. I don't care what you do with the rest of your time and internet usage BEYOND that, but payment being a virtue still needs to be advertised loudly.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
Expecting "good press" to be directly expressed in a countable number of people "forced" to buy the game, is just as silly as counting every pirated copy as exactly one lost sale.

Just as you can't directly convert it into an exact number of lost sales that it represents when a poor uranian teenager downloads a game that he was only mildly interested in (it's less than 1 but more than 0 since he is still making a bad precedent and habit), you likewise can't directly count the number of gained sales that the increased audience represent.

First of all, good press is synergic. It's not about individual choices, but a matter of what the community as a whole does.

If 100k people buy a game and 1 million pirate it on release day, then it has a much bigger fandom and much more growth potential, then if, say, 200k people buy and play an always online game.

A fandom of 1.1m people can gain attention and grow much quckly than a fandom of 0.2k, and even if only 10% of the newcomers continue to be buyers, it is not unlikely that it's audience could grow beyond 2.2m, at which point piracy gained sales.
 

AdamG3691

New member
Nov 18, 2009
313
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.
and if piracy makes the game a flop, then there won't BE any future games.

minecraft was always an outlying case in that it was popular BEFORE it went on sale, the "MC Classic" mode was a free browser toy, that was where it got most of it's initial traction from, then when it allowed access to it's paid beta they sold it for only a few dollars.

plus, what do you think spread the word about minecraft more? pirates? or youtubers like the yogscast?

don't justify piracy by pointing to an outlying case, that sort of thing is an anomalous result and would be discarded in any study
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
Here's a train of thought. Piracy doesn't ruin developers. Publishers ruin developers. By your own logic, the developers make a game that is funded by the publisher and also advertised by them. So if the game doesnt sell well enough, they dont get paid, or not paid enough and eventually go under. How exactly is that the fault of pirates though?

Imagine the publisher being very crap at advertising and people basicly dont know the game exists. Its like Activision being suprised their newest call of duty doesnt sell when nobody even knew there was one, since they didnt advertise at all and nobody ever mentioned it being in development. This is a hypothetical scenario of course, by now we know this series is on yearly release schedules, but what about games that arent? Is piracy at fault the game doesnt sell? Or is it because the publisher didnt advertise.

Or what about stupid bullshit like "Have 85 Metacritic score or dont get paid royalties" like what happened to Obsidian with Fallout New Vegas? Yeah that totally was the fault of pirates, wasnt it?

Fact is, remove the publishers and give all money earned directly to the Developers. Even if they get pirated, they can still survive and make games, look at CD Project RED, the first Witcher was pirated, the second one was too, now they have the third game in development AND another project, Cyberpunk 2077, on top of it. Somehow pirates didnt ruin them. Pirates are a problem, especially if it is rampant.

But here's a nice inside joke: On average, Pirates or former Pirates buy more games per month/year than your average joe game enthusiast. I'm not trying to make a excuse here, but to me, pirates are just people, a handful of the lot probably pirate because "lulz, free is best". Others do it for another reason, alot of them eventually buy the games they pirated, or stop pirating altogether when they have the option to get games with little problems for good prices.

You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.

OT:

I want the pirated version. I'd even pay for it. I just want to try and somehow beat that system. Seriously, that sounds way more awesome than just the sim game itself.

Developers, if ya seeing this, add that mode to the sold version too. Do it and take my money.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
and if piracy makes the game a flop, then there won't BE any future games.
Show me one game that was caused to flop by piracy.

plus, what do you think spread the word about minecraft more? pirates? or youtubers like the yogscast?
Minecraft was already snowballing into popularity before the yogscast found it, most of minecraft's popularity came from people discussing it on forums (particularly /v/ which is where Notch originally advertised his game.)
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
minecraft was always an outlying case in that it was popular BEFORE it went on sale, the "MC Classic" mode was a free browser toy, that was where it got most of it's initial traction from, then when it allowed access to it's paid beta they sold it for only a few dollars.
The "MC Classic" was popular, *because* it was free. Pirated games are also free, except without their publisher's permission, but they do the same thing.

AdamG3691 said:
plus, what do you think spread the word about minecraft more? pirates? or youtubers like the yogscast?
What do you think, every single youtuber actually bought the game?

Youtube suddenly being full of minecraft videos was part of word of mouth, and if most minecraft players are pirates, then we can assume that a number of those promoting it were also pirates.

Every time a game goes viral because of it's huge enthusiastic fan community, part of that is how so many people could freely access it.

Another example of that is how Friendship is Magic went viral on Youtube, when most bronies didn't subscribe to the Hub. (and resulted in iTunes sales years later).
 

AdamG3691

New member
Nov 18, 2009
313
0
0
A-D. said:
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
Here's a train of thought. Piracy doesn't ruin developers. Publishers ruin developers. By your own logic, the developers make a game that is funded by the publisher and also advertised by them. So if the game doesnt sell well enough, they dont get paid, or not paid enough and eventually go under. How exactly is that the fault of pirates though?

Imagine the publisher being very crap at advertising and people basicly dont know the game exists. Its like Activision being suprised their newest call of duty doesnt sell when nobody even knew there was one, since they didnt advertise at all and nobody ever mentioned it being in development. This is a hypothetical scenario of course, by now we know this series is on yearly release schedules, but what about games that arent? Is piracy at fault the game doesnt sell? Or is it because the publisher didnt advertise.

Or what about stupid bullshit like "Have 85 Metacritic score or dont get paid royalties" like what happened to Obsidian with Fallout New Vegas? Yeah that totally was the fault of pirates, wasnt it?

Fact is, remove the publishers and give all money earned directly to the Developers. Even if they get pirated, they can still survive and make games, look at CD Project RED, the first Witcher was pirated, the second one was too, now they have the third game in development AND another project, Cyberpunk 2077, on top of it. Somehow pirates didnt ruin them. Pirates are a problem, especially if it is rampant.

But here's a nice inside joke: On average, Pirates or former Pirates buy more games per month/year than your average joe game enthusiast. I'm not trying to make a excuse here, but to me, pirates are just people, a handful of the lot probably pirate because "lulz, free is best". Others do it for another reason, alot of them eventually buy the games they pirated, or stop pirating altogether when they have the option to get games with little problems for good prices.

You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.
true, publishers are the root of the whole thing, but the studios need to get that money from somewhere (woo crowdsourcing :D)

I'm not saying that piracy and used game sales are the whole problem, they're not, they just don't make the problem better, and in the case of pirates who just pirate the game and don't buy it later and don't attempt to spread the word of mouth, they are actively making it worse
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Well that's quite a bad simulation.

Where is the increased exposure, the added word of mouth, the extra purchases due to guilt or interest? I have yet to hear a game that people actually thought to be worthwhile die an agonizing death due to piracy.

Maybe that 6,7% is the actual amount of people who would have bought your game anyway? Sure allot of people are playing it but evidently not allot want to actually buy it. Do I really have to pull up Minecraft? A game so easily pirated it's not even funny (online as well), but despite the piracy turned out to be a game that basically set a small indie company for life?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
I'm not saying that piracy and used game sales are the whole problem, they're not, they just don't make the problem better, and in the case of pirates who just pirate the game and don't buy it later and don't attempt to spread the word of mouth, they are actively making it worse
I think it's just faulty logic to focus too hard on individual actions, and judge their morality entirely based on what would happen if everyone would act exactly like that.

Human communities are built on much more complicated mechanics, than everyone simply "doing their share".

Basically, while I agree with this developer's PR move, with trying to guilt-trip people into paying, after all payments do need to be made, but in the end, positive encouragement is more useful than the shaming of freeloaders, especially if the latter has such unhealthy side effects as vilifying the concept of sharing, and handing over the legal control of our online activities and data accesses to publishers, "to protect their property".
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
 

thetoddo

New member
May 18, 2010
214
0
0
This is almost as good as the copy protection on Earthbound back in the day. The pirated version of the game would function almost normally (I think monster spawn rates were higher but that wasn't a bad thing) until you got to the last boss at which point the game would "crash" and when you hit reset all of you saves were gone.

I actually like that they did this with Tycoon. Heavy handed? I'd say so. Preachy? A little. Funny? You betcha. But not nearly as psychologically destroying as erasing a 60+ hour save.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
Oh man. The people who pirated the game, posting about how piracy is ruining their in-game dev empire.

Sublime.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
In order to sell millions you'll lose thousands that's how any market works, get over it or find a new job outside intellectual properties...
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
At the end of the day, game design is not a charity. It costs a lot of money to make games and these people need to be able to put food on the table, no matter if it's a tiny indie studio run by two guys, or a monolithic company like EA or Valve.

Piracy is not a service issue, or an issue of customer satisfaction. Most piracy is the result of wanting something for nothing. If you are the kind of person who is going to pirate a game, nobody is inclined to listen to you when you talk about a company's business practices or whatever other garbage you are going to spew. You are not a customer at this point, your opinion is null and void. Companies do not listen to pirates, they have no reason to. Why would a company even bother trying to convince people not to pirate their game? They're going to do it anyway, because they want free stuff.
 

N3squ1ck

New member
Mar 7, 2012
243
0
0
The Lord of the Rings Battlefront-style game (I forgot how it was called, sorry) had a protection like that too, when you got to Moria there was a invisible wall that prevented you from actually entering the damn thing.
 

Xukog

New member
May 21, 2011
126
0
0
Oh that is hilarious,A pirate complaining about piracy ruining his game.Now I am going to have to buy this when I have the spare money,that is great!
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
1337mokro said:
Sure allot of people are playing it but evidently not allot want to actually buy it.
But they're not entitled to the game. If they don't want to buy it, they shouldn't be playing it.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
I just bought the game.
While I find what they did really interesting and bought me, it implies that piracy was ever so rampart that it killed of a company. A huge number of pirates are people who wouldn't buy it in the first place and some of the pirates are future costumers. Many people started disliking demos because they are only what the developer want you to see. Everything that isn't the "awesome" part of the game is cut out. So some people will pirate to demo even if a demo exists.

Now before some moderator gives me a warning for not understanding my post, I don't support piracy. I don't say it's good. I just say that it's not as bad as big publisher want you to think it.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,498
102
68
Country
US
TopazFusion said:
As others have mentioned, there are other games that have tried to stick the knife in, when it comes to pirates.

http://brutalgamer.com/2012/07/29/video-game-piracy-when-software-fights-back/

Such as Alan Wake hilariously wearing a pirate eye-patch.
It left out some good ones though, like Darkstar One adding extra zeros to the prices of things (but not the resell values) on pirate copies, or Spyro quietly removing a handful of gems from pirate copies -- making it impossible to progress, but not telling you why.
 

MadHatter1993

New member
Jul 28, 2009
52
0
0
I dunno i'm ok with piracy because some game devs makes some odd decisions, like when i got Diablo III, I went out bought it, installed it.... and never played it. so instead i went out pirated it, while having a legal copy to my name, and enjoying it to the fullest while everyone else suffered the DRM. There are some things i just don't understand from Blizzard, Ubisoft, or EA.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
If there's a game that gets released, which I disagree with the price point, I add it to my Steam wishlist. I then get an email down the road telling me that it's now on sale.

I don't have time or money to get excited about new games that get release. Nor is my PC amazing. I can afford the patience.
 

Wuvlycuddles

New member
Oct 29, 2009
682
0
0
Someone should figure out how to use pirates as a massive free marketing force, like offer rewards for referrals like they do in LoL or Tribes.

Alternatively make everything F2P or kickstartered. And then pirates beaten.
 

Playful Pony

Clop clop!
Sep 11, 2012
531
0
0
Just because of this, I'm buying this game. By far my favorite thing done by any developer ever X3.
 

dmase

New member
Mar 12, 2009
2,117
0
0
Ilikemilkshake said:
It's a bit heavy handed but still kind of funny, especially that the pirates then went on the forums and started complaining.
Heavy handed? Ending up fucking most of the people that play your game because of some pirates is heavy handed. These people basically went to go steal this company's product their version deserves to be bricked in my opinion.

OP: wow that is impressive. Never though about it until now but companies could post up virus filled games all over torrent sites to give the pirates their just deserts... they can call it scurvy.
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
N3squ1ck said:
The Lord of the Rings Battlefront-style game (I forgot how it was called, sorry) had a protection like that too, when you got to Moria there was a invisible wall that prevented you from actually entering the damn thing.
Would have been funnier if that wall was preventing you from walking into Mordor.

At any rate, I actually like the idea of trolling pirates like this. However, it sounds to me like you're guarantied to go bankrupt with the pirated version, since it sounds like that after a certain point, you're almost guarantied to lose money with every game released and you're not offered any ways to combat the piracy. Yeah, I get that they're trying to say that piracy hurts them but the point is kinda force fed if the game is deliberately fixed so that you can't maintain your business, no matter what.
 

Gottesstrafe

New member
Oct 23, 2010
881
0
0
dmase said:
Ilikemilkshake said:
It's a bit heavy handed but still kind of funny, especially that the pirates then went on the forums and started complaining.
Heavy handed? Ending up fucking most of the people that play your game because of some pirates is heavy handed. These people basically went to go steal this company's product their version deserves to be bricked in my opinion.

OP: wow that is impressive. Never though about it until now but companies could post up virus filled games all over torrent sites to give the pirates their just deserts... they can call it scurvy.
So you mean you could torrent a game, install it, and after booting it up...


Excepting the virus tidbit, I wouldn't mind seeing this come into play as DRM against pirated versions of a hypothetical game based on Archer.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.
I know
But I also know how I became gamer
I had some console experience (NES and Sega Genesis) before I got into PC gaming (a bit late, but I lived in area where gaming consoles came in late)
Cartridges were mostly cheap pirated versions
In year 1998 I got my first PC (and I had no illusions that those discs I got and exchanged from my friends were legal- 99% had cracks in them and were written on blank CDs)
In 2003 I bought my first non-pirated game (TES3:Morrowind)
Up till 2010 I had mixed game source: games I really liked I saved up money and bought, games I wasn't sure about I pirated (helped me to avoid few wastes of money- Halo:CE for example lived on my PC for ~1h)
After I got my first job in 2010 I started to buy games on Steam (and occasionally physical copies)
I still occasionally pirate games when I am not sure will I like the game
Such approach still helps me to avoid crappy games

[Captcha: don't stop]
[Thank you- not planning to :D]

At this moment I have plenty of legitimate games in my library
Games from developers I support and games that deserves to be bought
I wasn't sure for example about FO:NV so I pirated it, but after playing it for few h I uninstalled it and bought on Steam, because improvement over FO3 was significant

So while piracy doesn't provide immediate income for developers, it is important source of games for new gamers who eventually will convert to paying customer
Or for those who can't spare money for games- when these customers will be able to afford games, they will buy them
BUT
All this works only with decent people
There are of course those who won't spend money on games (movies, series and music most probably too) at all, no matter of their income
And these people are scum by my book :mad:
 

MonkeyPunch

New member
Feb 20, 2008
589
0
0
I absolutely love stuff like this. Totally awesome.
Why is it happening? Because of people just like you :)

Though I still have a bit of sadness that even with the most in your face practical example of how this user's pirating is detrimental I know that they still won't get it/learn the lesson. Sad.
 

Ryan Minns

New member
Mar 29, 2011
308
0
0
When I first saw this thread and read a few lines I thought "Why the FUCK would you make people trialing your game think it has a massive game breaking bug! Though I later noticed it had a demo which does indeed remove a large amount of reasoning. Sadly this also means if said pirate is asked about it they'll say it's broken
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
And what if there isn't? A special circle of hell, I mean.

What if it turns out that there is no special sob-story excuse needed for piracy, because while supporting developers is a very noble and commendable act, for everyone else, copying and file-sharing is just the normal thing to do?
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Damn bloody skippy, this is why I didn't get bummed when Young Justice ended, because I honestly wasn't helping. But I make sure to buy all my games, non-preowned, so that the devs get some love.

I actually bought Tomb Raider because I read the article on here that said games with women don't sell. So in short if you're pirating games that you like and the turn around and complain about publishers, then you honestly no right to complain.

Come live in Australia and pay through the nose if you want anything halfway decent an excuse.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,776
0
0
TopazFusion said:
As others have mentioned, there are other games that have tried to stick the knife in, when it comes to pirates.

http://brutalgamer.com/2012/07/29/video-game-piracy-when-software-fights-back/

Such as Alan Wake hilariously wearing a pirate eye-patch.
You know, that seems more like an incentive to get the pirated copy to me. It's free, and you get a cool eye patch. Some companies would charge extra for that as DLC.
 

Lady Larunai

New member
Nov 30, 2010
230
0
0
Figured i would waste the $8 and buy it if anything i can see how much they copied from Game Dev Story
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Tara Callie said:
At the end of the day, game design is not a charity. It costs a lot of money to make games and these people need to be able to put food on the table, no matter if it's a tiny indie studio run by two guys, or a monolithic company like EA or Valve.

Piracy is not a service issue, or an issue of customer satisfaction. Most piracy is the result of wanting something for nothing. If you are the kind of person who is going to pirate a game, nobody is inclined to listen to you when you talk about a company's business practices or whatever other garbage you are going to spew. You are not a customer at this point, your opinion is null and void. Companies do not listen to pirates, they have no reason to. Why would a company even bother trying to convince people not to pirate their game? They're going to do it anyway, because they want free stuff.
The part I bolded requires you to provide numerical data that proves it, otherwise you're full of crap.

The part I Italicized is where my disagreement lies. The notion that someone cannot provide valuable feedback for your game simply because they didn't give you a few sheets of cloth that the government says is worth something...Is patently wrong. Whether or not someone gives you a banknote has nothing to do with weather or not they can point out flaws in your product.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Entitled said:
J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
And what if there isn't? A special circle of hell, I mean.

What if it turns out that there is no special sob-story excuse needed for piracy, because while supporting developers is a very noble and commendable act, for everyone else, copying and file-sharing is just the normal thing to do?
Well then at least someone is actually considering there is no real reason for piracy other than the fact that some people simply do not want to pay, which is true because cases like this prove all of the sob stories (great description btw) are bullshit.

Not wanting to pay someone for something they created is wrong, no other way around it. Sure its not the same as theft but its taking something for nothing and not giving someone their fair due, anyone trying to justify it needs to realign their morals. Putting self entitlement ahead of fair due is one thing when it comes to big publishers that make billions but its a another when it comes to hard working devs that rely on their income for their bread and butter.

At the end of the day I have no personal ax to grind over piracy, I have no issues with some types of piracy either. Like when people pirate a TV show or film that for whatever reason had restricted availability in their region but they later buy the BD/DVD. Same goes for when publishers go out of their way to avoid selling or supporting a game outside of certain countries, thats pants on head retarded and its their own fault if it gets copied.

I just wish the train of bullshit excuses would go away when people simply want a product without paying for it.
 

Dr.Awkward

New member
Mar 27, 2013
692
0
0
Steven Bogos said:
The developer said that it has conducted this social experiment as a way to try and open gamer's eyes to just how damaging piracy can be. The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately.
What's depressing is low pirate-to-legit turnover rate, not the actual sales. Curbing piracy is one thing, but converting pirates to customers is another; sure you can remind them that you are a bunch of people, but the feeling has to be mutual - They are people, and you are people, they aren't really trying to treat you as a lesser unless you see them as the lesser. Eventually Green Heart is just going to have to realize that it's going to be the passing of word by pirates that will have to sell their game, and if the pirates don't like it because it feels impossible to win thanks to the anti-piracy measures you have taken, you've lost yourself quite an important channel that could've sold your game in greater quantities and convert pirates to legitimates.

And you have to be careful about what words you use as well, even in the title - "Tycoon" makes the game's intention sound like a cash-in by a minor development house that joined the "tycoon" boom that happened in the early-to-mid 2000s. A good title makes people think and determine what the development house's intentions are with this game. If they hadn't used the word "Tycoon", I wonder how much piracy would've been affected...


Steven Bogos said:
"To the players who played the cracked version, I'm not mad at you," says Patrick Klug of Green Heart Games. "When I was younger, downloading illegal copies was practically normal but this was mostly because global game distribution was in its infancy." He says that the wide availability of the game online, as well as the fact that it has a free demo [http://www.greenheartgames.com/game-dev-tycoon-downloads/] and comes with no DRM means that gamers these days have no excuse for pirating the game.
Free demo doesn't really mean anything. People are looking for a good and thorough experience - If anything, they've just "sold" pirated copies of their game to non-pirates looking for a challenge to beat.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
This looks suspiciously like Game Dev Story to me. If it's as close as it looks, there's a certain amusement in people who rip off others' titles making statements against piracy.

doggie015 said:
(Which is why piracy is even a thing to begin with! People like to try before they buy!)
I'd like to see your official numbers on this.

CriticalMiss said:
This is a great way to not only promote anti-piracy, but to let everyone know who the pirates are and laugh at them. More games should have these kinds of things instead of systems that fuck everyone over.
The big problem is it only exposes them for a little while. Well, the bulk of them.

Voltano said:
While this could be a funny way of deterring pirates and teaching them a lesson, there are serious consequences the developers will have to contend with while doing stunts like these. "Titan's Quest" was a pretty good action RPG similar to "Diablo" at the time, and it had DRM that triggered a series of bugs in the game when it detected it was pirated.

The results turned out bad as several pirates reported the game was buggy and not as good, which discouraged legitimate customers from purchasing the game. Just as the Anodyne developers used piracy as a way to promote positive word-of-mouth feedback for their game, the developers for "Titan's Quest" accidentally made negative word-of-mouth feedback on their game due to DRM like this.
This doesn't look buggy, though, it looks like a strategy issue. Unless it gets negative reviews for being "too hard," it's probably safe on that front.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
What this demonstrates perfectly, in my view, is that while pirates will inevitably acquire software in whatever way they like, they have no rights as a customer once they go down that route.

Deliciously ironic idea.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
marurder said:
Though I totally agree with the method and consequence of his actions by announcing it he screws it up. Wait a few days, the 'bugged' crack would have been analysed fixed and a new torrent will be available for download. The Dev should have kept his mouth shut on this one..
That probably would have happened regardless of his announcement.

Now people wont complain about how the game is ruthless because it makes you go bankrupt due to piracy which would have been what 93.4% of the players would have said about it. Now some of those might actually buy the game because they want to play without that thing. Others who haven't heard about the game will think about how clever this is and might buy it because they liked what the developer did.

Not announcing it would have been the bigger mistake here.
 

Fayathon

Professional Lurker
Nov 18, 2009
905
0
0
I am wholly amused by this. I don't think I've ever approved of any shenanigans quite as much as this.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
There are three things I'd like to mention:

1) Piracy isn't always so black&white as "I don't want to pay for this" like everyone thinks it is. Yes, a large margin of it probably is that, but it's still disingenuous to completely hand-wave the people who do buy things they've pirated. It's like saying people listen to music they haven't bought yet on Youtube simply because they don't want to spend money on it.

2) "Cracked" and "pirated" are not mutually exclusive, and people really should start making that distinction. "Cracking" is just the removal of DRM, which I believe should very well be legal if you've bought the thing in question. If you bought a game, you should be able to own it and not have to submit to the whims of some publisher or developer who wants to deign how you play the game.

3) It's a slippery slope of the worst kind to say "Piracy is killing creative games!" At least, I assume that's what he's saying with that "years down the track" line. I suppose he could mean not-always-online games, since Diablo III remains one of the only games ever released to not be fully cracked (blah blah server emulator blah blah, it's not going to be anything like the actual game and they don't get any of the updates Blizzard makes). But that's still a slippery slope, as we've seen with EA and SimCity.

I won't disagree that piracy is harmful, and nobody who is in a position to be able to purchase a game should pirate it instead (especially if there's a demo). But it's a bit heavy-handed to have some no-name developer who's made precisely zero games before drum up attention by saying "Piracy is going to kill us!"

Still, kudos to them for another silly and unique way of inconveniencing pirates instead (hopefully) of legitimate paying customers.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
Haha, that's pretty original!

However, all these hooks that they put in will get fixed by the pirates as well.
 

Voltano

New member
Dec 11, 2008
374
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Voltano said:
While this could be a funny way of deterring pirates and teaching them a lesson, there are serious consequences the developers will have to contend with while doing stunts like these. "Titan's Quest" was a pretty good action RPG similar to "Diablo" at the time, and it had DRM that triggered a series of bugs in the game when it detected it was pirated.

The results turned out bad as several pirates reported the game was buggy and not as good, which discouraged legitimate customers from purchasing the game. Just as the Anodyne developers used piracy as a way to promote positive word-of-mouth feedback for their game, the developers for "Titan's Quest" accidentally made negative word-of-mouth feedback on their game due to DRM like this.
This doesn't look buggy, though, it looks like a strategy issue. Unless it gets negative reviews for being "too hard," it's probably safe on that front.
True, the game is intentionally screwing the player over when it detects it was pirated, but so did "Titan's Quest".

Let's say I sold cupcakes at a store. If someone stole it from me only to realize the insides of his cupcake has live maggots in it, it would repulse him. But if I turned around and said that I had made special cupcakes that were intended to be stolen with maggots in them to teach thieves a lesson, that still isn't going to help my public appearance. I'm a crazy person that puts maggots in cupcakes! Who would want to buy my kind of cupcakes when I state this?

What's even worse is that detecting what is a stolen cupcake from a legit cupcake is difficult. What if I sold a maggot-cupcake by 'accident' to a legit customer? The same could happen here in this game that their "DRM" could trigger via a bug on legal customers. Bugs like these are bound to appear in any kind of software, so its a very risky PR move for doing something like this.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
That's hilarious, I love the fact they complained xD. I think this is a better way of doing it rather than always online stuff.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
I'm going to believe the dev who:

-releases a demo
-releases the game DRM free
-only had 6.4% of the day one purchases actually be legitimate

...over you, a faceless dude with an axe to grind.

Repeating "devs gain money" doesn't make it true. Give me a non-theoretical reason to believe you, or I'll just continue to smack "6.4%" in your face.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,057
0
0
This is quite amusing. I think devs should start making more stuff like this. Imagine that in Skyrim (pirated version) you'd play like for an hour, and then a pirate captain flying on a dragon pops out of fucking nowhere and kicks your ass from Falkreath to Dawnstar, all while screaming "Yar har har me mateys!" And then the "game over" screen displays a laughing skull flag.
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
Mind explaining how the fuck that happens?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Voltano said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Voltano said:
While this could be a funny way of deterring pirates and teaching them a lesson, there are serious consequences the developers will have to contend with while doing stunts like these. "Titan's Quest" was a pretty good action RPG similar to "Diablo" at the time, and it had DRM that triggered a series of bugs in the game when it detected it was pirated.

The results turned out bad as several pirates reported the game was buggy and not as good, which discouraged legitimate customers from purchasing the game. Just as the Anodyne developers used piracy as a way to promote positive word-of-mouth feedback for their game, the developers for "Titan's Quest" accidentally made negative word-of-mouth feedback on their game due to DRM like this.
This doesn't look buggy, though, it looks like a strategy issue. Unless it gets negative reviews for being "too hard," it's probably safe on that front.
True, the game is intentionally screwing the player over when it detects it was pirated, but so did "Titan's Quest".

Let's say I sold cupcakes at a store. If someone stole it from me only to realize the insides of his cupcake has live maggots in it, it would repulse him. But if I turned around and said that I had made special cupcakes that were intended to be stolen with maggots in them to teach thieves a lesson, that still isn't going to help my public appearance. I'm a crazy person that puts maggots in cupcakes! Who would want to buy my kind of cupcakes when I state this?

What's even worse is that detecting what is a stolen cupcake from a legit cupcake is difficult. What if I sold a maggot-cupcake by 'accident' to a legit customer? The same could happen here in this game that their "DRM" could trigger via a bug on legal customers. Bugs like these are bound to appear in any kind of software, so its a very risky PR move for doing something like this.
The "Too Many Pirates" version is a separate version uploaded to the various torrent sites.

Legitimate customers have no reason to get close to it.
 

Mid Boss

New member
Aug 20, 2012
267
0
0
Ahhh I love the piracy defense attempts on subjects like this.

Think I'll go pirate a car. Wasn't going to buy it so it's not a lost sale! People seeing me driving it will want one themselves. I'm sure the police will understand perfectly that I didn't actually steal the car I stole and, in fact, did it to promote the model!

Gotta love how the completely self serving "logic" breaks down into utterly baffling stupidity when applied to anything but video games.
 

Doom972

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
Very creative and entertaining. I hope that they actually got some people to see it their way.
No wonder it's being pirated so much, though - it's not on Steam. I'll probably be among the first who buy it if and when it gets there.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
I'm going to believe the dev who:

-releases a demo
-releases the game DRM free
-only had 6.4% of the day one purchases actually be legitimate

...over you, a faceless dude with an axe to grind.

Repeating "devs gain money" doesn't make it true. Give me a non-theoretical reason to believe you, or I'll just continue to smack "6.4%" in your face.
Your figure of 6.4% has no relevance at all, it gives no indication of lost sales (or if there where any at all). And should be noted I did say piracy only helps games that are good, and since this is just a shitty knock off of other games I am not surprised people wont give money to this talentless whiny hack.
 

Space Jawa

New member
Feb 2, 2010
551
0
0
A-D. said:
You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.
A home goes along with "Shelter", which typically is one of the items listed as a need. And they have homeless shelters and food programs for people who can't afford rent or food. So it still remains stupid to try to argue that digital bootleggers are justified in stealing copies of the games they want to play because "they can't afford it!". Because there is no real comparison between a luxury good like frikken video games and shelter. Your life won't be negatively affected if you don't get your daily fill of the latest AAA title you want to play.

So yeah, if they can't afford to buy all the games they want to play, then yes, they shouldn't play those games unless they can get them legally another way. Borrow them from a friend, or stick to free games.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
I'm going to believe the dev who:

-releases a demo
-releases the game DRM free
-only had 6.4% of the day one purchases actually be legitimate

...over you, a faceless dude with an axe to grind.

Repeating "devs gain money" doesn't make it true. Give me a non-theoretical reason to believe you, or I'll just continue to smack "6.4%" in your face.
Your figure of 6.4% has no relevance at all, it gives no indication of lost sales (or if there where any at all). And should be noted I did say piracy only helps games that are good, and since this is just a shitty knock off of other games I am not surprised people wont give money to this talentless whiny hack.
You can't claim talentless hack, because you haven't played the game (I'm 99.9% sure of this, given your disinterest in your first post).

And you call him "whiny" because... he nicely and amusingly puts his point across? Golly gee, I hope YOU haven't ever disagreed on something, or that would make YOU the whiniest whiner to ever whine! (Seriously, how did you think that was a smart thing to type?)

Also, you're right, it doesn't give indication of lost sales. So therefore, it's EXACTLY as valid as your claims that piracy is helpful. Except for one thing: At least I have a NUMBER. That's better than anything YOU can give me.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
I'm still convinced that the people who pirate have no money. As soon as I got a cash flow for myself, I stopped giving a shit about day-one DLC because I realized I was paying about $20, or at worst $50, for a title that would have been $60 had it not been for steam. I think I break even in the end.

Also I preordered Final Fantasy 13 and ended up liking it a lot, so maybe it's some type of hostage mentality.
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
Tara Callie said:
At the end of the day, game design is not a charity. It costs a lot of money to make games and these people need to be able to put food on the table, no matter if it's a tiny indie studio run by two guys, or a monolithic company like EA or Valve.

Piracy is not a service issue, or an issue of customer satisfaction. Most piracy is the result of wanting something for nothing. If you are the kind of person who is going to pirate a game, nobody is inclined to listen to you when you talk about a company's business practices or whatever other garbage you are going to spew. You are not a customer at this point, your opinion is null and void. Companies do not listen to pirates, they have no reason to. Why would a company even bother trying to convince people not to pirate their game? They're going to do it anyway, because they want free stuff.
There is a major misconception here. Pirates aren't people who "want free stuff". I don't even think you know what kind of people pirate. They tend to come in two varieties: students and the poor; the people who pirate are those who cannot afford the $5 steam sales that go on every day or the $10 games off of Good Old Games. Do you want to know why piracy rates are through the roof? Because most gamers are students, between the ages of 5 to 25, and most of which don't have jobs. The 13 year old pirates because there's no other way he will get the game, not because he's a free loader.

Secondly, every intelligent opinion is valid. If a thief steals from Walmart and complains about the poor quality of the product, it is a valid complaint.

Thirdly, as someone who has pirated throughout middle and high school, now that I have money, I have bought every game that I have pirated via steam sales, including games that I would have never bought otherwise. The amount of games I own in steam broke 70 last year. There are more people like me than you think.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Also, you're right, it doesn't give indication of lost sales. So therefore, it's EXACTLY as valid as your claims that piracy is helpful. Except for one thing: At least I have a NUMBER. That's better than anything YOU can give me.
You have a figure that is meaningless, I have provided examples of where piracy has helped a game, I.E Minecraft. Give me one example where piracy has significantly damaged a game.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
hazabaza1 said:
tiny pink invincible scorpion
Whut? If it's invisible how do you know how big it is, what colour it is and what it looks like?

Wait, does that mean it's legal to download or what? 'cos I kind of want to play this version, sounds interesting.
 

Jennacide

New member
Dec 6, 2007
1,019
0
0
See, this is how you do DRM if you want to. Don't do anything that is a burden to paying customers, just subtly torture the pirates with annoyances. My favorite DRM ever put into something remains the Earthbound piracy measures, which made the monster spawn rate unbearably high, and should you get to the final boss, it'll hard crash and delete your saves, haha.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
A-D. said:
You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.
Shelter IS a necessity. Maybe you should look up the necessities before you post stuff like this.

Let's imagine that you have your necessities taken care of, but doing so leaves you with no money.

So, as long as you have:
-a roof over your head
-water
-slight variety of food
-human contact
-clothing
-heat and electricity

...then YES, you should DAMN WELL go without:
-a car
-decorations
-gourmet food
-gadgets
-new games

I've done it. What makes everyone else a special snowflake that they don't have to go through "poor" stages of life?
 

HannesPascal

New member
Mar 1, 2008
224
0
0
If the developers themselves put up the torrent of the game doesn't that make it okay to download it? It would kinda be like a car salesman giving you the keys to a car and then claiming you're stealing it when you drive it away.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Also, you're right, it doesn't give indication of lost sales. So therefore, it's EXACTLY as valid as your claims that piracy is helpful. Except for one thing: At least I have a NUMBER. That's better than anything YOU can give me.
You have a figure that is meaningless, I have provided examples of where piracy has helped a game, I.E Minecraft. Give me one example where piracy has significantly damaged a game.
I said no theoretical arguments.

You said that large amounts of Minecraft YouTube players were "probably" pirates. YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS TO BACK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

Thus, your assumptions are EQUALLY VALID TO MINE.

But fine, piracy caused always-online DRM. We know this because the developers and publishers specifically said it was in place to combat pirates. Therefore, this isn't theoretical.

Therefore, if it wasn't for pirates, we wouldn't have had the disasters that were Assassin's Creed II, Diablo 3, and SimCity server crashes.

Your move.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
A-D. said:
You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.
Shelter IS a necessity. Maybe you should look up the necessities before you post stuff like this.

Let's imagine that you have your necessities taken care of, but doing so leaves you with no money.

So, as long as you have:
-a roof over your head
-water
-slight variety of food
-human contact
-clothing
-heat and electricity

...then YES, you should DAMN WELL go without:
-a car
-decorations
-gourmet food
-gadgets
-new games

I've done it. What makes everyone else a special snowflake that they don't have to go through "poor" stages of life?
Welp this is how shit the gaming community has become, games are no longer art or entertainment made with love and care but a luxury product designed to make money, a product you can only get by guzzling down mountains of corporate cum. No developer that actually cared about their game would say people shouldn't play it if they can't afford it.
 

Voltano

New member
Dec 11, 2008
374
0
0
lacktheknack said:
The "Too Many Pirates" version is a separate version uploaded to the various torrent sites.

Legitimate customers have no reason to get close to it.
And the legitimate customers are...?

These 'legitimate customers' could be the ones who never heard of this game before all of this. The demo, I presume, is only provided by the developer's Web site that may not get as much attention as, say, Steam or PirateBay.org. Maybe some pirates are willing to purchase a game if they get a good experience out of the project, as the Anodyne developers did.

But no one likes a troll, and the last thing we do with trolls is give them money to stop us from being trolled. That's one point with my cupcake example: I shouldn't be rewarded for trolling 'legitimate customers', even if the thief turns around and pays for the cupcake. I'm not "punishing pirates" as this statement from the developers claim; I'm annoying my 'legitimate customers' from purchasing my product.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
HannesPascal said:
If the developers themselves put up the torrent of the game doesn't that make it okay to download it? It would kinda be like a car salesman giving you the keys to a car and then claiming you're stealing it when you drive it away.
It would be more akin to a salesman leaving the keys on a bar and going to the toilet. You shouldn't be looking for things to torrent. If you weren't, you wouldn't have found it.

Slightly different to my analogy, I know. But you COULD say that leaving it on a bar is the equivalent to leaving it among untrustworthy strangers with an invitation to take it. Even though it's a remarkably stupid move, it's STILL illegal to take the keys.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Shelter IS a necessity. Maybe you should look up the necessities before you post stuff like this.

Let's imagine that you have your necessities taken care of, but doing so leaves you with no money.

So, as long as you have:
-a roof over your head
-water
-slight variety of food
-human contact
-clothing
-heat and electricity

...then YES, you should DAMN WELL go without:
-a car
-decorations
-gourmet food
-gadgets
-new games

I've done it. What makes everyone else a special snowflake that they don't have to go through "poor" stages of life?
Welp this is how shit the gaming community has become, games are no longer art or entertainment made with love and care but a luxury product designed to make money, a product you can only get by guzzling down mountains of corporate cum. No developer that actually cared about their game would say people shouldn't play it if they can't afford it.
Art/entertainment = necessity?

"Guzzling mountains of corporate cum"?

"No developer that actually cared would say you [should pay for it]"?

Are you human, or a whirling vortex of bizarre non-sequiturs that you picked up off the internet?

I dare you to back up your statements, especially the corporate cum one. I DARE YOU.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Also, you're right, it doesn't give indication of lost sales. So therefore, it's EXACTLY as valid as your claims that piracy is helpful. Except for one thing: At least I have a NUMBER. That's better than anything YOU can give me.
You have a figure that is meaningless, I have provided examples of where piracy has helped a game, I.E Minecraft. Give me one example where piracy has significantly damaged a game.
I said no theoretical arguments.

You said that large amounts of Minecraft YouTube players were "probably" pirates. YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS TO BACK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.
I don't remember saying anything about Youtube LPs, But Notch himself has said Minecraft has a 70% piracy rate and in my opinion (and Notch's) this was a driving force behind Minecraft's success as by taping into a userbase it wouldn't have without piracy it went viral.

Your comment on DRM is also moot, Piracy does not cause DRM, publishers choose to use it, however DRM definitely does cause piracy.
 

Space Jawa

New member
Feb 2, 2010
551
0
0
HannesPascal said:
If the developers themselves put up the torrent of the game doesn't that make it okay to download it? It would kinda be like a car salesman giving you the keys to a car and then claiming you're stealing it when you drive it away.
Is anyone here complaining about this situation? I'm not seeing any debate about the games developers themselves put online.

The "debate" is about games that developers don't put online that people insist on bootlegging anyway.

Bocaj2000 said:
There is a major misconception here. Pirates aren't people who "want free stuff".
Right, they just want to play and own these games without having to pay for them.

Which I think is about the same thing as "wanting free stuff". Rose by any other name...

Bocaj2000 said:
I don't even think you know what kind of people pirate. They tend to come in two varieties: students and the poor; the people who pirate are those who cannot afford the $5 steam sales that go on every day or the $10 games off of Good Old Games. Do you want to know why piracy rates are through the roof? Because most gamers are students, between the ages of 5 to 25, and most of which don't have jobs. The 13 year old pirates because there's no other way he will get the game, not because he's a free loader.
That doesn't entitle them to free games! That doesn't entitle them to things they want but don't need because "I want it." How is what you're describing not a freeloader? How does not being able to afford these games justify them bootlegging them just because they feel 'entitled' to play them? If they can't afford $5 or $10 for a game on sale, it sounds they've got a lot bigger problems than "I can't afford to buy that game".

Bocaj2000 said:
If a thief steals from Walmart and complains about the poor quality of the product, it is a valid complaint.
As is the complaint about the thief stealing from Wal-Mart in the first place.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Voltano said:
lacktheknack said:
The "Too Many Pirates" version is a separate version uploaded to the various torrent sites.

Legitimate customers have no reason to get close to it.
And the legitimate customers are...?

These 'legitimate customers' could be the ones who never heard of this game before all of this. The demo, I presume, is only provided by the developer's Web site that may not get as much attention as, say, Steam or PirateBay.org. Maybe some pirates are willing to purchase a game if they get a good experience out of the project, as the Anodyne developers did.

But no one likes a troll, and the last thing we do with trolls is give them money to stop us from being trolled. That's one point with my cupcake example: I shouldn't be rewarded for trolling 'legitimate customers', even if the thief turns around and pays for the cupcake. I'm not "punishing pirates" as this statement from the developers claim; I'm annoying my 'legitimate customers' from purchasing my product.
You fail economics forever.

You are not a "legitimate customer" until you buy the product. Before that, your'e a potential customer. Huge difference.

In your cupcake example, there is a little stand with free slices of cupcake on it. That's the demo.

The maggoty cupcakes are on the counter, but NEVER SERVED to anyone who buys a cupcake. The good ones are behind the counter, and you give them a good one when they buy one. They get to have a slice before they buy any.

Now, in your example, if a potential customer grabs a maggoty cupcake and runs, they are now a thief. In the REAL world, thieves are banned from the store - they get their face posted on the billboard in the back, they aren't allowed back in the store. Pirates at least are allowed back in afterwards.

But the guy with the maggoty cupcake won't come back, AND THAT'S FINE BY THE STORE. He had NO REASON to grab that cupcake aside from sociopathic greed. He's a thief, not a potential legitimate customer.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
I wanted to buy this game, sight unseen, after reading this. I can't, because their website is down (is too much traffic from news stories like this to blame?), and they haven't been greenlit on Steam yet. All y'all, go greenlight them right away.

P.S. Thanks
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Also, you're right, it doesn't give indication of lost sales. So therefore, it's EXACTLY as valid as your claims that piracy is helpful. Except for one thing: At least I have a NUMBER. That's better than anything YOU can give me.
You have a figure that is meaningless, I have provided examples of where piracy has helped a game, I.E Minecraft. Give me one example where piracy has significantly damaged a game.
I said no theoretical arguments.

You said that large amounts of Minecraft YouTube players were "probably" pirates. YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS TO BACK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.
I don't remember saying anything about Youtube LPs, But Notch himself has said Minecraft has a 70% piracy rate and in my opinion (and Notch's) this was a driving force behind Minecraft's success as by taping into a userbase it wouldn't have without piracy it went viral.

Your comment on DRM is also moot, Piracy does not cause DRM, publishers choose to use it, however DRM definitely does cause piracy.
It's not moot. DRM exists because of pirates. Thus, it's something terrible that's been done to games because of pirates.

Publisher reaction is just that: REACTION to something.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying things doesn't make you right.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Art/entertainment = necessity?

"Guzzling mountains of corporate cum"?

"No developer that actually cared would say you [should pay for it]"?

Are you human, or a whirling vortex of bizarre non-sequiturs that you picked up off the internet?

I dare you to back up your statements, especially the corporate cum one. I DARE YOU.
A developer that cared about his craft would want as many people to play his game as possible, he would not pass judgment on how people choose to get it, a dev that condemns piracy cares only about money and not about art or craftsmanship. Publishers frequently enforce the idea that their practices are necessary and games only exist as business and not an artform. And the worst part is people are gullible enough to believe this, I frequently see people saying DRM is necessary or microtransactions are fine, they are 'guzzling corporate cum' so to speak.
 

BigD145

New member
Sep 18, 2009
10
0
0
"The developer said that it has conducted this social experiment as a way to try and open gamer's eyes to just how damaging piracy can be. The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately."

The dev themselves offered up a cracked version that was basically hard mode for a casual game that is not original at all. Why wouldn't people get that one for free? It's a slightly better Game Dev Story and worse (dumbed down) than older game tycoon games.

lacktheknack said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
I'm going to believe the dev who:

-releases a demo
-releases the game DRM free
-only had 6.4% of the day one purchases actually be legitimate

...over you, a faceless dude with an axe to grind.

Repeating "devs gain money" doesn't make it true. Give me a non-theoretical reason to believe you, or I'll just continue to smack "6.4%" in your face.
And yet EA does fine. Wonder of wonders.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
It's not moot. DRM exists because of pirates. Thus, it's something terrible that's been done to games because of pirates.

Publisher reaction is just that: REACTION to something.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying things doesn't make you right.
Plenty of companies in face of piracy choose not to put in DRM though, and if a company is stupid enough to so then that is purely their choice and is not the fault of the pirates.
 

Space Jawa

New member
Feb 2, 2010
551
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Art/entertainment = necessity?

"Guzzling mountains of corporate cum"?

"No developer that actually cared would say you [should pay for it]"?

Are you human, or a whirling vortex of bizarre non-sequiturs that you picked up off the internet?

I dare you to back up your statements, especially the corporate cum one. I DARE YOU.
A developer that cared about his craft would want as many people to play his game as possible, he would not pass judgment on how people choose to get it, a dev that condemns piracy cares only about money and not about art or craftsmanship. Publishers frequently enforce the idea that their practices are necessary and games only exist as business and not an artform. And the worst part is people are gullible enough to believe this, I frequently see people saying DRM is necessary or microtransactions are fine, they are 'guzzling corporate cum' so to speak.
Really? You don't think a person who cares about the craft might also care about whether the people who are enjoying it paid to enjoy it or if those people said "I want to enjoy this, money be darned! I DESERVE to enjoy this!" and decided to enjoy it without compensating the person who made it?

Have you ever considered that the "artform" you call video games probably wouldn't exist as we know them if it weren't for business and corporations? They certainly wouldn't be as prolific and you probably never would have even heard of the vast majority of the most popular titles.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Art/entertainment = necessity?

"Guzzling mountains of corporate cum"?

"No developer that actually cared would say you [should pay for it]"?

Are you human, or a whirling vortex of bizarre non-sequiturs that you picked up off the internet?

I dare you to back up your statements, especially the corporate cum one. I DARE YOU.
A developer that cared about his craft would want as many people to play his game as possible, he would not pass judgment on how people choose to get it, a dev that condemns piracy cares only about money and not about art or craftsmanship. Publishers frequently enforce the idea that their practices are necessary and games only exist as business and not an artform. And the worst part is people are gullible enough to believe this, I frequently see people saying DRM is necessary or microtransactions are fine, they are 'guzzling corporate cum' so to speak.
An artist does NOT compromise his artistic integrity if he dumps thousands of dollars into something and then wants people to pay for entry.

Sometimes, the artist cares deeply about his product, and that's WHY he doesn't want people just taking it without paying. Why can we not have both?

Also, you realize that art galleries aren't free to enter, right?

JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
It's not moot. DRM exists because of pirates. Thus, it's something terrible that's been done to games because of pirates.

Publisher reaction is just that: REACTION to something.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying things doesn't make you right.
Plenty of companies in face of piracy choose not to put in DRM though, and if a company is stupid enough to so then that is purely their choice and is not the fault of the pirates.
Regardless of how it's implemented by whom now, IT STILL STARTED BECAUSE OF PIRATES. You cannot deny that.
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
TopazFusion said:
It would be easy to get around it though. In the sim, just make all your games "always online". That'll stop the pirates!

So, he just said "I pirated before and that was ok, but now it's not anymore"? Price of the games is more often a factor than their availability - or rather, the price is what makes it unavailable to some people and not whether it's physically or digitally "available" in their area.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
lacktheknack said:
But fine, piracy caused always-online DRM. We know this because the developers and publishers specifically said it was in place to combat pirates. Therefore, this isn't theoretical.

Therefore, if it wasn't for pirates, we wouldn't have had the disasters that were Assassin's Creed II, Diablo 3, and SimCity server crashes.

Your move.
It's also pushing devs towards F2P models. You can't pirate something that's free, so they figure they can move their revenue out of sales and into micro transactions.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
SecondPrize said:
lacktheknack said:
But fine, piracy caused always-online DRM. We know this because the developers and publishers specifically said it was in place to combat pirates. Therefore, this isn't theoretical.

Therefore, if it wasn't for pirates, we wouldn't have had the disasters that were Assassin's Creed II, Diablo 3, and SimCity server crashes.

Your move.
It's also pushing devs towards F2P models. You can't pirate something that's free, so they figure they can move their revenue out of sales and into micro transactions.
Jury's still out on whether this is a bad thing... but if it turns out to be so, then yes, here's another problem.
 

Voltano

New member
Dec 11, 2008
374
0
0
lacktheknack said:
You are not a "legitimate customer" until you buy the product. Before that, your'e a potential customer. Huge difference.

In your cupcake example, there is a little stand with free slices of cupcake on it. That's the demo.

The maggoty cupcakes are on the counter, but NEVER SERVED to anyone who buys a cupcake. The good ones are behind the counter, and you give them a good one when they buy one. They get to have a slice before they buy any.
But how would I know which ones I'm serving? The maggoty cupcakes intended to deter thieves or the ones that are meant to be sold with no maggots? I don't recall talking about the position of either one.

I'm a programmer and I'm aware that bugs are going to appear in any program. Even triple-A products like "Aliens: Colonial Marines" or "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" has their own fill of bugs that could hinder any kind of customer's -- whether legitimate or potential -- experience. AI might not work right; save games may get corrupted; or game-breaking events trigger to ruin the player from making any progress. These bugs can appear more as more features and people work on a product. Someone might be using the wrong assets in the game during launch which leads to some issues. Which, as I recall, what happened to EA with "Medal of Honor: WarFighter" that they had to release a massive patch on day one to fix.

So how can this form of DRM be trusted? We already have a good history of DRM working poorly in the game industry that it now has to be covered up -- such as "SimCity" being an MMO. We already know the developers intentionally put this DRM in their game to stop "thieves" and "bad men" who hurt them by "stealing" their work -- which they uploaded, by the way. Now this form of DRM is integrated into the core mechanics of the game instead of acting as a wrapper, as it triggers the state where the player keeps losing due to pirates for pirating the game. Am I suppose to trust the developers that they know what Boolean variable to flip to true/false when I pay them? Would you trust me with what cupcake I sell to you when I hand one over?

This has nothing to do with economics. In the cupcake example I intentionally put maggots in there to "teach the community" a lesson by being a troll. If I wanted to win people over to my cupcakes I should present it in a nice way, and treat any kind of customers with respect. I don't want maggots in my cupcakes, so I see no reason to make them to spite any thieves or "bad people". I should win them over for making good cupcakes.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
Space Jawa said:
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
Art/entertainment = necessity?

"Guzzling mountains of corporate cum"?

"No developer that actually cared would say you [should pay for it]"?

Are you human, or a whirling vortex of bizarre non-sequiturs that you picked up off the internet?

I dare you to back up your statements, especially the corporate cum one. I DARE YOU.
A developer that cared about his craft would want as many people to play his game as possible, he would not pass judgment on how people choose to get it, a dev that condemns piracy cares only about money and not about art or craftsmanship. Publishers frequently enforce the idea that their practices are necessary and games only exist as business and not an artform. And the worst part is people are gullible enough to believe this, I frequently see people saying DRM is necessary or microtransactions are fine, they are 'guzzling corporate cum' so to speak.
Really? You don't think a person who cares about the craft might also care about whether the people who are enjoying it paid to enjoy it or if those people said "I want to enjoy this, money be darned! I DESERVE to enjoy this!" and decided to enjoy it without compensating the person who made it?

Have you ever considered that the "artform" you call video games probably wouldn't exist as we know them if it weren't for business and corporations? They certainly wouldn't be as prolific and you probably never would have even heard of the vast majority of the most popular titles.
Corporatism may have helped build video games up but now with the internet as an easy way to publish games it's nothing more than an anachronism, corporatism has all but destroyed quality in recent mainstream video games bar a few bigs devs that refuse to follow it (such as CDProjektRED).
 

-Samurai-

New member
Oct 8, 2009
2,294
0
0
I think you lose the right to complain about piracy when you, ya know, put the game out there yourself.

Granted, it was a modified version, but it's out there because they put it out there. Don't give something away for free, then complain that someone took it.

And yes, I'm well aware that developers don't usually put their game out there, and it gets pirated anyway. But that is totally different from this case.
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
I find most pirates to have no excuse all round, regardless of it being an indie game, heavy DRM, or sticking it to a publisher. You are still technically stealing something that someone spent time on and that to me makes the whole, "Oh but it was for this reason" a terrible excuse. If I beat a woman, but say, "She was pregnant with my child and wouldn't get an abortion" I'm still an asshole who deserves to go to gaol. If I steal a frying pan, but say it's because I need something to cook my food, I'm still going to be punished via some form of recompense to the store/owner.

There is no reason to pirate a game. If you have a computer, you can afford to spend money on one game per month or one game per 2 months. I've only ever heard one viable excuse for piracy, and even then it's still not a good excuse (See Extra Credits Piracy episode).

So yeah, there is practically no excuse for piracy.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
An artist does NOT compromise his artistic integrity if he dumps thousands of dollars into something and then wants people to pay for entry.
An artist who wishes money for his art does not compromise his integrity but he does if he refuses to allow people to see it who can't afford to, it shows money has more value to him than that of his art.

Regardless of how it's implemented by whom now, IT STILL STARTED BECAUSE OF PIRATES. You cannot deny that.
It's not as if pirates are forcing them to do this, and while companies will try and scapegoat pirates for it they ultimately chose to include drm and they are ultimately responsible for treating their customers like scum.
 

The Wonder of the net

chasing ninjas and giant robots
Mar 12, 2011
101
0
0
Some faith is restored in humanity for such a funny troll. Oh god, if they only had this game for windows I still would have bought it. (I just bought it now and I can't wait to play it.) God thats soo funny.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Voltano said:
lacktheknack said:
You are not a "legitimate customer" until you buy the product. Before that, your'e a potential customer. Huge difference.

In your cupcake example, there is a little stand with free slices of cupcake on it. That's the demo.

The maggoty cupcakes are on the counter, but NEVER SERVED to anyone who buys a cupcake. The good ones are behind the counter, and you give them a good one when they buy one. They get to have a slice before they buy any.
But how would I know which ones I'm serving? The maggoty cupcakes intended to deter thieves or the ones that are meant to be sold with no maggots? I don't recall talking about the position of either one.

I'm a programmer and I'm aware that bugs are going to appear in any program. Even triple-A products like "Aliens: Colonial Marines" or "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" has their own fill of bugs that could hinder any kind of customer's -- whether legitimate or potential -- experience. AI might not work right; save games may get corrupted; or game-breaking events trigger to ruin the player from making any progress. These bugs can appear more as more features and people work on a product. Someone might be using the wrong assets in the game during launch which leads to some issues. Which, as I recall, what happened to EA with "Medal of Honor: WarFighter" that they had to release a massive patch on day one to fix.

So how can this form of DRM be trusted? We already have a good history of DRM working poorly in the game industry that it now has to be covered up -- such as "SimCity" being an MMO. We already know the developers intentionally put this DRM in their game to stop "thieves" and "bad men" who hurt them by "stealing" their work -- which they uploaded, by the way. Now this form of DRM is integrated into the core mechanics of the game instead of acting as a wrapper, as it triggers the state where the player keeps losing due to pirates for pirating the game. Am I suppose to trust the developers that they know what Boolean variable to flip to true/false when I pay them? Would you trust me with what cupcake I sell to you when I hand one over?

This has nothing to do with economics. In the cupcake example I intentionally put maggots in there to "teach the community" a lesson by being a troll. If I wanted to win people over to my cupcakes I should present it in a nice way, and treat any kind of customers with respect. I don't want maggots in my cupcakes, so I see no reason to make them to spite any thieves or "bad people". I should win them over for making good cupcakes.
I said this earlier... it's literally a separate version. He released the main version for purchase, and THEN he modded it and put the rigged version on the torrent sites.

There's literally no possible way for a customer to download the rigged version off the main site, because it's not DRM. It's a trap.
 

romxxii

New member
Feb 18, 2010
343
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
AdamG3691 said:
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.

Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.
Nope, Minecraft was already popular even during its beta days. If anything, it -- just like the Call of Duty franchise -- has a customer base so large, and cuts across so many demographics, that even if more than 50% of that demographic doesn't pony up cash, the rest are paying enough to guarantee the publisher some revenue.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
lacktheknack said:
SecondPrize said:
lacktheknack said:
But fine, piracy caused always-online DRM. We know this because the developers and publishers specifically said it was in place to combat pirates. Therefore, this isn't theoretical.

Therefore, if it wasn't for pirates, we wouldn't have had the disasters that were Assassin's Creed II, Diablo 3, and SimCity server crashes.

Your move.
It's also pushing devs towards F2P models. You can't pirate something that's free, so they figure they can move their revenue out of sales and into micro transactions.
Jury's still out on whether this is a bad thing... but if it turns out to be so, then yes, here's another problem.
Experiences may vary but I've yet to try a F2P that offered the same quality of experience as a p2p game if you spend a normal box-price or monthly sub fee in micro transactions. Most of what i've found has been either poor quality games or games with potholes built into the experience and a cash shop that sells gravel, but at a price far higher than what a normal game would cost you.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
An artist does NOT compromise his artistic integrity if he dumps thousands of dollars into something and then wants people to pay for entry.
An artist who wishes money for his art does not compromise his integrity but he does if he refuses to allow people to see it who can't afford to, it shows money has more value to him than that of his art.

If you say so.

Regardless of how it's implemented by whom now, IT STILL STARTED BECAUSE OF PIRATES. You cannot deny that.
It's not as if pirates are forcing them to do this, and while companies will try and scapegoat pirates for it they ultimately chose to include drm and they are ultimately responsible for treating their customers like scum.
You asked for an example of pirates negatively affecting a game, and I gave you one.

The point is that the existence of pirates made DRM a thing in the first place, making any comment on who is using it irrelevant to your original request.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
Voltano said:
But how would I know which ones I'm serving? The maggoty cupcakes intended to deter thieves or the ones that are meant to be sold with no maggots? I don't recall talking about the position of either one.
Because any decent programmer who deliberately makes a broken game would do so in a branch, rather than committing the maggots to master and choosing whether to enable them based on DRM/activation status.
Voltano said:
I'm a programmer and
Heh.

P.S. Thanks
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
You asked for an example of pirates negatively affecting a game, and I gave you one.

The point is that the existence of pirates made DRM a thing in the first place, making any comment on who is using it irrelevant to your original request.
A) I should have been clearer, I meant games that where commercially damaged by piracy
B) Blaming pirates for DRM is just an apologists attitude, the blame is entirely with publishers.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
lacktheknack said:
You asked for an example of pirates negatively affecting a game, and I gave you one.

The point is that the existence of pirates made DRM a thing in the first place, making any comment on who is using it irrelevant to your original request.
A) I should have been clearer, I meant games that where commercially damaged by piracy
B) Blaming pirates for DRM is just an apologists attitude, the blame is entirely with publishers.
A. Moving the goalposts, man.

You know I can't do that anymore than you can prove that piracy has helped anything (and before you bring up Minecraft again... no. I found out about it back when it was in Alpha, had a kickass demo and a tiny pricetag. And I got a bunch of people hooked on it at that time as well, as did many of my other friends. There was a whole bleeding Minecraft league at my University, and not a single one of them had pirated it. Figure that one out.).

B. Why not share the blame? When there's people involved, it's never the fault of just one. Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.
 

Ushiromiya Battler

Oddly satisfied
Feb 7, 2010
601
0
0
I own 204 games on steam and I have over 100 boxed copies in my shelf....
I also have 50 ps3 games in my shelf and 20 on psn...
And you know what? Almost all of those games I pirated before I bought them.

I'm a poor student that downloads games and play them.
When I finally earn some money I buy the games I've pirated.

Don't go saying every pirate is a bastard that only pirates because he wants free stuff.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Magefeanor said:
I own 204 games on steam and I have over 100 boxed copies in my shelf....
I also have 50 ps3 games in my shelf and 20 on psn...
And you know what? Almost all of those games I pirated before I bought them.

I'm a poor student that downloads games and play them.
When I finally earn some money I buy the games I've pirated.

Don't go saying every pirate is a bastard that only pirates because he wants free stuff.
What gives you the right to set up your own demo plans? Have you ever tried going to a car lot and asking for a monthlong test drive?
If a developer releases a demo, play the demo. If they don't, don't.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Eight bucks? That's extremely reasonably priced. Too bad I'm not into this sort of game.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
lacktheknack said:
(and before you bring up Minecraft again... no. I found out about it back when it was in Alpha, had a kickass demo and a tiny pricetag. And I got a bunch of people hooked on it at that time as well, as did many of my other friends. There was a whole bleeding Minecraft league at my University, and not a single one of them had pirated it. Figure that one out.)
Well I remember very clearly that the original spreading of Minecraft through the internet was largely by a mixture of pirates and Notch's viral marketing on 4chan which gathered a large userbase there who then spread it via word of mouth.

B. Why not share the blame? When there's people involved, it's never the fault of just one. Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.
Because pirates simply aren't accountable for the actions of publishers, publishers choose to add DRM and thus they hold full accountability. Using the cupcake metaphor someone was using earlier, if I found out someone had been stealing cupcakes from my store and I decide to spoil them on purpose to stop the thief, there is no conceivable way I can blame the thief for my own stupidity in doing so, how I reacted was purely my own choice.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
Because pirates simply aren't accountable for the actions of publishers, publishers choose to add DRM and thus they hold full accountability. Using the cupcake metaphor someone was using earlier, if I found out someone had been stealing cupcakes from my store and I decide to spoil them on purpose to stop the thief, there is no conceivable way I can blame the thief for my own stupidity in doing so, how I reacted was purely my own choice.
By the same token, publishers can't be blamed when their DRM encourages dissatisfied customers to resort to piracy, but I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't make that argument. Using the cupcake metaphor before, following this train of logic, if someone steals a maggoty cupcake, they have no business complaining since they're the one who stole it.

While a person or publisher has a choice in HOW they react to something, the fact is that a reaction still requires an initial action. Pirates may not be directly responsible, but they certainly created a strong reason for DRM to be made. To say they deserve no blame is just ridiculous.

P.S. Thanks
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
"If you agree with him, and can spare the eight bucks, you can buy the game for Mac, Linux and Windows"

Ehm, just because I agree doesn't mean his game is good enough for me to justify spending a big part of my very limited budget on it. Nor if it's a game I'd personally would like (even good/great games are so widespread there are ten others out there competing with this one, and then there's the matter of genre and my preferences).

As a journalist you should keep a distinction between good moral choices and good game content.
Morally "great" people can still make very crappy games, so if you want to justify your "Buy option" message in this news article, the least you can do is do a review first or say something that actually tells us your opinion on the game!
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
I hope they also give you the otion to bloat your games with useless DRM so as to completely alienate your paying customers aswell.

That'd be great.
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
oh boy this lovely subject again....

so lets begin this with a few facts / statements ....

PIRACY IS NOT STEALING ~
the act of pirating is sharing\copying software.
this means there is NO value lost because nothing is missing.

piracy is in fact a great self marketing tool ,
word of mouth is much more powerful than traditional advertising.

Even if 10 million people pirate a game and 1 million buy it the product sold as expected with no loses
because as stated above the act of piracy does not lower the value of that product BUT the free word of mouth
advertising will surely give extra value to said product as some people who wouldn't buy it HEAR its a good deal and they will give it a try.

therefore Piracy increases the value and does not decrease it.


just some facts.

now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.

if the product in question was a thing that caught the attention of the people it will be successful if its average or bad it will die. only the strong survive.


Piracy as a whole is not damaging anyone financially that's just fact.
Morally it is wrong , your point of view on the matter does not change anything its just morally wrong.
but that's between the pirate and himself not the dev or publisher.



now DRM that's a good one...
while its birth was to combat piracy it's a known old fact the it does jack to stop it.
at best it can hold the piracy rate at bay for a couple days maybe a month or 2 but in the end it wont change anything and the Crack teams get a whole lot of practice out of it.

DRM is only causing problems to the real threat to the companies that use it....(pause for effect)....the used game market. they are the ones who hurt developers and publishers financially by resealing the same product and giving nothing in return. by setting up DRM in games in such a way that you have to tie it down to something you actively cut that copy from being sold back, at most cases anyway depending on type of DRM.

Piracy is just a very good target to direct all the blame at since the bad ol' pirates get the games for free.


so in TL:DR fasion ~

piracy is not causing harm , piracy does good , its morally wrong , drm is a way to combat used game sales.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
It is truly the most bizarre thing to me to watch people bend their logic into pretzel loops to not only justify piracy, but praise it.

Listen, I can understand someone wanting to get something for free. It's something that no developer or DRM can fix. But don't ask people to swallow it being a good thing.

If the game is good enough for a fan-base to develop, they should have bought it. Why can't word of mouth spread from paying customers?
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Maybe pirates should stop trying to depict themselves as free market knights (they're anything but) or even the trampled common folk (they lost that status once they started getting everything for free) and just admit that they've helped cause some crappy stuff to happen because they're freaking greedy. Everyone knows it, they just don't like to admit it.
Wait. You want to make some vague, undefined "other" to collectively, hive-mind-like, even, "admit" something?

Good luck with that.

Because, if not, I don't see why treat "pirates" as one amorphous entity.
 

JemJar

New member
Feb 17, 2009
731
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
Entitled said:
I agree with that, but this is only true because there ARE those 5-10% percent of players who buy it after hearing from it through piracy, because they feel the responsibility to support the developers.
I get why you want to believe this stuff but it's just not true.

If it were, the advent of piracy and bittorrent and all that stuff would have seen sales rise exponentially, and it's not the case, certainly not for PC developers.

I do "get" that given that we live in a world of piracy, perhaps piracy does contribute a few sales. But it's like smashing a dam with a wrecking ball - no water can flow through the wrecking ball either, but it's hardly blocking the river any more.

Oh, and for a game killed by piracy, NHL Eastside Hockey Manager, made by Sports Interactive, now SI Games. I'm surprised by the line on Wikipedia that "most feel" that it was a lack of advertising issue - that certainly wasn't the going opinion at the time. The official line (from the devs, on their own forums, not the publishers) was specifically that it's core market, one big enough for it to survive and slowly grow, was Scandinavia where sales tanked and yet EHM2k7 torrents were all over The Pirate Bay and other Scandinavian filesharing sites. Why was it not a hit in the USA and Canada? No idea.

P.S. Yeah, I read to the end of the thread, but your original soundbites were perfectly concise.
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
Since the "discussion" went south very quick (big surprise) I will just address the article.

I think this is a very witty way to discourage pirates.

Here are my reasons why:

1. Pirates still get to experience the game for demo purposes but they don't get a better version. The problem with piracy on games that have horrible DRM is that the pirated version normally provides a better service. For this game it isn't.

2. This somewhat anti-piracy tactic does not in ANY WAY effect legit paying customers. Isn't this what everyone who hates DRM wants? Anti-piracy measures that don't F over legit customers?

3. It gets players to think about the effects of piracy (whether exaggerated or not) without trying to sound douchy about it. From what I understood they were trying to convert pirates into paying customers by providing a better service(game) than the pirated version.

I tried reading some comments about those who hated this idea but I couldn't find a coherent and well presented response against it so I would welcome someone to provide a rebuttle for a good debate.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
It's funny, but also incredibly heavy handed, using the same old "Every pirated copy is a lost sale" bullshit.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Hehe okay I admit this is funny.

But I'd like to know how the game knows it's pirated.

A proper single-player game should never know that.

If it does, it's DRM. If it's DRM, it's obtrusive. If it's obtrusive, some of the legal customers will circumvent it.

What's the in-game scenario when your customers need to crack the game in order to play it? What happens to the devs then?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
JemJar said:
I get why you want to believe this stuff but it's just not true.

If it were, the advent of piracy and bittorrent and all that stuff would have seen sales rise exponentially, and it's not the case, certainly not for PC developers.
While not specifically at the rise of bittorrent, (which didn't really increase the amount of piracy either just made it more comfortable), but generally with the spread of internet usage in general, game profits did rise pretty rapidly, along with most other entertainment media.

Here are some amazing statistics about entertainment industry's growth in the past decade:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-murdoch-is-wrong-heres-proof-that-digital-media-isnt-cannibalizing-showbiz-2012-1?op=1

Though it's a shaky correlation, because a lot of things changed in the past decades - a swich to digital distribution, easier online advertising, stronger word of mouth through social media (through pirates and non-pirates), but yeah, that specific data doesn't particularly DISPORVE the idea that free access to copies helps sales. AAA bugets have been skyrocketing, the indie scene just exploded all over the place in the past years, crowdfunding did grow exponentially in the past 3-4 years, etc.


JemJar said:
I do "get" that given that we live in a world of piracy, perhaps piracy does contribute a few sales. But it's like smashing a dam with a wrecking ball - no water can flow through the wrecking ball either, but it's hardly blocking the river any more.
The funny thing is, we can't really tell. The stories about piracy lsing a few sales, where someone obviously planned to buy a game but decided against it because there was piratebay, are just as anectdotal as the ones about someone wanting to buy it thanks to piracy. Only the above charts are certain. Entertainment is not dying, it's growing like crazy.


JemJar said:
Oh, and for a game killed by piracy, NHL Eastside Hockey Manager, made by Sports Interactive, now SI Games. I'm surprised by the line on Wikipedia that "most feel" that it was a lack of advertising issue - that certainly wasn't the going opinion at the time.
The problem with picking specific games that were killed by piracy, is that they always boil down to a Single Cause Fallacy.

Piracy is a constant. Many crazy-successful games have reported 90-95% piracy rates. It is simply a fact, that EVERY game is 90% pirated. We don't truly know whether it truly means a financial loss for the overall industry, but that's the data.

And obviously, some games are going to fail.

So you could basically picky ANY game that failed, and say "Well, if only that piracy rate wouldn't be there..." But that's only wishful thinking, like "well, if only they wouldn't have had to pay taxes", or "Well, if only it was better advertised" we don't know what would have happened in an alternate universe where piracy doesn't exist. Maybe those 90% would have still spent their money on something else.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Sgt. Sykes said:
Hehe okay I admit this is funny.

But I'd like to know how the game knows it's pirated.

A proper single-player game should never know that.

If it does, it's DRM. If it's DRM, it's obtrusive. If it's obtrusive, some of the legal customers will circumvent it.

What's the in-game scenario when your customers need to crack the game in order to play it? What happens to the devs then?
It doesn't, the pirated version is a pre-modified version they uploaded to bittorent sites to amuse themselves, actual paying customers get a completely different version.

Knowing the internet, an actual cracked version will probably be put up after everyone realizes the current one's fake. Still funny though.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
SecondPrize said:
I don't like anyone in this story. I believe pirates are pulling us closer to a f2p future (not in a good way), but there isn't anything worse than developers who straight up rip off their competitors. Don't buy this game to show support for developers hit by piracy. Buy Game Dev Story to show support for the above, as well as support for devs who see their products cloned by douches like these.
Yeah.

Kairosoft deserves the support.

I have a full page of phone games from them and they are the best on the shop.
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
i made my argument about that in my original post~
yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.
but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.

on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?
based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.
the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's.
and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.
its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,982
0
0
dmase said:
Ilikemilkshake said:
It's a bit heavy handed but still kind of funny, especially that the pirates then went on the forums and started complaining.
Heavy handed? Ending up fucking most of the people that play your game because of some pirates is heavy handed. These people basically went to go steal this company's product their version deserves to be bricked in my opinion.

OP: wow that is impressive. Never though about it until now but companies could post up virus filled games all over torrent sites to give the pirates their just deserts... they can call it scurvy.
I'm not saying they deserve a working game. For clarification I meant that the "message" was being delivered in a ham fisted manner. In the altered torrent version every company will go bust because of piracy 100% of the time no matter what. That isn't what happens in real life, a pirated copy doesn't automatically mean a lost sale.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
J Tyran said:
Well then at least someone is actually considering there is no real reason for piracy other than the fact that some people simply do not want to pay, which is true because cases like this prove all of the sob stories (great description btw) are bullshit.

Not wanting to pay someone for something they created is wrong, no other way around it. Sure its not the same as theft but its taking something for nothing and not giving someone their fair due, anyone trying to justify it needs to realign their morals. Putting self entitlement ahead of fair due is one thing when it comes to big publishers that make billions but its a another when it comes to hard working devs that rely on their income for their bread and butter.

At the end of the day I have no personal ax to grind over piracy, I have no issues with some types of piracy either. Like when people pirate a TV show or film that for whatever reason had restricted availability in their region but they later buy the BD/DVD. Same goes for when publishers go out of their way to avoid selling or supporting a game outside of certain countries, thats pants on head retarded and its their own fault if it gets copied.

I just wish the train of bullshit excuses would go away when people simply want a product without paying for it.
No, I mean that in a general sense. What if there is no NEED for sob stories, because piracy is not evil?

In other words, how do you know what you know?

There are plenty of examples of you benefiting using something without necessarily paying money, because the business model ended up that way. Wikipedia (donations), The Escapist (ads), Land TV broadcasting (ads), F2P (optional paying customets), fanfiction, webcomics, youtube cartoons (hobby work), etc.

Of course, the difference between these and piracy, is that these agreed to free distribution.

But how do you know that for publishers, it's "their fair due" to force a business model on yo where everyone has to pay?

Now assume that the game actually ends up being profitable, like most do, regardless of piracy. Compared to some low level animator or sound effects designer, who just got a monthly paycheck for his work and that's it, why should there also be an "IP holder", who beyond getting money, also has "a fair due" to feel morally entitled to limit the number of people playing the game?

Beyond the financial ad absurdum of how the industry would break down if everyone would pirate, basically all arguments I hear about piracy, boil down to this moral feeling of how artists should have a right to keep controlling EXACTLY what happens to every copy of their work.

But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
i made my argument about that in my original post~
yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.
but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.

on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?
based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.
the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's.
and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.
its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.
 

vasiD

New member
Oct 28, 2012
185
0
0
I'm all for this, very clever (plus, and I don't know if this was intentional, but a GREAT way to get some publicity).

In fact anyone who pirates an indie game being sold at a reasonable price is a monster and a thief honestly... That said I still feel that piracy for over-priced DRM-bullshit-filled games is totally acceptable. After all this is still capitalism unless I'm mistaken, and unless I'm mistaken capitalism is all about who can provide the best service at the best price and, while with things like steam the market is indeed getting better (which is why I have a 100 game steam library that's filling up the majority of my harddrive, and genuinely don't pirate very often any more unless it's an early leak of a game), for some games (those with draconian DRM or absurd prices) piracy remains the best service.

But seriously though if you pirate indie games made by small developers which are priced reasonably then you're an ass.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Entitled said:
There are plenty of examples of you benefiting using something without necessarily paying money, because the business model ended up that way. Wikipedia (donations), The Escapist (ads), Land TV broadcasting (ads), F2P (optional paying customets), fanfiction, webcomics, youtube cartoons (hobby work), etc.

Of course, the difference between these and piracy, is that these agreed to free distribution.

But how do you know that for publishers, it's "their fair due" to force a business model on yo where everyone has to pay?
They're not forcing a damn thing on you. It's entirely up to you whether you engage in a transaction with them.

This is entirely different from piracy, where someone take the fruits of the labour the publishers paid for without allowing those who made it happen the option to disagree. The pirates are the only ones who are forcing anything.

Now assume that the game actually ends up being profitable, like most do, regardless of piracy.
Go do some research and come back when you know what you're talking about, because most games *don't* end up being profitable. We just generally don't hear about them or the companies behind them because they disappear after they realize it's not worth their time to try to do this..


Compared to some low level animator or sound effects designer, who just got a monthly paycheck for his work and that's it, why should there also be an "IP holder", who beyond getting money, also has "a fair due" to feel morally entitled to limit the number of people playing the game?
Seriously? You're seriously arguing that the person who came up with the idea, laid down the effort and cash required to make it into a game (whether by doing it themselves, or finding someone willing to risk their cash to hire the people needed to get it done) has no moral right to dictate what happens to it? You do realize that without the IP holder, the IP in question would probably not exist, right?

Beyond the financial ad absurdum of how the industry would break down if everyone would pirate, basically all arguments I hear about piracy, boil down to this moral feeling of how artists should have a right to keep controlling EXACTLY what happens to every copy of their work.

But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"
Actually most creators have every such right. It why we *have* the copyright and patent systems, after all, to protect these people so that they feel that if they spend the time and effort to make something that benefits us all, they'll get properly compensated for it, and not ripped off by a bunch of entitled brats who think not having enough money is justification enough to take anything they like.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
vasiD said:
I'm all for this, very clever (plus, and I don't know if this was intentional, but a GREAT way to get some publicity).

In fact anyone who pirates an indie game being sold at a reasonable price is a monster and a thief honestly... That said I still feel that piracy for over-priced DRM-bullshit-filled games is totally acceptable. After all this is still capitalism unless I'm mistaken, and unless I'm mistaken capitalism is all about who can provide the best service at the best price and, while with things like steam the market is indeed getting better (which is why I have a 100 game steam library that's filling up the majority of my harddrive, and genuinely don't pirate very often any more unless it's an early leak of a game), for some games (those with draconian DRM or absurd prices) piracy remains the best service.
You fail to understand capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't mean you get to unilaterally decide the terms of the deal if you don't like the ones the providers are offering. Capitalism means you get to choose from a number of providers and choose the best one being offered.

Capitalism requires the participation of two parties. Piracy is explicitly *against* capitalism, because it cuts one party out of the equation completely.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.
I think what phoenix352 is saying is that this is negated by the number of people who only buy a game because they were able to pirate it first. I can see the train of thought, but it's no good because he's completely guessing at the numbers, and assuming that the two groups balance each other out based on no evidence whatsoever.

P.S. Thanks
 

saintdane05

New member
Aug 2, 2011
1,849
0
0
Personally, I always prefered the Earthbound one. In Earthbound, it lets you go all the way up to the final fight with Giygas... and then erases your save data. Just to torture you.
 

redisforever

New member
Oct 5, 2009
2,158
0
0
Ooh, I would actually like to buy this game, I just don't have $8 now... Maybe next week. I loved Game Dev Story for Android, so I'll certainly be giving this a close look soon. Off to get the demo, then.
 

vasiD

New member
Oct 28, 2012
185
0
0
Kwil said:
vasiD said:
I'm all for this, very clever (plus, and I don't know if this was intentional, but a GREAT way to get some publicity).

In fact anyone who pirates an indie game being sold at a reasonable price is a monster and a thief honestly... That said I still feel that piracy for over-priced DRM-bullshit-filled games is totally acceptable. After all this is still capitalism unless I'm mistaken, and unless I'm mistaken capitalism is all about who can provide the best service at the best price and, while with things like steam the market is indeed getting better (which is why I have a 100 game steam library that's filling up the majority of my harddrive, and genuinely don't pirate very often any more unless it's an early leak of a game), for some games (those with draconian DRM or absurd prices) piracy remains the best service.
You fail to understand capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't mean you get to unilaterally decide the terms of the deal if you don't like the ones the providers are offering. Capitalism means you get to choose from a number of providers and choose the best one being offered.

Capitalism requires the participation of two parties. Piracy is explicitly *against* capitalism, because it cuts one party out of the equation completely.
U wot?

And piracy isn't a provider? (Which was the whole point of my post)

That's bullshit.

Piracy is still being participated in by two parties, there is the consumer and the supplier... Just because the supplier isn't charging money doesn't suddenly negate the fact that they're offering a service... Or is it *against* capitalism when a company offers free anything?

"Capitalism doesn't mean you get to unilaterally decide the terms of the deal if you don't like the ones the providers are offering. Capitalism means you get to choose from a number of providers and choose the best one being offered."

Yeah, and my post was stating the fact that sometimes Piracy is the best one being offered... o_O

It's not like someone goes online and says "I want this, it is now mine" and suddenly it's all set to go... it has to be uploaded by someone and shared with them (which is why it's so hard for piracy to be stopped, because all pirates are friends and what's the world coming to if we can't share media with our friends?)...


That said I fucking hate capitalism anyway so the point is moot if you're trying to change my mind on piracy, I was merely using the retarded and doomed system that everyone seems to worship as a solid example of why companies need to stop bitching about piracy and offer better services already if they're having a problem (though, again, not in the case of indie games or anyone for that matter offering their game at a reasonable price in a reasonable format, in which case it's just theft).
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
i made my argument about that in my original post~
yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.
but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.

on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?
based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.
the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's.
and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.
its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.
when i say calculations i mean the sales figures.
my pirate as i stated is indeed counted as a sales figure BUT he also pirated the game beforehand meaning he is also a "lost sale" based on your rules.

so how can 1 person then be both a sale figure and a lost sale figure?
that's the pickle with that one.

i agree that the person who would have bought a copy if the option of piracy wasn't available would do harm to the dev but again you don't know that he would have.
there is no way to determine that information.
saying that he harms the dev is hypothetical because you need to assume that he otherwise would of bought it.
meaning anyone that pirates is completely irrelevant to any sales figures period.

if a developer chooses to calculate lost sales from piracy along side the actual sales figures he ends up basing it on estimates and nothing else so there can be no argument made that piracy affected his negotiations.
because in our current reality you cant prove that a pirate would buy that game if piracy wasn't a thing.
so the end figures are just lies.




that's the whole overarching point its simply a fact that piracy does no harm.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
I just love the :-( as the ending message...


By the way, without DRM, this PS1 game took two MONTHS to crack with all the sneaky layers of protection layered on.

But seriously, only 6.4% people bought legit copies? Jesus...
 

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
vasiD said:
Piracy is still being participated in by two parties, there is the consumer and the provider just like any other "provider"... Just because the provider isn't charging money doesn't suddenly negate the fact that they're offering a service... Or is it *against* capitalism when a company offers free anything?

That said I fucking hate capitalism anyway so the point is moot if you're trying to change my mind on piracy, I was merely using the retarded and doomed system that everyone seems to worship as a solid example of why companies need to stop bitching about piracy and offer better services already if they're having a problem (though, again, not in the case of indie games or anyone for that matter offering their game at a reasonable price in a reasonable format, in which case it's just theft)
Last time I checked Piracy is always the better service by simple virtue that theirs is free, and unless companies start paying you to take the product (Which I somehow doubt will work) I don't see that changing.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
I haven't pirated a game in years and years, ever since I had a disposable income, but this idea that piracy is killing gaming is ridiculous. Games are selling more than ever with higher revenues than ever and the only thing hurting some of the bigger publishers is that they can't keep their budgets under control.
Look at Ubisoft, about a year ago they got rid of the most extreme DRM they had, instituted one time activations, and their revenues have hit an all time high, 1.1 billion euros! Their earnings are through the roof and beat expectations by a wide margin.
Piracy is always going to exist. A very small sliver of people who pirate would ever buy the game. If you want those people to buy the game make it as easy as possible, make sure they get updates on time, have features like cloud save or easy matchmaking and chat functions built in that only paid players can access and you will convert as many of those people as possible. The rest are just NEVER going to buy your game.
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.
i feel like with minecraft, that had less to do with the amount of people who pirate it, and more to do with The Yogscast. Their videos did a lot to increase the popularity of minecraft. heck, i dont even like games like minecraft, and i almost bought it because The Yogscast made it seem so fun
 

vasiD

New member
Oct 28, 2012
185
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
I just love the :-( as the ending message...


By the way, without DRM, this PS1 game took two MONTHS to crack with all the sneaky layers of protection layered on.

But seriously, only 6.4% people bought legit copies? Jesus...
That's not the same thing... That's just regular old DRM...


They're talking about a very clever bit of DRM in a video game about making a video game studio that sees your studio go out of business due to piracy on pirated copies of the game.

I mean, don't get me wrong they're both DRM that stop you from playing, just one (Spyro) just blatantly says "you copied this game you thief, you may go no farther", while the other one forces a game over that RELATES DIRECTLY to the act of theft you committed.

Granted, in Spyro it is neat hearing it from a voice acted fairy rather than a black screen with white text.
 

vasiD

New member
Oct 28, 2012
185
0
0
Aeshi said:
vasiD said:
Piracy is still being participated in by two parties, there is the consumer and the provider just like any other "provider"... Just because the provider isn't charging money doesn't suddenly negate the fact that they're offering a service... Or is it *against* capitalism when a company offers free anything?

That said I fucking hate capitalism anyway so the point is moot if you're trying to change my mind on piracy, I was merely using the retarded and doomed system that everyone seems to worship as a solid example of why companies need to stop bitching about piracy and offer better services already if they're having a problem (though, again, not in the case of indie games or anyone for that matter offering their game at a reasonable price in a reasonable format, in which case it's just theft)
Last time I checked Piracy is always the better service by simple virtue that theirs is free, and unless companies start paying you to take the product (Which I somehow doubt will work) I don't see that changing.
Not quite, and anyone who has gotten a virus off a bad link can tell you that.

Don't get me wrong, free is a nice price, but it usually takes a bit of work (almost unnoticeable to those who are tech savvy but quite the barrier to those who aren't), doesn't run as well as an updated and patched game, and sometimes features errors or other difficulties.

I'm super tech savvy, and super poor, but it's worthy my money to have the 100 steam games I do be kept up for me by the service (and their prices were all more than reasonable). In fact a really good recent example is my purchase not more than a week ago of Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate on Steam. Now pretty much since I built my computer I've had a pirated copy of the game on it, just because I wanted to see what the game looked like on my PC (not even really play it, I beat it on PS3 and am not quite ready for a new game yet), and I would have been fine with my functional and updated cracked copy, but Steam offered it to me for $8, and that seemed reasonable, so I got rid of my pirated version and installed Steam's.


Companies can EASILY still win, they just have to offer a better service at a reasonable price.

Plus, while piracy can be nice for the pocketbook of the customer, it does leave developers in the lurch, and hopefully gamers can think long term enough to realize that could endanger that game they really like getting a sequel. I mean that's the real power of paying for something isn't it? It's a clear vote that says "I want more of this right here" that developers would have to be stupid to ignore.


Personally, my favorite means of doing business with game developers so far is Kickstarter, I can spend what I want, get the game, and help the developers. I can't imagine it getting any better.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
omega 616 said:
hazabaza1 said:
tiny pink invincible scorpion
Whut? If it's invisible how do you know how big it is, what colour it is and what it looks like?

Wait, does that mean it's legal to download or what? 'cos I kind of want to play this version, sounds interesting.
Invincible. Can't be killed.
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
Covarr said:
SecondPrize said:
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.
I think what phoenix352 is saying is that this is negated by the number of people who only buy a game because they were able to pirate it first. I can see the train of thought, but it's no good because he's completely guessing at the numbers, and assuming that the two groups balance each other out based on no evidence whatsoever.

P.S. Thanks
i am not assuming numbers , there are no numbers for both groups.
i just lay it out like it is.

just like were assuming some people would have bought a copy if the piracy option wasn't there. were also assuming that some of the pirates will buy a copy after they already pirated that game.

its an argument based on assumptions = irrelevant.
all i meant.


if there was a proven way to accurately know how many people would of bought a copy if piracy didn't exist then i would whole heartily agree.
but as that's not the case i will continue to defend that side.

piracy gets the wrong rep here and i dislike that, while its immoral its not harmful financially.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Kwil said:
They're not forcing a damn thing on you. It's entirely up to you whether you engage in a transaction with them.

This is entirely different from piracy, where someone take the fruits of the labour the publishers paid for without allowing those who made it happen the option to disagree. The pirates are the only ones who are forcing anything.
IP laws *ARE* enforced by law, without asking you first whether you agree that publishers' rights to data control can supersede your own rights of communication, and usage of your own property.

Every time a youtube video you made is removed because it's someone's property, every time a café owner gets fined for playing his own music CDs to a too large public, every time you are told whether you are allowed to apply your photocopier to the books that you own, they are forcing their rights before yours.

ARE their rights more important in these cases than your? Is it somehow part of creative workers' "property" to tell what other people are allowed to do with their own objects, how they can use the Internet, and what data they are allowed to share each other?

If yes, why? After the entertainment industry growing like crazy in the past decade either in spite of or thanks to all this piracy, if the protection of "sciences and useful arts" is possible without that much control, why is it necessary that they have such rights?

Kwil said:
Seriously? You're seriously arguing that the person who came up with the idea, laid down the effort and cash required to make it into a game (whether by doing it themselves, or finding someone willing to risk their cash to hire the people needed to get it done) has no moral right to dictate what happens to it? You do realize that without the IP holder, the IP in question would probably not exist, right?
(I think we have already talked about this part once, but...)

No, I'm not questioning the general concept of IP, of creators dictating "what happens to it", but how do you know exactly HOW FAR is it reasonable for creators to dictate?

Yes, the work wouldn't exist without them. So what? They can ask for payment before doing a certain work, like everyone else before doing a job. But doing a job, and then asking the government to give them the right to censor other people's data distribution?

Actually most creators have every such right. It why we *have* the copyright and patent systems, after all, to protect these people so that they feel that if they spend the time and effort to make something that benefits us all, they'll get properly compensated for it, and not ripped off by a bunch of entitled brats who think not having enough money is justification enough to take anything they like.
Most creators, yes, if you intentionally define these as IP holders, but I asked for most workers.

There is enough enough data to suggest (beyond common logic and anecdotal evidences), that the entertainment industries can still exist while data distribution is not limited.

If that is the case, what makes their demands of "proper compensation" so proper, and being "ripped off" so ripped?
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
I just love the :-( as the ending message...


By the way, without DRM, this PS1 game took two MONTHS to crack with all the sneaky layers of protection layered on.

But seriously, only 6.4% people bought legit copies? Jesus...



that would be shocking if you didn't factor in that the game is indie
sold of the guys site.


a game posted on all the popular torrent sites will get millions of hits , some indie game on some website is going to get a hell of a lot less exposure.

so based on that we can assume couple hundred thousand people glanced over this on torrent sites while only a couple hundred maybe thousand knew about this through legit channels.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
hazabaza1 said:
omega 616 said:
hazabaza1 said:
tiny pink invincible scorpion
Whut? If it's invisible how do you know how big it is, what colour it is and what it looks like?

Wait, does that mean it's legal to download or what? 'cos I kind of want to play this version, sounds interesting.
Invincible. Can't be killed.
Sorry, I derped pretty hard there, didn't I?

Though they do look quite similar, don't they?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Kwil said:
You fail to understand capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't mean you get to unilaterally decide the terms of the deal if you don't like the ones the providers are offering. Capitalism means you get to choose from a number of providers and choose the best one being offered.

Capitalism requires the participation of two parties. Piracy is explicitly *against* capitalism, because it cuts one party out of the equation completely.
Yeah, because monopolistic market regulations as defined by governments are just so freakin' laissez-faire!

Capitalism means that you can make a deal, if you can actually provide supply of a product or service that there is high demand for (because few are willing to provide it at the same price).

But IP laws are pretty much the opposite of free trade, they mean that if you can provide a service, like sing a song that you wrote, and if someone else can sing it better and she asks a better price for it, you can ask your friend the Man to punch her in the face until she stops singing so you are the most demanded singer again.

It would work if you would assume that your writing of the song was some sort of "property" that was yours before it was "taken away", but this in itself is a legal fiction invented specifically to make you more profitable, not a self-evident part of Natural Law.

You have a monopoly on singing that song, and your friend the government is regulating it for you. He might also decide that the other singer was actually doing "fair use" so you are out of luck, or that you lose your "property" after x years in favor of the Public. It's pretty much depending on his mood, how much of a winner you are picked to be.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
SecondPrize said:
phoenix352 said:
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?

Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.

pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.

do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.

if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
i made my argument about that in my original post~
yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.
but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.

on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?
based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.
the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's.
and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.
its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.
when i say calculations i mean the sales figures.
my pirate as i stated is indeed counted as a sales figure BUT he also pirated the game beforehand meaning he is also a "lost sale" based on your rules.

so how can 1 person then be both a sale figure and a lost sale figure?
that's the pickle with that one.

i agree that the person who would have bought a copy if the option of piracy wasn't available would do harm to the dev but again you don't know that he would have.
there is no way to determine that information.
saying that he harms the dev is hypothetical because you need to assume that he otherwise would of bought it.
meaning anyone that pirates is completely irrelevant to any sales figures period.

if a developer chooses to calculate lost sales from piracy along side the actual sales figures he ends up basing it on estimates and nothing else so there can be no argument made that piracy affected his negotiations.
because in our current reality you cant prove that a pirate would buy that game if piracy wasn't a thing.
so the end figures are just lies.




that's the whole overarching point its simply a fact that piracy does no harm.
I don't consider every instance of piracy a lost sale. I wouldn't count the guy who bought a copy after designing his own piracy demo plan as a sale that should have happened had he wound up not making the purchase in the end. All I'm saying is there are people who would purchase games but do not because they are available through piracy. This is separate from trying it out first or sticking it to publishers or any of that stuff. These are sales that would have happened had the game not been cracked at distributed. Call them lost sales if you like, but while not every instance of piracy is a lost sale, there are sales that get lost in the mix. Without even doing anything like calculating lost sales, developers are harmed because their final sales numbers are not as high as they would have been and they rely on those numbers. You're right that we can't put a number to them. I'm not saying devs should find some way to account for them on top of actual sales figures, but we have to admit that this happens simply based on our consuming like locusts nature as gamers.

Now we could argue that piracy does no net harm because you can eliminate the people who were never going to buy a game and compare sales gained because of word of mouth or do-it-yourself demoing resulting in a sale and those lost by people who would have purchased if they couldn't pirate, but we don't really have those numbers so it'll be speculation. Again, I'm just saying if there is one person who would have purchased a title and doesn't, the absence of his presence in sales figures does do a bit of damage.

The funny thing is, while I won't call for it in these forums, I won't be upset when a crack of the 'real' game dev tycoon comes out because this stinks of a PR stunt which, while brilliant, is more than a little hypocritical to me because as far as I can tell these two guys are straight ripping off kairosoft and their Game Dev Story.
 

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Now with all the big thing around this game I want to buy it, but their site seem to be not working, anyone has it working?
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
This is made of 100% pure win. Bookmarking their site for later so I can check out the demo once their site is working again.

J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.
Also, this. And this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5342-When-Piracy-Becomes-Theft

Because I don't care about definitions. When you pirate a DRM free indie game (especially one that has a demo), you are morally a thief. Fuck off with "no it's copyright infringement" and "the original isn't gone so it's not theivery see?" MORALLY, you are a thief and you deserve all the negative connotations associated with being a thief.
 

Nielas

New member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
0
Entitled said:
But IP laws are pretty much the opposite of free trade, they mean that if you can provide a service, like sing a song that you wrote, and if someone else can sing it better and she asks a better price for it, you can ask your friend the Man to punch her in the face until she stops singing so you are the most demanded singer again.

It would work if you would assume that your writing of the song was some sort of "property" that was yours before it was "taken away", but this in itself is a legal fiction invented specifically to make you more profitable, not a self-evident part of Natural Law.

You have a monopoly on singing that song, and your friend the government is regulating it for you. He might also decide that the other singer was actually doing "fair use" so you are out of luck, or that you lose your "property" after x years in favor of the Public. It's pretty much depending on his mood, how much of a winner you are picked to be.
All property law is "legal fiction". I own a car because of the amount of work I fulfilled the requirements for owning it (paid the maker money). Thus I have a monopoly on what can be done with the car within a set of government regulations. If someone tries to exercise rights on it that I or the law did not grant them, I can "ask your friend the Man to punch them in the face until they stop what they are doing".

Your argument pretty much boils down to you being willing to grant property rights only to physical objects and not allowing that any rights be granted for merely doing the creative work needed before hand. However, the creative people want to be compensated for their work and want to be able to set their own rates. The government acknowledges that it needs their professional contributions seriously enough that it created a social contract that grants the creators a set of rights over their creations.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
mjc0961 said:
this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5342-When-Piracy-Becomes-Theft

Because I don't care about definitions. When you pirate a DRM free indie game (especially one that has a demo), you are morally a thief. Fuck off with "no it's copyright infringement" and "the original isn't gone so it's not theivery see?" MORALLY, you are a thief and you deserve all the negative connotations associated with being a thief.
Yeah, and if you vote for a communist party, that makes morally a rapist.
If you drink before driving, that makes you morally an arsonist.
If you abort your fetus, that makes you morally an EA CEO.

Insults are one thing, but if you really "don't care about definitions", then you might as well pick one that will cause less inevitable confusion and discussion of definitions about whether you are mixing up two crimes, or just using one crime's weight as a vague estimation of an unrelated one's weight.
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
*spins around in leather chair*
I am going to allow this.


(no seriously though this is the kind of 'drm' if you can even call it that, that works with the 'true customers' with no detriment to their experience while also giving the pirates inconvenience. Which is what should happen.)

Kind of like those pieces of music that are pirated and half way though the song there's a clip of woody wood pecker singing instead. It's just poetic justice and discourages piracy without being heavy handed or scornful to valued customers.


Captcha: "Can't have nice things" Well actually sir Captcha, in this case, this is why we CAN have nice things.
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,851
0
0
I think I might like this even more than Serious Sam 3's anti-piracy measure. And I LOVED SS3's Invincible Giant Pink Scorpion DRM.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Entitled said:
J Tyran said:
Well then at least someone is actually considering there is no real reason for piracy other than the fact that some people simply do not want to pay, which is true because cases like this prove all of the sob stories (great description btw) are bullshit.

Not wanting to pay someone for something they created is wrong, no other way around it. Sure its not the same as theft but its taking something for nothing and not giving someone their fair due, anyone trying to justify it needs to realign their morals. Putting self entitlement ahead of fair due is one thing when it comes to big publishers that make billions but its a another when it comes to hard working devs that rely on their income for their bread and butter.

At the end of the day I have no personal ax to grind over piracy, I have no issues with some types of piracy either. Like when people pirate a TV show or film that for whatever reason had restricted availability in their region but they later buy the BD/DVD. Same goes for when publishers go out of their way to avoid selling or supporting a game outside of certain countries, thats pants on head retarded and its their own fault if it gets copied.

I just wish the train of bullshit excuses would go away when people simply want a product without paying for it.
No, I mean that in a general sense. What if there is no NEED for sob stories, because piracy is not evil?

In other words, how do you know what you know?

There are plenty of examples of you benefiting using something without necessarily paying money, because the business model ended up that way. Wikipedia (donations), The Escapist (ads), Land TV broadcasting (ads), F2P (optional paying customets), fanfiction, webcomics, youtube cartoons (hobby work), etc.

Of course, the difference between these and piracy, is that these agreed to free distribution.

But how do you know that for publishers, it's "their fair due" to force a business model on yo where everyone has to pay?

Now assume that the game actually ends up being profitable, like most do, regardless of piracy. Compared to some low level animator or sound effects designer, who just got a monthly paycheck for his work and that's it, why should there also be an "IP holder", who beyond getting money, also has "a fair due" to feel morally entitled to limit the number of people playing the game?

Beyond the financial ad absurdum of how the industry would break down if everyone would pirate, basically all arguments I hear about piracy, boil down to this moral feeling of how artists should have a right to keep controlling EXACTLY what happens to every copy of their work.

But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"
Sorry but this is nothing but self entitlement, you are claiming anyone should have the right to use software simply because its there and you do not agree with how people try to protect their IP?

Sure the copywrite systems in place today are broken and in need of reform but that still doesn't mean anyone has the right to obtain something because they do not agree with the business model.

Programmers and artists spend hundreds of hours creating something they intend to sell, the consumers are basically entering an unwritten contract along the lines of "you spend time creating entertainment for me, in return I will pay you for providing it for me".

Its that simple, they do it as a type of service. Your concept of free entertainment is missing an important part, sure some websites and games and other types of content are free at the point of use but ultimately we are still paying for it.

The ads and other marketing efforts just pass the cost on elsewhere, if you buy a product from a company that places internet ads the marketing budgets are passed on the consumer. The money doesn't come out of thin air.

Obtaining a product or service and not paying is morally wrong, whether a physical item was exchanged or not. Like waiters and waitresses in the US, most of their earnings come from tips. Not passing a modest tip is a shitty thing to do, sure they never actually gave you anything but they exchange their time and effort for money.

Same for a developer, you pay them to entertain you. Simple as that pirates are simply refusing to uphold that unwritten contract. Anyone that believes the things in your post is morally bankrupt at worst or some kind of digital socialist at best.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
Piracy leads to more people playing your game, and if your game is good then they will not only gain trust in you as a developer (leading to much better sales for future games) but they will help market your game through word of mouth. Look at minecraft, not only is it one of the most easily pirated games of all time it is also one of the most successful indie games of all time. Why? Because piracy helped send it to almost viral like popularity.
On the other hand, people who pay for the game can also evangelise it, in addition to having paid for it. Minecraft was amazingly successful despite being massively pirated; it was also a really fun, well marketed, highly creative game.

You don't need pirates evangelising your game if it's good, not in this day and age with so many impartial reviewers on youtube giving excellent reviews of just about everything (TotalBiscuit, anyone?)
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
While that is hilarious as an anti-piracy/shaming tool, I hope that as an actual mechanic piracy does not just suck your company dry, because it doesn't necessarily work like that in real life and I don't like biased portrayals.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Nielas said:
All property law is "legal fiction". I own a car because of the amount of work I fulfilled the requirements for owning it (paid the maker money). Thus I have a monopoly on what can be done with the car within a set of government regulations. If someone tries to exercise rights on it that I or the law did not grant them, I can "ask your friend the Man to punch them in the face until they stop what they are doing".

Your argument pretty much boils down to you being willing to grant property rights only to physical objects and not allowing that any rights be granted for merely doing the creative work needed before hand. However, the creative people want to be compensated for their work and want to be able to set their own rates. The government acknowledges that it needs their professional contributions seriously enough that it created a social contract that grants the creators a set of rights over their creations.
"legal fiction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction]" is not just a nickname for laws with a subjective basis, but an actual terminology for legal rulings that are based on "virtually simulating" a fact. IP is legal fiction because it pretends that the usage of data can be thought of as physical object.

Besides, lurk more legal philosophy. Pretty much all of it agrees that the concept of property is one of the basic tenets of civilization, and the very concept of "law", and the reason why governments exist in the first place, as anecessity to protect it (with a "Social Contract" or otherwise).

Many of these philosophers wrote before IP even existed.

Copyright is a modern market regulation, that was first invented in 1662 specifically as a certain english King's method of dealing with political censorship, by trusting the book publishers' guild with regulating appropriate content in turn for getting copyright monopoly over everything. By 1710, the publshers' guild already granted copyright to individual writers first, to justify it's continued existence, and by the American Constitution, the purpose to "promote science and the useful arts" has appeared as a justification.

There is a pretty fundamental difference between physical property and IP.

While exactly how physical property is protected might be an issue of specific laws, but the basic admittance that property exists has been with us since Hammurabi and longer, it's a legal axiom. Property exists beause... because property exists.

IP on the other hand, exists because of whatever reason publishers can think of, and whatever limits of control govermnents considered to be necessary at a time being.

The recent interpretation that IP should be thought of as another form of "property", (down to it's very name "intellectual property", which is actually a late 20th century invention), and that it should be respected for it's own sake because "it belongs to the creators", is a part of the copyright industry's "piracy is theft" concept, intended to remove the possibility of copyright reform.

Because after all, if IP is just a market regulation with the specific purpose of helping artists, people might start to wonder exactly how much regulation they need. What if they don't actually need 90 years of control? Or they don't need DMCA youtube takedowns? Or they don't need to control file-sharing at all, as the make enough money from physical copies sales monopoly, and optional sales, and ads, and donations, and merch?

But if it's "property", than every move against it means "taking away from artists what is their due", what obviously belongs to them just because, regardless of whether they need it or not, taking it away would still be like Robin Hood robbing the rich.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Amusing not-DRM DRM (I liked the Serious Sam DRM too). On the other hand, it sounds like the game itself just isn't that good, which is probably far more to blame for sales issues than piracy.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
That's my biggest beef with the pirating culture. I don't care about the actual pirating, because I buy some of the moralistic arguments about fighting against the absolutely ridiculous and ineffective measures publishers use to hassle consumers and sometimes wonder if publishers aren't actually trying to push people to piracy for some reason. Then something like this or the Humble Indie Bundle incident happens. They had a chance to justify their platitudes and failed miserably. I hope the ethical pirates are absolutely fuming at this.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
LetalisK said:
J Tyran said:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.
That's my biggest beef with the pirating culture. I don't care about the actual pirating, because I buy some of the moralistic arguments about fighting against the absolutely ridiculous and ineffective measures publishers use to hassle consumers and sometimes wonder if publishers aren't actually trying to push people to piracy for some reason. Then something like this or the Humble Indie Bundle incident happens. They had a chance to justify their platitudes and failed miserably. I hope the ethical pirates are absolutely fuming at this.
Incidents like this smash all the pitiful excuses, only 6% of the people playing their game bought it. Thats horrible, spending all that time to create something only to see self entitled gamers refusing to give their fair due must be awful.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
J Tyran said:
Sorry but this is nothing but self entitlement, you are claiming anyone should have the right to use software simply because its there and you do not agree with how people try to protect their IP?
Well, of course it is, I mean, just look at my username. The real question is, why is it less important than the artists' self entitlement to get profits through the outdated business model that they need to control communication, file-sharing, and copying in the world, to uphold?

J Tyran said:
Programmers and artists spend hundreds of hours creating something they intend to sell, the consumers are basically entering an unwritten contract along the lines of "you spend time creating entertainment for me, in return I will pay you for providing it for me".
Consumers are entering a contract. But what makes me, browsing the Internet, already having spent my monthly money on games weeks ago, enter into a contract when I also happen to find something new interesting to check out?

Why is it NEEDED for the publisher to have the right to stop me from that, if it already has been proven that access to free media doesn't take away money from the industry as a whole?


J Tyran said:
Its that simple, they do it as a type of service. Your concept of free entertainment is missing an important part, sure some websites and games and other types of content are free at the point of use but ultimately we are still paying for it.

The ads and other marketing efforts just pass the cost on elsewhere, if you buy a product from a company that places internet ads the marketing budgets are passed on the consumer. The money doesn't come out of thin air.
I know very well how the industry functions, I even noted the business models in my posts. I could have also listed the models of selling printed books with the ebook being under creative commons, or the anime industry selling DVDs after airing shows for free (with zero ad revenue).

Bu the overall point was, that there are so many possibilities of service providers getting payed after letting information flow free, and getting paid either by a few voluntary donators (like wikipedia, or really, basically anything that could be pirated but some people didn't choose that), by advertisements like TV, and most websites), or by selling physical objects (like novels, anime, and also music merch). Some of these assume that a few people being more generous than others, and leaves a room for freeloaders.

If there so many ways of digital works making a living, then why is it ecessary that publishers still ALSO get an authority over exactly how we are allowed o use the Internet, and our computer usage? It's not about "having a right to make a living", but about maximalizing control and maybe profits.

J Tyran said:
Anyone that believes the things in your post is morally bankrupt at worst or some kind of digital socialist at best.
See my above discussions with others, starting with "Yeah, because monopolistic market regulations as defined by governments are just so freakin' laissez-faire!".

There is nothing socialistic about not wanting the government to give creative artists subsidy in the form of letting them control all data traffic.

Letting artists and pubishers figure out how to make a living now that data is easily distributed, would be the free market thing to do. But deciding that the old publishing format simply needs to be protected even at the cost of limiting our personal rights, is probably the most extreme example of the government picking winners and losers on this side of communism.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Good for them. A nice bit of satire.

I may have to buy a copy just out of solidarity.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Piracy can hurt independent smaller developers, but I WISH it would hurt the big publishers

I like helping out the independents. Plopped down a little cash for Kerbal Space Program to try it while still in development because there needs to be more games like it
 

Dead Seerius

New member
Feb 4, 2012
865
0
0
This is hilarious. Good on the dev team for thinking of this. Sadly, I doubt many pirates will take the lesson to heart, but at least they get a big ol' 'fuck you' in the illegally downloaded version.

Wish more people would just pay for their damn products.
 

Holythirteen

New member
Mar 1, 2013
113
0
0
I love sneaky DRM like this. Designed purely to annoy and inconvenience the pirates, no trouble for paying customers at all. And pure entertainment when they go into a forum trying to figure out what's wrong. Priceless.

I guess I am a pirate, or I was in my lazy/broke small-town years. But I don't pretend that I had some right to be, and I can't believe how many people in this thread are DEFENDING it as some sort of Moral Crusade. Get out you cheap idiots, we do not care what you think, if you won't even pay for the games we love, what good is your stupid opinion? Get a clue, those are free.

Piracy does hurt games. Do not kid yourself. Sure not every game I pirated was something I was going to buy, and maybe I eventually DID buy quite a few when I changed my ways and started to find sales and re-releases but whatever good you think piracy is doing for the industry is insignificant compared to the money it has cost it.

Just think about it, some horrible program or genie or whatever ends piracy forever overnight, no pirated games on any hard drive anywhere, all torrent sites down forever. Zany and impossible I know, but what do you think pirates would start doing? Maybe a few would break out the old basketball, or watch some TV. But game sales would SKYROCKET. Sure poor students would find some cheaper games to play, anybody who pretends to be taking a "Moral Stand" by not buying 60 dollar games would instantly turn into a massive hypocrite and buy those games because they want to play them, fake morals be damned.

Most of you would probably start breaking car windows, because if you think your piracy is justified, becoming an actual thief wouldn't be much of a stretch.
 

WOPR

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,912
0
0
SecondPrize said:
...Buy Game Dev Story to show support for the above, as well as support for devs who see their products cloned by douches like these.
Little problem when you don't own an iOS or Android devise and want a similar game for your at home PC.
(That's not even addressing the obvious "Inspiration vs Replication" problems.)
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
I do not want to argue the rest,our opinions our too polarized and the discussion is starting to go in circles. I cannot ignore this though,

Entitled said:
But deciding that the old publishing format simply needs to be protected even at the cost of limiting our personal rights,
No-one has the right to decide what entertainment you can take without returning fair due. Entertainment isnt really a right anyway, if we where discussing basic foodstuffs or water in this context I would generally agree with this position. Basic Human needs should be shared, those that can pay should pay and those in need should be provided for.

Noone has the right to simply take digital content, people spend hundreds of hours and heaps of cash. Denying them fair due is just wrong, noone has the right to do that.

If they simply admit they are taking it fine, just stop attempts to moralize it. I cannot condemn someone for simply taking something, its hypocritical of me to do so in all honesty. I have done worse in my life than download some movies and games, I own up to it and admit it. Pirates should step up and be honest too and admit "I want it so I will take it".
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
I love these subtle non consumer damaging means to prevent piracy. Everyone should refer to Serious Sam 3's immortal pink scorpion.

This is easily the best way to combat piracy. It only hurts the pirates.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
SecondPrize said:
The funny thing is, while I won't call for it in these forums, I won't be upset when a crack of the 'real' game dev tycoon comes out because this stinks of a PR stunt which, while brilliant, is more than a little hypocritical to me because as far as I can tell these two guys are straight ripping off kairosoft and their Game Dev Story.
Thing is, Game Dev Story is very basic, Game Dev Tycoon from what I have seen is a LOT more complicated. With publishers, having to meet a standard, having to make an engine and having to study into various things like 2D, 3D, etc...

It maybe a clone but it added a lot more depth then the original did...
 

ScrabbitRabbit

New member
Mar 27, 2012
1,545
0
0
I just tried the demo and fell in love with it.

Now the site appears to be down, so I can't buy it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

EDIT: And now it's working. YAAAAAAAY.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
This is also good example of where the 'wouldn't have bought it anyways" argument used to diminish the impact of piracy comes into play.
The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately.
.

Now, that sounds pretty damn severe, because it is. But honestly, who has an interest in playing this game? Let alone buying it. Hell, I'm a fan of 'tycoon' type games, but I wouldn't even consider paying money for this, there's simply no appeal. But for free? Fuck, I don't know, maybe, but I've got better things to do even then.

Point being, sure, piracy is bad. But the percentage of your user base that is pirates might not mean a damn thing if nobody wants to buy the game in the first place. Now, if those same pirates are still playing a week or two from now, that might be a different story.
 

Judas_Iscariot

New member
May 18, 2011
64
0
0
Entitled said:
>Every argument you made so far goes here <
You are an author. You spend countless nights over the course of years perfecting your masterwork novel, all while working full time at an assembly line to earn enough to live off of. One day, after these long grueling years, you finish your novel and everyone loves it. You receive $30 in compensation, because you sold a single copy online which was then "shared" to anyone who wanted to read it for free. You never write again, and the world loses any new works you may have created.


Too much hypothetical? Without copyright protection there would be a grinding halt to creativity.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
First of all:
J Tyran said:
Pirates should step up and be honest too and admit "I want it so I will take it".
That's an inherently loaded analogy, running on the same false comparison as "piracy is theft".
Copying is not "taking". The only thing that writing a copy of a game on your HDD takes away, is the IP holder's privilege to be the one who can tell you that you are not allowed to write that copy.

J Tyran said:
No-one has the right to decide what entertainment you can take without returning fair due.
We are going back to the basic question. How do you know that this exact amount of control truly *is* what is artists' fair due?

Let me put it this way:

Do you think that copyright should end after a limited term? (say, 90 years, as it does now?)
Do you think that the public should have Fair Use rights regarding others' IP?
Do you think that consumers should have used sales rights?


Let's say, that back when the first IP laws were still young, and they were mostly just about books, the US constitution was written in a slightly different way:

"...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing to Authors and Inventors an absolute Right to Control of their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

It's all logical, after all, property doesn't just magically disappear after a few decades either, and it's ownership is absolute, you can't just claim "fair use" on your neighbor's car, so the same should apply to IP.

Now, in this world, centuries later, as music recoding is invented, it is obvious from the first day that covers, remixes, medleys, and other reusings of someone else's work. The Betamax case was won by Sony, and all video recording is illegal, even for time-shifting, as you can't just copy someone else's whole work, it's "their fair due" that if you miss the movie, you have to buy the casette. Used game sales are illegal everywhere, after all, creators continue to control their Property even after you paid for your own private license.

The Internet still exists, though more file-sharing and video-streaming sites are banned, including this one, but piracy is still possible. I you know where to look, you can also find some seedy sites with illegal media on it, like Kamakawiwo&#699;ole's "What a wonderful world", or parody videos like "How the Lord of the Rings should have ended", along with entirely pirated content.

And let's say, that in this world, you suddenly get the idea that copyright shouldn't be that restrictive after all, that a certain amount of public rights should also be protected, rather than just glorifying creator rights at every chance.

How would you communicate that? Anything that you say, about your right to time-shift movies, would be first seen as "going against the creators wishes". If Sony asked you to buy the casette instead, then why are you denying them?

Any complaint about having to pay for 200 year old novels to the writer's descendants, would be seen as "just wanting free stuff". Any suggestion that artists should have some open access to some Fair Use, would be criticised as "promoting unoriginality" instead of creativity.

How would you make people think outside of hundreds of years of TRADITION of what ended up being criminalized for historical reason, and instead, at least CONSIDER the possibility that the world that they grew up in is already stacked against them, that it pointlessly harms them, and the Earth would keep on spinning if publishers wouldn't get quite THAT MUCH authority over our lives, and we could more freely use media without having to worry about every frame, and every bit?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Judas_Iscariot said:
You are an author. You spend countless nights over the course of years perfecting your masterwork novel, all while working full time at an assembly line to earn enough to live off of. One day, after these long grueling years, you finish your novel and everyone loves it. You receive $30 in compensation, because you sold a single copy online which was then "shared" to anyone who wanted to read it for free. You never write again, and the world loses any new works you may have created.


Too much hypothetical? Without copyright protection there would be a grinding halt to creativity.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened to Paulo Coelho, Eric Flint, Cory Doctorow, and several other writers who put up their e-books on the Internet for free downloading.

Oh wait, no! They went on to sell a bunch of dead tree editions, and optional buyable e-books, and made a living from it.

Though to be fair, there are quite a few writers who didn't make money from writing.
For example those hundreds of fanfiction novel writers who spent years on long, entertaining, creative, and popular sagas, (that happen to take place in an universe invented by someone else earlier, just like most modern pop-culture works), and then no one bought them. BECAUSE COPYRIGHT LEGALLY STOPPED THEM FROM SELLING THEM!

So eventually, they were forced to quit their work. That is, the ones who got a C&D letter legally obliging them to STOP WRITING. The rest kept doing it for more years.
 

C14N

New member
May 28, 2008
250
0
0
Probably one of the cleverest ways of teaching gamers a lesson, especially when you see their forum posts echoing what the devs themselves are thinking. I think if I was the developer I would have probably just made all the characters massive penises in the cracked version or something. I hadn't realised they could mess up the cracked versions.
 

Holythirteen

New member
Mar 1, 2013
113
0
0
Entitled said:
WORDS

But if it's "property", than every move against it means "taking away from artists what is their due", what obviously belongs to them just because, regardless of whether they need it or not, taking it away would still be like Robin Hood robbing the rich.
Man you go to alot of trouble to say its ok to steal because I can plus its not stealing because of reasons.

So you pirate games because you hate the industry, or just capitalism in general? Is that oversimplifying? I suppose it's true that these laws wouldn't exist if old rich people didn't benefit from having them implemented, but there are plenty of IP's that wouldn't exist today that I happen to enjoy(music, books, games) that wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit the individuals who made them, so in response to your pseudo-legal justification I have to say "SO WHAT?", because I happen to like some of those things and I want more of them. If there's no profit in them why should anybody make them? Are you saying we should have some sort of voluntary donation system? Do you not enjoy these things or do you think you should get them for free because you are so awesome? Or maybe you think its up to the rest of us to pay for your games because you are smart enough to click on links to torrents? Make some sense dude.

You talk about the term "Intellectual Property" like it was this evil thing rich people made up so that they could get even richer, but I can't think of any IP that wasn't initially made by an individual or a small group of individuals, and they probably expected compensation for their creativity. These laws kept others from taking their ideas and selling them, why are these laws "the enemy" to you?

I assume you're not planning on creating anything yourself, because I'm pretty sure you'd have to copyright it or protect it somehow if you ever planned on making money off of it. What DO you do besides steal from hard working people anyway? (Don't answer that I don't actually care.)

OMG you think you are Robin Hood. Except the only poor person you give to is yourself.

For example those hundreds of fanfiction novel writers who spent years on long, entertaining, creative, and popular sagas, (that happen to take place in an universe invented by someone else earlier, just like most modern pop-culture works), and then no one bought them. BECAUSE COPYRIGHT LEGALLY STOPPED THEM FROM SELLING THEM!
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T BELONG TO THEM. If their ideas were so great they could've easily changed a few names and sold their work as its own product.

What idiot expects to make money from fanfiction?

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened to Paulo Coelho, Eric Flint, Cory Doctorow, and several other writers who put up their e-books on the Internet for free downloading.

Oh wait, no! They went on to sell a bunch of dead tree editions, and optional buyable e-books, and made a living from it.
They own it they CHOSE TO DO THAT WITH THEIR OWN IP. Good thing there are laws that keep me from downloading, printing, and selling it myself!
 

C14N

New member
May 28, 2008
250
0
0
Jadak said:
This is also good example of where the 'wouldn't have bought it anyways" argument used to diminish the impact of piracy comes into play.
The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately.
.

Now, that sounds pretty damn severe, because it is. But honestly, who has an interest in playing this game? Let alone buying it. Hell, I'm a fan of 'tycoon' type games, but I wouldn't even consider paying money for this, there's simply no appeal. But for free? Fuck, I don't know, maybe, but I've got better things to do even then.

Point being, sure, piracy is bad. But the percentage of your user base that is pirates might not mean a damn thing if nobody wants to buy the game in the first place. Now, if those same pirates are still playing a week or two from now, that might be a different story.
If they cared about it enough to invest their time finding it and playing it (bearing in mind that if they just wanted to try it out, there was a free demo) then the simple fact is that if the free version just didn't exist, they would have paid something for it. It's been years since I've paid full retail price for a game, because it's rare that I think it's worth it but I still buy tons of games because I pay a lower price eventually. Similarly, a lot of gamers might go "bah, not paying 8 bucks for this, I'll just pirate it because if I wasn't going to buy it, they aren't losing anything" even though if, in a year, they saw it for half that in a Steam sale, a lot of them would have forked out.
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
43
Country
Australia
JazzJack2 said:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.
Did you not even read the post? You seem to be all for advocating piracy even in the face of the developer saying "yo dude, we're losing money here".
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Holythirteen said:
Entitled said:
WORDS

But if it's "property", than every move against it means "taking away from artists what is their due", what obviously belongs to them just because, regardless of whether they need it or not, taking it away would still be like Robin Hood robbing the rich.
Man you go to alot of trouble to say its ok to steal because I can plus its not stealing because of reasons.

OMG you think you are Robin Hood.
Ok. Now go back, and read the rest of those WORDS, where I'm explaining why IP is *NOT* property, but the content industry is trying to portray it as if it would be.

And then read again that paragraph starting with a hypothetical "if it's property...", and ending with Robin Hood.

What I'm saying is that "robbing the rich" is OBVIOUSLY wrong, therefore if copyright would be property, then not just every copyright infringement would be theft, but even copyright reform based on the fact that publishers already hoard too much IP right, should be treated as inappropriately Robin Hood-ish.

That's why we have to treat IP like what it is, a practical market regulation that was useful at a time for rewarding creativity, but it might need to be readjusted now as it is doing more harm than good, and we can totally do that without bringing up the content industry's whole theft/robbing/unalienable moral right to ownership issue.
 

Holythirteen

New member
Mar 1, 2013
113
0
0
That's why we have to treat IP like what it is, a practical market regulation that was useful at a time for rewarding creativity, but it might need to be readjusted now as it is doing more harm than good, and we can totally do that without bringing up the content industry's whole theft/robbing/unalienable moral right to ownership issue.
Funny how that readjustment means you get stuff for free while the rest of us have to pay.

Yeah, intellectual property and physical property are NOT THE SAME THINGS I get that part.