View From The Road: Ubisoft Needs To Use a Carrot

[Tharwen]

You get to save your game in a cloud, and you get to download and install the game on any machine you want without bothering with DVDs (in case you're craving some Florentine action on your lunch break).

You can download all of Assassin's Creed 2 in your lunch break?

 

[JEBWrench]

1.) Saving up for that thing you really want, like people have done for the rest of human existence?

2.) Find something cheaper? There are plenty of old games for cheap. Games like PopCap games for cheap. Hell, get a library card and read.

People don't do 1) anymore. The "now, now, NOW" attitude is so prevalent that people will willingly sacrifice necessities to satisfy wants. As for 2) if people wanted to read, they'd steal a BioWare game.

It's almost a cultural effect now, piracy is.

People have convinced themselves that when there is no physical media being stolen, it's not really stealing.

 

[Xocrates]

I wonder why DVD's of big and costly Hollywood movies can be sold for anywhere between 5 to 25 euros, and games must be sold for anywhere between 40 and 80 euros.

Movies get most of their money out of being shown in theatres, which would be the equivalent of games making most of their money out of arcades.

You'll notice however, that direct to DVD stuff is usually the equivalent of shovelware.

 

[Seanchaidh]

People have convinced themselves that when there is no physical media being stolen, it's not really stealing.

And they're right. It's copying. When someone 'steals' your 'intellectual property', you still have it. When someone steals your cattle, you do not.

Laws against theft have two functions: to promote production and to limit harm. Laws regarding copyright infringement have only one function: to promote production. Copying is, in itself, an act without any clear harm. Whereas I can steal your hamburger and prevent you from eating, or hijack a shipment of flour and prevent a town from having bread, I cannot prevent you from hearing your own music by humming the same tune to myself or performing it for an audience. If hamburgers and cattle worked the same way, no one would give a shit about copying hamburgers. They certainly wouldn't call it theft. (And we needn't negotiate with the descendants of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich for the right to make, sell, or eat sandwiches and burgers.) When I steal your silver spoon, you no longer have it. When I copy your idea, you still do have it. The effect on you is as if I hadn't done anything whatsoever-- except modify the sale value of a non-scarce item. Copying is not stealing except by analogy. But many things are many other things by analogy.

We should go back to the patronage system: let rich people pay for the opinions of self-important bloviators, game developers, musicians and journalists, and let it be public domain after first sale. The merit of an idea has nothing to do with the size of the population, but compensation for ideas, as they stand in an ideal-typical world of perfectly enforceable copyrights (and even in the real world), is a function with population as a term. Starcraft is just about as fun a game in a world with six hundred as a world with six billion people. But in a world of six hundred such a game wouldn't even break even, let alone make profit. With around six billion, it's a wild success. Even poor intellectual produce which one should be embarrassed to have made can be profitable in a world with such a large population: the Twilight series for example.

Copyright isn't about just compensation nor is it really about ownership. What it is about is contriving a way for markets to reward the producers of ideas in some proportion to the popularity of their ideas' consumption. This should not be confused with a moral concern, it is only a practical policy concern. We use it only because there is no more impartial or fair a way of rewarding producers of ideas that we know of. Speaking of ideas, take the example of patents, which are illustrative of what I'm talking about: if you invent something and patent it, but don't try to sell it, the patent is usually void-- which is to say that you don't really own it-- it is a monopoly granted only with the acceptance of certain conditions. It is something which you are said to 'own' only conditionally; you have the right only if the invention is of sufficient merit that people want to buy it, and only if you make it for those people.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

People have convinced themselves that when there is no physical media being stolen, it's not really stealing.

And they're right. It's copying. When someone 'steals' your 'intellectual property', you still have it. When someone steals your cattle, you do not.

Laws against theft have two functions: to promote production and to limit harm. Laws regarding copyright infringement have only one function: to promote production. Copying is, in itself, an act without any clear harm. Whereas I can steal your hamburger and prevent you from eating, or hijack a shipment of flour and prevent a town from having bread, I cannot prevent you from hearing your own music by humming the same tune to myself or performing it for an audience. If hamburgers and cattle worked the same way, no one would give a shit about copying hamburgers. They certainly wouldn't call it theft. (And we needn't negotiate with the descendants of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich for the right to make, sell, or eat sandwiches and burgers.) When I steal your silver spoon, you no longer have it. When I copy your idea, you still do have it. The effect on you is as if I hadn't done anything whatsoever-- except modify the sale value of a non-scarce item. Copying is not stealing except by analogy. But many things are many other things by analogy.

We should go back to the patronage system: let rich people pay for the opinions of self-important bloviators, game developers, musicians and journalists, and let it be public domain after first sale. The merit of an idea has nothing to do with the size of the population, but compensation for ideas, as they stand in an ideal-typical world of perfectly enforceable copyrights (and even in the real world), is a function with population as a term. Starcraft is just about as fun a game in a world with six hundred as a world with six billion people. But in a world of six hundred such a game wouldn't even break even, let alone make profit. With around six billion, it's a wild success. Even poor intellectual produce which one should be embarrassed to have made can be profitable in a world with such a large population: the Twilight series for example.

Copyright isn't about just compensation nor is it really about ownership. What it is about is contriving a way for markets to reward the producers of ideas in some proportion to the popularity of their ideas' consumption. This should not be confused with a moral concern, it is only a practical policy concern. We use it only because there is no more impartial or fair a way of rewarding producers of ideas that we know of. Speaking of ideas, take the example of patents, which are illustrative of what I'm talking about: if you invent something and patent it, but don't try to sell it, the patent is usually void-- which is to say that you don't really own it-- it is a monopoly granted only with the acceptance of certain conditions. It is something which you are said to 'own' only conditionally; you have the right only if the invention is of sufficient merit that people want to buy it, and only if you make it for those people.

Very articulate response, dude. I'm normally in favour of copyright protection but you've made me see another side of the coin here.

 

[JEBWrench]

And they're right. It's copying. When someone 'steals' your 'intellectual property', you still have it. When someone steals your cattle, you do not.

Laws against theft have two functions: to promote production and to limit harm. Laws regarding copyright infringement have only one function: to promote production. Copying is, in itself, an act without any clear harm. Whereas I can steal your hamburger and prevent you from eating, or hijack a shipment of flour and prevent a town from having bread, I cannot prevent you from hearing your own music by humming the same tune to myself or performing it for an audience. If hamburgers and cattle worked the same way, no one would give a shit about copying hamburgers. They certainly wouldn't call it theft. (And we needn't negotiate with the descendants of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich for the right to make, sell, or eat sandwiches and burgers.) When I steal your silver spoon, you no longer have it. When I copy your idea, you still do have it. The effect on you is as if I hadn't done anything whatsoever-- except modify the sale value of a non-scarce item. Copying is not stealing except by analogy. But many things are many other things by analogy.

We should go back to the patronage system: let rich people pay for the opinions of self-important bloviators, game developers, musicians and journalists, and let it be public domain after first sale. The merit of an idea has nothing to do with the size of the population, but compensation for ideas, as they stand in an ideal-typical world of perfectly enforceable copyrights (and even in the real world), is a function with population as a term. Starcraft is just about as fun a game in a world with six hundred as a world with six billion people. But in a world of six hundred such a game wouldn't even break even, let alone make profit. With around six billion, it's a wild success. Even poor intellectual produce which one should be embarrassed to have made can be profitable in a world with such a large population: the Twilight series for example.

Copyright isn't about just compensation nor is it really about ownership. What it is about is contriving a way for markets to reward the producers of ideas in some proportion to the popularity of their ideas' consumption. This should not be confused with a moral concern, it is only a practical policy concern. We use it only because there is no more impartial or fair a way of rewarding producers of ideas that we know of. Speaking of ideas, take the example of patents, which are illustrative of what I'm talking about: if you invent something and patent it, but don't try to sell it, the patent is usually void-- which is to say that you don't really own it-- it is a monopoly granted only with the acceptance of certain conditions. It is something which you are said to 'own' only conditionally; you have the right only if the invention is of sufficient merit that people want to buy it, and only if you make it for those people.

As much as disagree with you, I must commend you on a well-expressed opinion.

(And I'm not going to do much to refute your opinion, because this generally degenerates into a circular argument no matter how well formed the opinions are.

But I am going to address the idea that there is no harm involved when intellectual property is stolen. I believe that to be a flawed argument from the perspective of the publisher. That is, to say, given their decision to charge a nominal fee for a license to experience the game, they were denied license fees by the act of piracy.

That is extremely awkward and ugly phrasing, but I'm not sure how to explain myself better than with an analogy:

Suppose you went to an art museum, concert or movie theater. And rather than paying the ticket price, you snuck inside. Are you not in violation? Or because you wouldn't have paid the fee anyways, you should be allowed to go for free?

 

[Seanchaidh]

And they're right. It's copying. When someone 'steals' your 'intellectual property', you still have it. When someone steals your cattle, you do not.

Laws against theft have two functions: to promote production and to limit harm. Laws regarding copyright infringement have only one function: to promote production. Copying is, in itself, an act without any clear harm. Whereas I can steal your hamburger and prevent you from eating, or hijack a shipment of flour and prevent a town from having bread, I cannot prevent you from hearing your own music by humming the same tune to myself or performing it for an audience. If hamburgers and cattle worked the same way, no one would give a shit about copying hamburgers. They certainly wouldn't call it theft. (And we needn't negotiate with the descendants of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich for the right to make, sell, or eat sandwiches and burgers.) When I steal your silver spoon, you no longer have it. When I copy your idea, you still do have it. The effect on you is as if I hadn't done anything whatsoever-- except modify the sale value of a non-scarce item. Copying is not stealing except by analogy. But many things are many other things by analogy.

We should go back to the patronage system: let rich people pay for the opinions of self-important bloviators, game developers, musicians and journalists, and let it be public domain after first sale. The merit of an idea has nothing to do with the size of the population, but compensation for ideas, as they stand in an ideal-typical world of perfectly enforceable copyrights (and even in the real world), is a function with population as a term. Starcraft is just about as fun a game in a world with six hundred as a world with six billion people. But in a world of six hundred such a game wouldn't even break even, let alone make profit. With around six billion, it's a wild success. Even poor intellectual produce which one should be embarrassed to have made can be profitable in a world with such a large population: the Twilight series for example.

Copyright isn't about just compensation nor is it really about ownership. What it is about is contriving a way for markets to reward the producers of ideas in some proportion to the popularity of their ideas' consumption. This should not be confused with a moral concern, it is only a practical policy concern. We use it only because there is no more impartial or fair a way of rewarding producers of ideas that we know of. Speaking of ideas, take the example of patents, which are illustrative of what I'm talking about: if you invent something and patent it, but don't try to sell it, the patent is usually void-- which is to say that you don't really own it-- it is a monopoly granted only with the acceptance of certain conditions. It is something which you are said to 'own' only conditionally; you have the right only if the invention is of sufficient merit that people want to buy it, and only if you make it for those people.

As much as disagree with you, I must commend you on a well-expressed opinion.

(And I'm not going to do much to refute your opinion, because this generally degenerates into a circular argument no matter how well formed the opinions are.

But I am going to address the idea that there is no harm involved when intellectual property is stolen. I believe that to be a flawed argument from the perspective of the publisher. That is, to say, given their decision to charge a nominal fee for a license to experience the game, they were denied license fees by the act of piracy.

That is extremely awkward and ugly phrasing, but I'm not sure how to explain myself better than with an analogy:

Suppose you went to an art museum, concert or movie theater. And rather than paying the ticket price, you snuck inside. Are you not in violation? Or because you wouldn't have paid the fee anyways, you should be allowed to go for free?

I would say that the purpose of copyrights is the public good, not private wealth creation. And I would say the same of art museums being allowed to charge entrance fees. Private wealth creation is a necessary side effect for the policy to have the desired outcome of causing the production of art, music, journalism, etc. I will readily agree that content creators, at least usually, deserve something more for their efforts than if everyone simply pirated, but it's not clear to me that what they deserve is identical to what they would get with strictly followed copyrights: the problem of value changing simply based on population is too weird. As far as what constitutes theft, taking a painting out of the art gallery is theft. Not paying the entrance fee is mere trespassing. The same goes for movie theaters and concerts. I'm not saying it can't be described as wrong, but that it is only wrong-by-convention, and certainly nowhere near as harmful as outright theft of physical objects.

 

[JEBWrench]

I would say that the purpose of copyrights is the public good, not private wealth creation. And I would say the same of art museums being allowed to charge entrance fees. Private wealth creation is a necessary side effect for the policy to have the desired outcome of causing the production of art, music, journalism, etc. I will readily agree that content creators, at least usually, deserve something more for their efforts than if everyone simply pirated, but it's not clear to me that what they deserve is identical to what they would get with strictly followed copyrights: the problem of value changing simply based on population is too weird. As far as what constitutes theft, taking a painting out of the art gallery is theft. Not paying the entrance fee is mere trespassing. The same goes for movie theaters and concerts. I'm not saying it can't be described as wrong, but that it is only wrong-by-convention, and certainly nowhere near as harmful as outright theft of physical objects.

While I too would agree the implication that art museums ought not to charge fees, the simple reality of it is that they are. Most galleries started as private collections that the owners of the pieces decide whether or not to charge viewing fees for. As such, a viewer has two options should there be a particular gallery they wish to see, but cannot afford. One is to commit a violation and sneak in, and two is to do without. Either way, the gallery is not responsible for making that decision. Along the same lines, then, piracy could also be viewed as not simply viewing, but either recreating or photographing the pieces in question. Is it the same as stealing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is deliberately circumventing the owner's right to acquire fees for what they have.

Whether or not is seems right for a license purchaser of a game to share it with others, for the most part, the owners of the game property (the publishers), tend to believe that they should be free to prevent others from attempting to circumvent the terms of the license sold.

(Now, I know that there is a plethora of arguments to be had as to whether the publishers are selling a product in terms of games, or licenses. That's not what I'm getting at. For the most part, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, publishers sell licenses. Unfortunate as that may be.)

As for the second point in bold, all things that are "wrong" can be considered only "wrong-by-convention", as morality and law are inherently human creations.

(Once again, I apologize if this double-posts)

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would say that the purpose of copyrights is the public good, not private wealth creation. And I would say the same of art museums being allowed to charge entrance fees. Private wealth creation is a necessary side effect for the policy to have the desired outcome of causing the production of art, music, journalism, etc. I will readily agree that content creators, at least usually, deserve something more for their efforts than if everyone simply pirated, but it's not clear to me that what they deserve is identical to what they would get with strictly followed copyrights: the problem of value changing simply based on population is too weird. As far as what constitutes theft, taking a painting out of the art gallery is theft. Not paying the entrance fee is mere trespassing. The same goes for movie theaters and concerts. I'm not saying it can't be described as wrong, but that it is only wrong-by-convention, and certainly nowhere near as harmful as outright theft of physical objects.

While I too would agree the implication that art museums ought not to charge fees, the simple reality of it is that they are. Most galleries started as private collections that the owners of the pieces decide whether or not to charge viewing fees for. As such, a viewer has two options should there be a particular gallery they wish to see, but cannot afford. One is to commit a violation and sneak in, and two is to do without. Either way, the gallery is not responsible for making that decision. Along the same lines, then, piracy could also be viewed as not simply viewing, but either recreating or photographing the pieces in question. Is it the same as stealing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is deliberately circumventing the owner's right to acquire fees for what they have.

Whether or not is seems right for a license purchaser of a game to share it with others, for the most part, the owners of the game property (the publishers), tend to believe that they should be free to prevent others from attempting to circumvent the terms of the license sold.

(Now, I know that there is a plethora of arguments to be had as to whether the publishers are selling a product in terms of games, or licenses. That's not what I'm getting at. For the most part, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, publishers sell licenses. Unfortunate as that may be.)

As for the second point in bold, all things that are "wrong" can be considered only "wrong-by-convention", as morality and law are inherently human creations.

(Once again, I apologize if this double-posts)

I should have said wrong-by-fiat. (It's easy to fall into the trap of supposing an objective morality because it's easier to talk and think in terms of moral facts even though, strictly speaking, they don't exist.)

Certain things seem wrong no matter what, and certain things don't. Copying is one of those things that is in itself harmless but that in certain circumstances, because we see benefit in manipulating incentives to favor production, we try to curtail. The same applies to theft, of course, but theft also has the direct harm associated with it. If it were as easy to copy food, clothing, and shelter as it is to copy software and text, that would be the end of poverty as we know it. Likewise, if there were a way to as effectively promote the production of ideas/games/news articles/etc. while allowing all that to be public domain immediately, that would be a better situation as well. The productive power that allows piracy to be a problem is the same productive power that would make such a rich and current public domain very desirable.

Very articulate response, dude. I'm normally in favour of copyright protection but you've made me see another side of the coin here.

Thanks. I, uh, appreciate your appreciation.

 

[JEBWrench]

I should have said wrong-by-fiat. (It's easy to fall into the trap of supposing an objective morality because it's easier to talk and think in terms of moral facts even though, strictly speaking, they don't exist.)

True enough, I probably shouldn't have went there as it is a bit of a trap.

Certain things seem wrong no matter what, and certain things don't. Copying is one of those things that is in itself harmless but that in certain circumstances, because we see benefit in manipulating incentives to favor production, we try to curtail. The same applies to theft, of course, but theft also has the direct harm associated with it. If it were as easy to copy food, clothing, and shelter as it is to copy software and text, that would be the end of poverty as we know it. Likewise, if there were a way to as effectively promote the production of ideas/games/news articles/etc. while allowing all that to be public domain immediately, that would be a better situation as well. The productive power that allows piracy to be a problem is the same productive power that would make such a rich and current public domain very desirable.

It seems to me that you're of the opinion that all art become public domain is inherently a good thing. To which I ask why you view that as preferable - from the artist's standpoint?
(Obviously, from a consumer's standpoint, free > not free.)

 

[Seanchaidh]

I should have said wrong-by-fiat. (It's easy to fall into the trap of supposing an objective morality because it's easier to talk and think in terms of moral facts even though, strictly speaking, they don't exist.)

True enough, I probably shouldn't have went there as it is a bit of a trap.

Certain things seem wrong no matter what, and certain things don't. Copying is one of those things that is in itself harmless but that in certain circumstances, because we see benefit in manipulating incentives to favor production, we try to curtail. The same applies to theft, of course, but theft also has the direct harm associated with it. If it were as easy to copy food, clothing, and shelter as it is to copy software and text, that would be the end of poverty as we know it. Likewise, if there were a way to as effectively promote the production of ideas/games/news articles/etc. while allowing all that to be public domain immediately, that would be a better situation as well. The productive power that allows piracy to be a problem is the same productive power that would make such a rich and current public domain very desirable.

It seems to me that you're of the opinion that all art become public domain is inherently a good thing. To which I ask why you view that as preferable - from the artist's standpoint?
(Obviously, from a consumer's standpoint, free > not free.)

If we could manage similar incentives for production, it would neither be preferable nor adverse. The artist may or may not appreciate the side effect of having wider circulation due to the lower price.

 

[JEBWrench]

If we could manage similar incentives for production, it would neither be preferable nor adverse. The artist may or may not appreciate the side effect of having wider circulation due to the lower price.

I'm not sure if there's a way to manage similar incentives, given the nature of the publishing industry (itself an even more cutthroat byproduct of the patronage system).

I would imagine, of course, if the incentives for production in the public domain system were viable enough to rival the private distribution system we currently operate under, then it would probably be best for all parties involved.

But, as long as people are willing to pay for something, there's not much reason to give it away from free unless the distributor has a desire to deprive themselves of financial success.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If we could manage similar incentives for production, it would neither be preferable nor adverse. The artist may or may not appreciate the side effect of having wider circulation due to the lower price.

I'm not sure if there's a way to manage similar incentives, given the nature of the publishing industry (itself an even more cutthroat byproduct of the patronage system).

I would imagine, of course, if the incentives for production in the public domain system were viable enough to rival the private distribution system we currently operate under, then it would probably be best for all parties involved.

But, as long as people are willing to pay for something, there's not much reason to give it away from free unless the distributor has a desire to deprive themselves of financial success.

Yeah, I don't pretend to have a real solution or proposal... well, aside from my halfhearted support of patronage.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You know what's funny? Hearing the pirate crackers saying the exact same thing ages ago over and over and over.

Isn't this exactly what they said when they cracked AC2? "Focus on making a better game next time rather than a DRM that hurts your customers?" Ring any bells yet?!

"Better" in what way? Because Assassin's Creed 2 ain't exactly a shitty game.

Speaking as someone who neither pirated or brought the game isn't it? From what People tell me its a repeat of the first game only a few hundred years latter (the first game which I got bored of 3rd the way through) and in addition you have to be online at all times to play it.
I'm sorry the DRM was enough to put me off a risky buy (because of EB games silly no online games return policy).
See what the make better games argument is, is basically if if the game publishes put the energy they put into DRM they would probably be better off..
Personally I miss shareware and try before you buy games. At least they acknowledged the situation.

Well, while I can certainly see how someone could say it's a repeat of the first game - there are clearly deep similarities - it's such a vast improvement that it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

I do, however, certainly agree that there should be a way to play a PC game - any PC game - before you buy it.

Susan I am gonna correct you here. There should be a way to play any game before you buy it (provided it has a place to put the demo). 60 to 70 bucks (being Canadian the average price is 64-69) is quite a bit to put down on a product you may not like. Gamestop in my area offers a 7 day money back guarantee now. Don't like it take it back and get a full refund in store credit. It benefits the consumer, it benefits Gamestop but does it benefit the developers? Afterall you know that returned copy is going back on the shelves for 5 bucks less.

You can rent a console game to try it before you buy it. You can't do the same with a PC game. Thus my emphasis on PC games.

 

[Fordo]

Good read. I love your point about rewarding those that are playing by the rules.

I base on no fact at all that many developers blame pirateers on a game that fails to turn a healthy profit which is hard/impossible to prove exactly how bad(good?) pirating is affecting you.

I don't play console games and focus soley on the PC. I choose not to play ANY game with the big bad DRM bug. If I can't get it from Steam chances are I'm not going to purchase it...take note industry? Nah.

 

[squid5580]

You know what's funny? Hearing the pirate crackers saying the exact same thing ages ago over and over and over.

Isn't this exactly what they said when they cracked AC2? "Focus on making a better game next time rather than a DRM that hurts your customers?" Ring any bells yet?!

"Better" in what way? Because Assassin's Creed 2 ain't exactly a shitty game.

Speaking as someone who neither pirated or brought the game isn't it? From what People tell me its a repeat of the first game only a few hundred years latter (the first game which I got bored of 3rd the way through) and in addition you have to be online at all times to play it.
I'm sorry the DRM was enough to put me off a risky buy (because of EB games silly no online games return policy).
See what the make better games argument is, is basically if if the game publishes put the energy they put into DRM they would probably be better off..
Personally I miss shareware and try before you buy games. At least they acknowledged the situation.

Well, while I can certainly see how someone could say it's a repeat of the first game - there are clearly deep similarities - it's such a vast improvement that it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

I do, however, certainly agree that there should be a way to play a PC game - any PC game - before you buy it.

Susan I am gonna correct you here. There should be a way to play any game before you buy it (provided it has a place to put the demo). 60 to 70 bucks (being Canadian the average price is 64-69) is quite a bit to put down on a product you may not like. Gamestop in my area offers a 7 day money back guarantee now. Don't like it take it back and get a full refund in store credit. It benefits the consumer, it benefits Gamestop but does it benefit the developers? Afterall you know that returned copy is going back on the shelves for 5 bucks less.

You can rent a console game to try it before you buy it. You can't do the same with a PC game. Thus my emphasis on PC games.

Sure but BlockBuster only rents them for a week (well at least the one in my area). There is not that many games I couldn't beat it that amount of time. Then it will become that much harder to justify spending the 60 - 70 dollars on top of the $8 I already spent on it.

I don't see how that is any better than pirating the game. Other than it isn't showing up on a P2P network which they can track and then point thier fingers at. It is great for me, for B.B., but once again the developers get the short end of the stick.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You know what's funny? Hearing the pirate crackers saying the exact same thing ages ago over and over and over.

Isn't this exactly what they said when they cracked AC2? "Focus on making a better game next time rather than a DRM that hurts your customers?" Ring any bells yet?!

"Better" in what way? Because Assassin's Creed 2 ain't exactly a shitty game.

Speaking as someone who neither pirated or brought the game isn't it? From what People tell me its a repeat of the first game only a few hundred years latter (the first game which I got bored of 3rd the way through) and in addition you have to be online at all times to play it.
I'm sorry the DRM was enough to put me off a risky buy (because of EB games silly no online games return policy).
See what the make better games argument is, is basically if if the game publishes put the energy they put into DRM they would probably be better off..
Personally I miss shareware and try before you buy games. At least they acknowledged the situation.

Well, while I can certainly see how someone could say it's a repeat of the first game - there are clearly deep similarities - it's such a vast improvement that it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

I do, however, certainly agree that there should be a way to play a PC game - any PC game - before you buy it.

Susan I am gonna correct you here. There should be a way to play any game before you buy it (provided it has a place to put the demo). 60 to 70 bucks (being Canadian the average price is 64-69) is quite a bit to put down on a product you may not like. Gamestop in my area offers a 7 day money back guarantee now. Don't like it take it back and get a full refund in store credit. It benefits the consumer, it benefits Gamestop but does it benefit the developers? Afterall you know that returned copy is going back on the shelves for 5 bucks less.

You can rent a console game to try it before you buy it. You can't do the same with a PC game. Thus my emphasis on PC games.

Sure but BlockBuster only rents them for a week (well at least the one in my area). There is not that many games I couldn't beat it that amount of time. Then it will become that much harder to justify spending the 60 - 70 dollars on top of the $8 I already spent on it.

I don't see how that is any better than pirating the game. Other than it isn't showing up on a P2P network which they can track and then point thier fingers at. It is great for me, for B.B., but once again the developers get the short end of the stick.

Blockbuster, and other rental outlets, pay to purchase the games, so while it's not a one-to-one ratio, the publisher and developer still see money. I assure you, they would prefer that you rent the game than pirate it.