That is the attitude I'm sick of hearing. So, it was decently successful, so it doesn't matter it was pirated? Again, like I said before you have way too much faith in humanity.AzrealMaximillion said:
When EA falls, Ubisoft will rise.
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's not faith in humanity. You seem to be ignoring any points taking the path of being woefully stubborn and ignorant. You may be sick of hearing attitudes like mine but you can't seem to dispute my argument with anything more than "I don't like it".Tom Waits said:
You don't seem to connect the dots between the fact that studies have shown that people who pirate are more likely to purchase and the success of a large amount of indie games recently. 10 years ago indie games exploding onto the scene so rampantly was unheard of.
At this point piracy is more of a demo than actually stealing because it really seems to show little harm to the gaming market. The market is selling more games overall than ever before. The PC market has been growing every year, right in the face of this "business killing" piracy. Indie games are more popular and have found ways to be funded well.
Now, I'm not saying that piracy is ok, but the pros for it in the gaming world outweigh the cons. Especially now that the
torrent websites where the piracy happen are promoting these indie games.
And that's my point. Piracy isn't right, but its not the boogeyman that you make it out to be. You can be sick of the attitude all you want, but at least make a point that considers what I have to say. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But where is there to talk about? I don't agree with your point and you don't agree with mine. I just think it's very naive to think "most of the 90% that pirated the game also bought it afterwards".AzrealMaximillion said:
Hypothetically*
It will be Activision and Ubisoft picking apart the remains, bias towards Ubisoft because they have the most to gain from EA's biggest properties.
Activision gains nothing from buying DICE and Battlefield; Call of Duty curb-stomps the laughably inept wannabe every season already, and not even Activision is so stupid as to pay for that lame duck. Ubisoft may find value in that acquisition though.
The big question would be "Who commits to purchasing Bioware if EA falls?" because outside of their sports lineup (which is a complicated proposition, given the recent legal trouble and monopoly charges), Bioware is the most visible developer EA possesses.
A company like Blizzard could profit from acquiring Bioware, both in branding and manpower; both of which they could use a boost in given how incredibly short-handed they must be.
(9 months and they still have not added PvP to D3. Heart of the Swarm launched a solid year and a half after it was supposed to. What the fuck are they doing at Blizzard? Don't say "polish" or anything involving "it's done when it's done" because after Diablo 3, I know it isn't fucking quality control.)
Of course, everyone else stands to profit from acquiring Bioware (oh, imagine the response if Square-Enix had the funds to even make the attempt).
The rest of EA's properties would probably be auctioned off piecemeal.
*[sub] (and it's sad I have to preface my post with something this fucking obvious just to ward off asshole pedants)[/sub]
It will be Activision and Ubisoft picking apart the remains, bias towards Ubisoft because they have the most to gain from EA's biggest properties.
Activision gains nothing from buying DICE and Battlefield; Call of Duty curb-stomps the laughably inept wannabe every season already, and not even Activision is so stupid as to pay for that lame duck. Ubisoft may find value in that acquisition though.
The big question would be "Who commits to purchasing Bioware if EA falls?" because outside of their sports lineup (which is a complicated proposition, given the recent legal trouble and monopoly charges), Bioware is the most visible developer EA possesses.
A company like Blizzard could profit from acquiring Bioware, both in branding and manpower; both of which they could use a boost in given how incredibly short-handed they must be.
(9 months and they still have not added PvP to D3. Heart of the Swarm launched a solid year and a half after it was supposed to. What the fuck are they doing at Blizzard? Don't say "polish" or anything involving "it's done when it's done" because after Diablo 3, I know it isn't fucking quality control.)
Of course, everyone else stands to profit from acquiring Bioware (oh, imagine the response if Square-Enix had the funds to even make the attempt).
The rest of EA's properties would probably be auctioned off piecemeal.
*[sub] (and it's sad I have to preface my post with something this fucking obvious just to ward off asshole pedants)[/sub]
UbiSoft's not as bad a people make them out to be. You can tell they're actually TRYING to not suck, but they just mess up more often than is good for them.
They're experimenting with ways to fix problems do sort of exist for them, and none of their experiments are working out super well. Every time they try and be unobtrusive they seem to find a new way to manage and step on the consumers' toes.
They make one of the best game series of all time (Assassin's Creed, obviously, and though the "absolute value" of the quality of the games in the series isn't remotely consistent, Evaluating each game on its own as if the rest of the series didn't exist, the inevitable result is that on any other scale they're all FANTASTIC games. They only suck relative to each other.
When UbiSoft starts cranking out Assassin's Creed games that ARE genuinely mindless yearly cash-ins like Call Of Duty, Madden, Battlefield, etc, THEN I'll start worrying that maybe UbiSoft has hoped completely aboard the greed train and decided to not give a damn about the consumers.
They're experimenting with ways to fix problems do sort of exist for them, and none of their experiments are working out super well. Every time they try and be unobtrusive they seem to find a new way to manage and step on the consumers' toes.
They make one of the best game series of all time (Assassin's Creed, obviously, and though the "absolute value" of the quality of the games in the series isn't remotely consistent, Evaluating each game on its own as if the rest of the series didn't exist, the inevitable result is that on any other scale they're all FANTASTIC games. They only suck relative to each other.
When UbiSoft starts cranking out Assassin's Creed games that ARE genuinely mindless yearly cash-ins like Call Of Duty, Madden, Battlefield, etc, THEN I'll start worrying that maybe UbiSoft has hoped completely aboard the greed train and decided to not give a damn about the consumers.
You're ignorance is great here. Let me throw this at you.Tom Waits said:
If you add the numbers in sales that AAA title sells on the PC and count the number of illegal downloads as legal sales, you'd get numbers that would suggest that every time a AAA hyped game was released a world sales record would be made or broken.
What you're suggesting is that most people who pirate games DON'T buy the games then sales for the game are lower and it's simply not the case. All you're argument has been is "humans are dicks", while I've brought up studies that you can look up, and sales numbers that show that the most pirated games of all time are world sales record holding releases. And not just world record holding in the gamin category, in ALL of entertainment. If you're logic were true in any sense, there wouldn't be a time where a video game release could make in a day what some of the highest grossing movies of all time made in months to years.
I understand your pessimism on the piracy matter, but the numbers obliterate your straw man argument of "humans are inherently thieves when given the chance, any other opinion is naive."
We may disagree but the numbers are heavily against you.
No I won't be OK with it. I don't want EA to die, even though I don't care for its games.
I want them to get their shit straight and be profitable (very preferably by means of stop being a dick about a lot of things).
But if EA were to go under, I wouldn't be able to decide which publisher's the worst: Ubisoft or Activision.
Activision doesn't do shit outside Call Of Duty (and yet manages to pull dick move on some stuffs). But consumers know what to expect out of the product. If I were into CoD I'd buy a game or 2 knowing I'll have a good time.
As for Ubisoft (speaking from personal experience), I was hoping by having a new number (Assassin's creed 3) for once would be a refreshing experience. It was OK for first few hours, but it turned into a snooze-fest. They advertise the crap out of the American Revolution setting, yet the set-piece events are sooo disappointing that it almost feels like a scam. Ride horse to the left. Fire cannon. Ride horse to the right. Fire cannon. Yaaaaaaay....
I want them to get their shit straight and be profitable (very preferably by means of stop being a dick about a lot of things).
But if EA were to go under, I wouldn't be able to decide which publisher's the worst: Ubisoft or Activision.
Activision doesn't do shit outside Call Of Duty (and yet manages to pull dick move on some stuffs). But consumers know what to expect out of the product. If I were into CoD I'd buy a game or 2 knowing I'll have a good time.
As for Ubisoft (speaking from personal experience), I was hoping by having a new number (Assassin's creed 3) for once would be a refreshing experience. It was OK for first few hours, but it turned into a snooze-fest. They advertise the crap out of the American Revolution setting, yet the set-piece events are sooo disappointing that it almost feels like a scam. Ride horse to the left. Fire cannon. Ride horse to the right. Fire cannon. Yaaaaaaay....
Nah... they're making massive losses every year now, mainly because their development and advertising costs are waaaaay through the roof, plus they sink money into stupid shite like Medal of Honor. And then they butcher their own franchises in vain attempts to attract the COD crowd.Aiddon said:
EA are going down, slowly but surely, because they don't understand the industry they're in any more. And they're too stupid, bloated and poorly managed to do anything about it.
This entire point hinges on Assassin's Creed. And sorry, but I and many other can't call Assassin's Creed all fantastic games. There have been better games that do what AC has been doing mechanics wise since AC2 and AC2 was the apex of that franchise. And with games like the Thief reboot, another Metal Gear solid on the way, and Dishonoured, Assassin's Creed is no longer as relevant as it once by a longshot. Especially not with the reception of AC3. The shift towards making AC have more multiplayer hurts the franchise as well along with an unbalanced story that only draws you in once you're in the Anumus. Outside the Animus is quite boring to be frank and feels like a old school Dues Ex clone.Ieyke said:
What is it about AC that makes it special when compared to other franchises? It's stealth system is atrocious, its combat is basically a take turn system that patty cakes the player through easily telegraphed parries. The Assassin is now a walking arsenal of weapons instead of a cunning killer, there are minigame style missions awkwardly crammed in. The only thing that sets the AC franchise apart is the great climbing/acrobatics system of movement, but that can't carry the whole franchise.
The Assassin's Creed games are amazing games when compared to what Ubisoft has done in recent memory barring FarCry3.
And if Ubisoft is trying not to suck, they are doing a piss poor job of it.
The annual AC release is pissing people off, the fact that FarCry, while still a good game series, is a franchise that from game to game has no reason to be called a series because the sequels do not relate to each other in terms of story at all.
The Rayman Origins incident delivered the WiiU an unexpected haymaker. ZombiU is one of the more mediocre killerapp/launch titles to come about in a while.
The Prince of Persia series is effectively in need of yet another reboot due to the horrible places the story was taken.
The Rabbids games, the Just Dance games both franchises were milked(especially the Rabbids getting preference over full Rayman games, yuck).
Ubisoft has a long list of crap they have done and releasing yearly AC won't help them. They learned from the DRM fiasco, but the new Splinter Cell game preview hasn't impressed people(that franchise hasn't impressed people in a while).
Their reputation is on the cusp of becoming like Activision/EA. They just have better PR. I bet that the Ubisoft execs are just as vile as the EA/Activision ones. Probably why we never hear from them.
Let's just hope WatchDogs doesn't get milked.
Bigger sample size, more people are going to buy, more people are going to pirate. Why would most pirates go out and purchase a singleplayer game at full price after beating it? But they'll do it if there's multiplayers feature. Now what if they get rid of DRM, so now they can play online with a pirated copy, would pirates still go out and buy it?AzrealMaximillion said:
How legit are those "studies"? It's like asking bunch of alcoholic if they have a drinking problem.
Based on what? And don't reply with human nature because you've only spouted vaguely anecdotal points in this regard.Tom Waits said:
That assumes that people get through the whole game before purchasing it. But I can think of a few reasons:
Patches for bugs being fixed.
Updates that add more to the game.
(As silly as this is) Achievements.
Appreciation for a job well done by the developers.
Buying the game so that a possible sequel is made.
What this a rhetorical question?
You must not know how DRM works. Illegal copies of a PC game can't access the multiplayer servers of legit players. DRM or not. Try torrenting Diablo 2 and getting online.
Since you're too proud or too stubborn to use Google or do any research yourself let me answer this and I'll try not to be smug.
"Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
NPD study and Ofcom study (US and UK respectively) show similar results.-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-riaa-pirates-buy-more-full-stop-deal-with-it.shtml
2 Dutch studies (Dutch Institution for Information Law and CentERdata) actually say that people who pirate games are 5 TIMES as likely to buy the game they pirate than people who don't.-
http://www.webpronews.com/pirates-more-likely-to-pay-for-digital-and-physical-media-than-non-pirates-2012-10
Now that's four different countries and 5 institutes that have thrown your anecdotal BS under a Mack truck and run over it while backing up just for good measure. Unless you can throw me some numbers that show the opposite and tell me how I'm wrong with data rather than the your "humans are dicks" Spidey-Sense, I'm afraid this case is closed my friend.
Like I said before, we can disagree but the numbers are heavily on my side. It'd be foolish to be so ignorant and ignore the information that I have presented.
I'm talking about what if they remove the restriction that you need a legit copy to play online. Would pirates still buy after they download it? There will be no incentive to do so. You hate I use human nature as example, but that just the way it is. Why would you pay $20 when you can get the exactly the same thing for less than that.AzrealMaximillion said:
The problem I see from those "studies" is, it is comparing pirates who download then make purchase to people don't. Of course pirates is going to tell you they do purchase after they downloaded it. Just like any alcoholics would tell you oh alcohol have no control on them. We all talk a good game, but how many actually do it? Apparently you think it's as high as 9 out 10? I'm saying you are full of poops. But again, you are the one with the studies.