The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Ubisoft busting out the online DRM beams

17810121355

Posts

  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Obviously people aren't really going to answer those, but think about it. What really is the point of piracy? It's theft, right? Just like the PA comic today, it's a vicious circle of stupid company vs stupid pirate, where the non-pirate have to pay the price, literally.

    Is it really theft though? If I borrow a book from a friend, read all of it, and never buy a copy of my own, did I steal the book? If I borrow a movie from a friend, watch all of it, and never buy a ticket or my own dvd, did I steal it? Maybe if I really like the book or movie I might get my own copy for future enjoyment, but not likely. Maybe I'll read the first chapter and buy my own to finish it.

    Now, digital "borrowing" is different because of scale - instead of sharing it with one or two friends, you're sharing it with possibly millions of people. But is that so different from a million people sharing a book, movie, or music with their friends, who may never get their own copy?

    Well, that's the whole point of borrowing a book. One person has it, one person doesn't. One person loans it out to the other person, and the physical ownership CHANGES. The first person can no longer read the damn book, because he doesn't have it! That's what software companies are sticking to in the digital world, and maybe that needs to change. There's got to be a better method than what they are doing today.

    I guess we're just waiting for that change, and holding our breath, hoping it won't hurt? Myself included.

    EDIT:
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Well, time for communism then? No one owns ANYTHING! Muhahaha!

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Wait, you're saying that theft is immoral, but copyright infringement is moral? On what basis?

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • quarthinosquarthinos Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Is it really theft though? If I borrow a book from a friend, read all of it, and never buy a copy of my own, did I steal the book? If I borrow a movie from a friend, watch all of it, and never buy a ticket or my own dvd, did I steal it? Maybe if I really like the book or movie I might get my own copy for future enjoyment, but not likely. Maybe I'll read the first chapter and buy my own to finish it.

    Now, digital "borrowing" is different because of scale - instead of sharing it with one or two friends, you're sharing it with possibly millions of people. But is that so different from a million people sharing a book, movie, or music with their friends, who may never get their own copy?

    I am SO glad I wrote my reply to this exact question by you at the bottom of the last page! Did you read the arguments I put out, or are you just ignoring me because libraries == computers?

    quarthinos on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Wait, you're saying that theft is immoral, but copyright infringement is moral? On what basis?

    It would be really hard to say whether or not it is moral or immoral. A copyright is a legal construct, enforced by the government. So is property. But theft has been routinely denounced as immoral in most every moral framework (Judeo-Christian, etc), while copyright infringement is a more recent thing (and by recent I mean the last 3 centuries) and there is no modern consensus on the morality of it.

    Quarthinos: Sorry I missed it, but my response would be the same as the one I posted earlier, since yours is along the same legalistic lines. Piracy is clearly a violation of copyright law.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    1) How many people pirate games that they could actually buy? I mean, what's the point of pirating a game if you wouldn't ever buy it? You're playing it, so you must like aspects of it, right?
    Personally, I think this is the real root of the issue. For every game released at $50 or $60, there is a demand for that game, a number of people who think "Gee, this game is worth $60 to me". Bam, sales.

    Then, there's the REST of the demand curve. The people who think, "Yeah, that looks pretty cool. No way I'm dropping $60 on it though. I'd be all over it at $40/$30/$20, though". The problem is, the pricing model of the games industry (from a first-sale publisher's perspective) basically looks at these people and tells them to go get fucked. It's $60 or nothing, screw off you cheap bastards. And guess what? There are a metric shit ton more people who think the game is worth buying for $0 than for $60.

    This is why the game industry views pirates and used game patrons in exactly the same way: they're BOTH potential customers who aren't willing to pay the (immutable) asking price of $50/$60. Obviously there's a moral distinction there, at least to almost all of us, but the basic problem is the same - They're interested, but not at THAT price. But still the publishers refuse to cater to any other part of the demand curve, prefering instead to attempt to completely obliterate that sector of the market even though there's clearly a MASSIVE number of sales happening under the arbitrary fuill retail price barrier.

    I can't see that being a wise decision in any way. Instead of trying to take these people, who on some level WANT to buy your game, and trying to find a way to bring them and their money into your marketplace, you actively try to kill that portion of the market. Good plan.

    JihadJesus on
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yea... I might like aspects of a game, or at least be curious about aspects of a game... but that doesn't mean I'm willing to part with 60 dollars just because of that like or curiosity.

    AvP right now is a great example. I like the AvP franchise, I like the Alien films (well, the first two), and the first Predator film. So I'm interested. But the game's also getting shitty reviews. I like aspects, but there's no way I'm gonna go buy it for 60 bucks.

    Delta Assault on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Wait, you're saying that theft is immoral, but copyright infringement is moral? On what basis?

    It would be really hard to say whether or not it is moral or immoral. A copyright is a legal construct, enforced by the government. So is property. But theft has been routinely denounced as immoral in most every moral framework (Judeo-Christian, etc), while copyright infringement is a more recent thing (and by recent I mean the last 3 centuries) and there is no modern consensus on the morality of it.

    Breaking the law is generally considered immoral too. You're deliberately defying the rules that your society has agreed upon. The only time it is usually considered moral to break the law is to aid someone in dire need, such as stealing food for a starving person, and not because you desire to be entertained.

    Alternatively, it would be really hard to consider anything moral in a way in which we can agree. Most people consider it completely relative/irrelevant these days.

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2010

    Breaking the law is generally considered immoral too. You're deliberately defying the rules that your society has agreed upon. The only time it is usually considered moral to break the law is to aid someone in dire need, such as stealing food for a starving person, and not because you desire to be entertained.

    Then people are being immoral every time they break the listed speed limit (sorry its a very strawman-ish example)? Morality isn't always an issue in the case of violating the law.
    Alternatively, it would be really hard to consider anything moral in a way in which we can agree. Most people consider it completely relative/irrelevant these days

    Yeah, thats right. And I think we can all agree that piracy is breaking the law and our current laws and systems for dealing with such a thing are woefully inadequate.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    1) How many people pirate games that they could actually buy? I mean, what's the point of pirating a game if you wouldn't ever buy it? You're playing it, so you must like aspects of it, right?
    Personally, I think this is the real root of the issue. For every game released at $50 or $60, there is a demand for that game, a number of people who think "Gee, this game is worth $60 to me". Bam, sales.

    Then, there's the REST of the demand curve. The people who think, "Yeah, that looks pretty cool. No way I'm dropping $60 on it though. I'd be all over it at $40/$30/$20, though". The problem is, the pricing model of the games industry (from a first-sale publisher's perspective) basically looks at these people and tells them to go get fucked. It's $60 or nothing, screw off you cheap bastards. And guess what? There are a metric shit ton more people who think the game is worth buying for $0 than for $60.

    This is why the game industry views pirates and used game patrons in exactly the same way: they're BOTH potential customers who aren't willing to pay the (immutable) asking price of $50/$60. Obviously there's a moral distinction there, at least to almost all of us, but the basic problem is the same - They're interested, but not at THAT price. But still the publishers refuse to cater to any other part of the demand curve, prefering instead to attempt to completely obliterate that sector of the market even though there's clearly a MASSIVE number of sales happening under the arbitrary fuill retail price barrier.

    But if it's not THAT great, then wait for the publisher to drop the price to what you're willing to pay!
    I can't see that being a wise decision in any way. Instead of trying to take these people, who on some level WANT to buy your game, and trying to find a way to bring them and their money into your marketplace, you actively try to kill that portion of the market. Good plan.

    I agree with that plan. But there's always going to be companies with high aspirations that think they have the next best thing, and the gamer community doesn't bite. So...do you rape that company and pirate their games anyways, not even paying the reduced cost when it lowers due to lack of sales and interest?

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • GothicLargoGothicLargo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    1) How many people pirate games that they could actually buy? I mean, what's the point of pirating a game if you wouldn't ever buy it? You're playing it, so you must like aspects of it, right?
    Personally, I think this is the real root of the issue. For every game released at $50 or $60, there is a demand for that game, a number of people who think "Gee, this game is worth $60 to me". Bam, sales.

    Then, there's the REST of the demand curve. The people who think, "Yeah, that looks pretty cool. No way I'm dropping $60 on it though. I'd be all over it at $40/$30/$20, though". The problem is, the pricing model of the games industry (from a first-sale publisher's perspective) basically looks at these people and tells them to go get fucked. It's $60 or nothing, screw off you cheap bastards. And guess what? There are a metric shit ton more people who think the game is worth buying for $0 than for $60.

    This is why the game industry views pirates and used game patrons in exactly the same way: they're BOTH potential customers who aren't willing to pay the (immutable) asking price of $50/$60. Obviously there's a moral distinction there, at least to almost all of us, but the basic problem is the same - They're interested, but not at THAT price. But still the publishers refuse to cater to any other part of the demand curve, prefering instead to attempt to completely obliterate that sector of the market even though there's clearly a MASSIVE number of sales happening under the arbitrary fuill retail price barrier.

    I can't see that being a wise decision in any way. Instead of trying to take these people, who on some level WANT to buy your game, and trying to find a way to bring them and their money into your marketplace, you actively try to kill that portion of the market. Good plan.

    Oh. That's easy.

    Because behind the public face of every company there's a group of people dictating how much exposure to risk there shall be. To quote William Shatner from the commentaries on Star Trek IV... "We knew at that point basically how much money the studio would make on the next movie, that's why we got to keep makign them... but it also meant we had a very specific budget."

    The game publishers have pretty good historical numbers about how many people will jump in at the $60 level, which is why they keep making games at that level.

    You have to understand... in the late 90's and early 00's, a lot of very expensive flops occurred. Games which were supposed to sell and didn't. Largely these flops were because the games, like ET a generation before, were overhyped shovelware nobody wanted, launched against a new and very capable console platform. For several years, the pc market evaporated as everyone started playing Halo.

    But the result of it is that the investors behind the studios have no ear for risk. In a meeting where it is said... "We think we can sell a million at $20, but we KNOW we can sell a hundred thousand at $60." The decision coming out of the meeting will be a $60 price point.

    GothicLargo on
    atfc.jpg
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »

    Breaking the law is generally considered immoral too. You're deliberately defying the rules that your society has agreed upon. The only time it is usually considered moral to break the law is to aid someone in dire need, such as stealing food for a starving person, and not because you desire to be entertained.

    Then people are being immoral every time they break the listed speed limit (sorry its a very strawman-ish example)? Morality isn't always an issue in the case of violating the law.
    Alternatively, it would be really hard to consider anything moral in a way in which we can agree. Most people consider it completely relative/irrelevant these days

    Yeah, thats right. And I think we can all agree that piracy is breaking the law and our current laws and systems for dealing with such a thing are woefully inadequate.

    And the laws are decided generally by those in power, not necessarily the majority of society.

    DarkWarrior on
    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    By the way, if people are interested in copyright law and the extent to which we break it every single day, I suggest reading this article beginning at page 543.
    To illustrate the unwitting infringement that has become quotidian for the average American, take an ordinary day in the life of a hypothetical law professor named John. For the purposes of this Gedankenexperiment, we assume the worst-case scenario of full enforcement of rights by copyright holders and an uncharitable, though perfectly plausible, reading of existing case law and the fair use doctrine. Fair use is, after all, notoriously fickle and the defense offers little ex ante refuge to users of copyrighted works.

    In the morning, John checks his email, and, in so doing, begins to tally up the liability. Following common practice, he has set his mail browser to automatically reproduce the text to which he is responding in any email he drafts. Each unauthorized reproduction of someone else’s copyrighted text—their email—represents a separate act of brazen infringement, as does each instance of email forwarding.

    Within an hour, the twenty reply and forward emails sent by John have exposed him to $3 million in statutory damages.

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Overall I agree with your approach to this and point, but I want to point out that this point is wrong, because it's exactly the sort of BS that many of the DRM snake oil salesmen use to justify their product.

    Every pirated copy is NOT a potential sale.

    Only some of them are.

    You need to work on an educated estimate of what percent this is to make a statement on what influence piracy had on a game(s)/developers failure or success.

    Alright, I'll file that under "you have a point". I wish I had numbers, but I'm an observer in what I've seen in the community over the years since the days of the BBS'. I won't debate on what the percentages are, because I don't have many facts to make a compelling statement without sounding like I pulled them out of my ass. Like I did. Whoops.

    As far as numbers go, I believe in a previous discussion on the issue some time ago, there was a poster who had put some sort of IP (music, if memory serves) up for sale online, and who apparently tracked how many downloads his for-pay file got, when a pirated version appeared, how many downloads IT got, and how much the presence of the pirated version reduced his sales.

    Admittedly, different industry, small sample size, and non-scientific, so I wouldn't take it as fact by any means, but his conclusions are probably a good starting point for an educated guess. If memory serves, I think what he found was that there were a good 10+ pirated copies for every legit one, which is an alarming figure, but that based on the reduction in sales per time he saw once the pirated option became available, less than one percent of the pirated copies actually represented a lost sale, all other things being equal. Which is a markedly less-alarming one, and makes restrictive DRM and the sales it drives away a much less attractive proposition.

    Abbalah on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    1) How many people pirate games that they could actually buy? I mean, what's the point of pirating a game if you wouldn't ever buy it? You're playing it, so you must like aspects of it, right?
    Personally, I think this is the real root of the issue. For every game released at $50 or $60, there is a demand for that game, a number of people who think "Gee, this game is worth $60 to me". Bam, sales.

    Then, there's the REST of the demand curve. The people who think, "Yeah, that looks pretty cool. No way I'm dropping $60 on it though. I'd be all over it at $40/$30/$20, though". The problem is, the pricing model of the games industry (from a first-sale publisher's perspective) basically looks at these people and tells them to go get fucked. It's $60 or nothing, screw off you cheap bastards. And guess what? There are a metric shit ton more people who think the game is worth buying for $0 than for $60.

    This is why the game industry views pirates and used game patrons in exactly the same way: they're BOTH potential customers who aren't willing to pay the (immutable) asking price of $50/$60. Obviously there's a moral distinction there, at least to almost all of us, but the basic problem is the same - They're interested, but not at THAT price. But still the publishers refuse to cater to any other part of the demand curve, prefering instead to attempt to completely obliterate that sector of the market even though there's clearly a MASSIVE number of sales happening under the arbitrary fuill retail price barrier.

    I can't see that being a wise decision in any way. Instead of trying to take these people, who on some level WANT to buy your game, and trying to find a way to bring them and their money into your marketplace, you actively try to kill that portion of the market. Good plan.

    Oh. That's easy.

    Because behind the public face of every company there's a group of people dictating how much exposure to risk there shall be. To quote William Shatner from the commentaries on Star Trek IV... "We knew at that point basically how much money the studio would make on the next movie, that's why we got to keep makign them... but it also meant we had a very specific budget."

    The game publishers have pretty good historical numbers about how many people will jump in at the $60 level, which is why they keep making games at that level.

    You have to understand... in the late 90's and early 00's, a lot of very expensive flops occurred. Games which were supposed to sell and didn't. Largely these flops were because the games, like ET a generation before, were overhyped shovelware nobody wanted, launched against a new and very capable console platform. For several years, the pc market evaporated as everyone started playing Halo.

    But the result of it is that the investors behind the studios have no ear for risk. In a meeting where it is said... "We think we can sell a million at $20, but we KNOW we can sell a hundred thousand at $60." The decision coming out of the meeting will be a $60 price point.

    This isn't really what I'm talking about though. Static pricing will always fail to maximize revenue from a given market, won't it? Releasing the game at $20 would be no more of a wise decision that releasing at only $60; you'd capture more sales, but lose tons of revenue from all of the customers for whom the game was worth $30/$40/$50, etc. What you REALLY want to have is a variable pricing model, where the guy who thinks it's worth $60 pays $60, the guy who thinks it's worth $80 pays $80, etc.

    What's amazing is that this already happens within the market. The customer who loves the franchise IP and would drop $100 buys the Ultimate Special Edition. The customer who thinks it's worth $60 buys retail. The customer who thinks it's worth $50 waits for a special at a retailer or buys online. So far so good. But the guy who wants it for $20 buys it used. The person who wants it for $10 buys it used 6 months later.

    Piracy is probably LESS attractive to these folks - it only saves them $10. And those who think the game is worth $50 will, from the cross section of gamers I've seen, shell out the $50. Ironically, the pirates seem to be the people LEAST interested in the actual game, based on reports of their playing habits and the economics implied by their decision making. Making them customers would be incredibly difficult, but from what I can tell that's related more to the fact that they're ALREADY far less likely to be customers at any price above $0.

    So, im summary: pricing strategy inflexibilities make used markets viable, pirates are silly geese but not necessarily lost sales or revenue.

    JihadJesus on
  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    This isn't really what I'm talking about though. Static pricing will always fail to maximize revenue from a given market, won't it? Releasing the game at $20 would be no more of a wise decision that releasing at only $60; you'd capture more sales, but lose tons of revenue from all of the customers for whom the game was worth $30/$40/$50, etc. What you REALLY want to have is a variable pricing model, where the guy who thinks it's worth $60 pays $60, the guy who thinks it's worth $80 pays $80, etc.

    What's amazing is that this already happens within the market. The customer who loves the franchise IP and would drop $100 buys the Ultimate Special Edition. The customer who thinks it's worth $60 buys retail. The customer who thinks it's worth $50 waits for a special at a retailer or buys online. So far so good. But the guy who wants it for $20 buys it used. The person who wants it for $10 buys it used 6 months later.

    Piracy is probably LESS attractive to these folks - it only saves them $10. And those who think the game is worth $50 will, from the cross section of gamers I've seen, shell out the $50. Ironically, the pirates seem to be the people LEAST interested in the actual game, based on reports of their playing habits and the economics implied by their decision making. Making them customers would be incredibly difficult, but from what I can tell that's related more to the fact that they're ALREADY far less likely to be customers at any price above $0.

    So, im summary: pricing strategy inflexibilities make used markets viable, pirates are silly geese but not necessarily lost sales or revenue.

    Good post, but is it really true (regarding piracy)? If so...why does DRM exist at all? Why do companies fork out cash to develop these intricate anti-piracy platforms if the lost revenue is so low? They must be getting numbers that support DRM in their product, right? Or are they just blindly following some archaic perception that "they must do all they can to combat the evil Pirates!"?

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • pslong9pslong9 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Wait, you're saying that theft is immoral, but copyright infringement is moral? On what basis?

    It would be really hard to say whether or not it is moral or immoral. A copyright is a legal construct, enforced by the government. So is property. But theft has been routinely denounced as immoral in most every moral framework (Judeo-Christian, etc), while copyright infringement is a more recent thing (and by recent I mean the last 3 centuries) and there is no modern consensus on the morality of it.

    Quarthinos: Sorry I missed it, but my response would be the same as the one I posted earlier, since yours is along the same legalistic lines. Piracy is clearly a violation of copyright law.

    I would think you could come to a very easy consensus on the morality of copyright infringement - it's immoral. You're not paying for the time and services that multiple people have put into a product. Just because the original creator of the content hasn't actually lost the product itself, they have been denied revenue, which could pay for salaries, benefits, administrative costs, etc. If the company that created the product is a publicly-traded company, then their shareholders suffer as well. Copyright infringement can end up affecting a lot of people in negative ways.

    Edit: crap, hit submit button too early

    pslong9 on
    steam_sig.png

    3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    pslong9 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Then the issue of digital piracy is purely a legal one, not a moral one. There is no theft involved, its an infringement of a legally protected copyright. So no one should be going around claiming a moral high ground.

    Wait, you're saying that theft is immoral, but copyright infringement is moral? On what basis?

    It would be really hard to say whether or not it is moral or immoral. A copyright is a legal construct, enforced by the government. So is property. But theft has been routinely denounced as immoral in most every moral framework (Judeo-Christian, etc), while copyright infringement is a more recent thing (and by recent I mean the last 3 centuries) and there is no modern consensus on the morality of it.

    Quarthinos: Sorry I missed it, but my response would be the same as the one I posted earlier, since yours is along the same legalistic lines. Piracy is clearly a violation of copyright law.

    I would think you could come to a very easy consensus on the morality of copyright infringement - it's immoral. You're not paying for the time and services that multiple people have put into a product. Just because the original creator of the content hasn't actually lost the product itself, they have been denied revenue, which could pay for salaries, benefits, administrative costs, etc. If the company that created the product is a publicly-traded company, then their shareholders suffer as well. Copyright infringement can end up affecting a lot of people in negative ways.

    Edit: crap, hit submit button too early

    The problem is the "could." A lot of posts have been discussing this - piracy does not necessarily result in lost revenue. And your argument is somewhat badly constructed, because it seems to imply that by not buying a certain product, even though they could, they are being immoral, because they're denying a person revenue and hurting stock holders. I know thats not what you mean though.

    Morality shouldn't enter into debates over copyright infringement because of this kind of thing. Copyright law needs to be modernized, but how it should is a big question that we'll be debating for maybe decades to come.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • BeltaineBeltaine BOO BOO DOO DE DOORegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    Beltaine on
    XdDBi4F.jpg
    PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    No.

    NO.

    Don't even get me started on the stupid wheel things.

    GrimReaper on
    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • PeewiPeewi Ya!!! Bub! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    subedii wrote: »
    So, PC Gamer actually took the steps of asking for a follow-up interview, which surprisingly, Ubisoft agreed to. Unfortunately however they seem to be stuck in permanent PR mode and don't seem to try to answer questions in any realistic fashion.

    http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg

    And RPS's take on this

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/19/drmogeddon-part-2
    Does this mean that Ubi are dissatisfied with other online rights management platforms like Steam?There's a hint of that, although Ubi are keen to praise Valve's online platform. "We think what Steam has done is amazingly valid, but aren't Steam games cracked amazingly fast? It's not a question of dissatisfaction, it's a question of 'we've got another idea, another way of implementing it, and we're going for it'."
    Do they really think that once their thing has been cracked that any future games using it won't be "cracked amazingly fast"?

    Peewi on
    Switch: SW-6132-4331-5349 || Steam
    sigww
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    Because nothing rules more than finding the copy of that old game you loved as a kid only to realize you can't play it because your mom threw the manual and box away years ago.

    DarkPrimus on
    gCnfF8U.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    Nothing like the internet to ruin that copy protection. Also, code wheels can go fuck themselves.

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    So, in summary: pricing strategy inflexibilities make used markets viable, pirates are silly geese but not necessarily lost sales or revenue.

    Good post, but is it really true (regarding piracy)? If so...why does DRM exist at all? Why do companies fork out cash to develop these intricate anti-piracy platforms if the lost revenue is so low? They must be getting numbers that support DRM in their product, right? Or are they just blindly following some archaic perception that "they must do all they can to combat the evil Pirates!"?

    Well, that was simplified view. Obviously there are tons of different motivations on piracy, but given the stigma attached, the investment most gamers have in seeing games they like 'succeed', and the fact that most avowed pirates don't seem to find much enjoyment in actually playing the games they pirate, I feel reasonably comfortable saying that most pirated games are copied more for the satisfaction of the piracy itself than any involvement in the game. I'm hardly claiming this is univeral, though, and piracy is definitely still not acceptable in any way regardless of the motivation.

    The cynic in me would also say that DRM is attached for 2 reasons. First, the board members who DON'T understand that they fail to deter piracy demand them as protection on their investment. And second, their innevitable circumvention necesitates an arms race if you want to use piracy as an excuse to cover your own ass. If the game does well, great. If not? Not my fault, I included the protection! It was those damn pirates! Just look at all of 'em! Toughen up the DRM next time and we'll be fine!

    And so each successive release has more restrictive DRM that continues to do jack all at detering piracy, because it is precisely in patting themselves on the back by circumventing it that pirates derive their utility from the title in the first place.

    JihadJesus on
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    Because nothing rules more than finding the copy of that old game you loved as a kid only to realize you can't play it because your mom threw the manual and box away years ago.

    Also GameFAQs is shut down by a coalition of governments or something. :)

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • strebaliciousstrebalicious Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I got the ultimate DRM.

    For $50, you have the privilege of going to the Devs house, getting naked, and playing the game on his computer that is has no modem or network card, no USBF/Firewire/eSATA ports, all while two very angry looking men stand over you with shotguns.

    strebalicious on
    camo_sig2.png
  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    And so each successive release has more restrictive DRM that continues to do jack all at detering piracy, because it is precisely in patting themselves on the back by circumventing it that pirates derive their utility from the title in the first place.

    I could see that happening, but really that requires me to put on a tinfoil hat and assume that the corporations do that. Doesn't mean it's not true, it would just take someone who knows the internals of the company's decision making process.

    All in all, regarding Ubisoft stepping up to the Hitler of all DRMs, I hope that consumers show their chagrin by not using their dollars on their PC products that have this.

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    They should just bring back the old copy protection systems.

    "What is the third word in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 14 of the instruction manual?"

    I used to have the pool of radiance codes memorized back in the day.

    Jars on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I was thinking about a DRM scheme where only part of the program ran on the user's computer and the rest ran on a company server, since key problem with game piracy is that the user has full access to the program and can alter it at will, so there is no way to make a DRM full-proof while still giving the user the full program. So just give them part of it.

    But then I remembered that pirate servers exists for MMOs and facepalmed.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    And so each successive release has more restrictive DRM that continues to do jack all at detering piracy, because it is precisely in patting themselves on the back by circumventing it that pirates derive their utility from the title in the first place.

    I could see that happening, but really that requires me to put on a tinfoil hat and assume that the corporations do that. Doesn't mean it's not true, it would just take someone who knows the internals of the company's decision making process.

    All in all, regarding Ubisoft stepping up to the Hitler of all DRMs, I hope that consumers show their chagrin by not using their dollars on their PC products that have this.

    Unfortunately, as has already been covered, this doesn't actually send a meaningful message to the company, because they look at their low sales and go "Clearly, this is because of all those pirates. What we need is stronger DRM!"

    Abbalah on
  • MonkeyConQuesoMonkeyConQueso Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Unfortunately, as has already been covered, this doesn't actually send a meaningful message to the company, because they look at their low sales and go "Clearly, this is because of all those pirates. What we need is stronger DRM!"

    Well, then they'll just work themselves into a vicious circle of non-profit.

    MonkeyConQueso on
    PSN : Aubvry ;; WiiU/XBL/Steam : MonkeyConQueso ;; 3DS FC : 4553-9982-3786
    Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
  • Lars_DomusLars_Domus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Abbalah wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    And so each successive release has more restrictive DRM that continues to do jack all at detering piracy, because it is precisely in patting themselves on the back by circumventing it that pirates derive their utility from the title in the first place.

    I could see that happening, but really that requires me to put on a tinfoil hat and assume that the corporations do that. Doesn't mean it's not true, it would just take someone who knows the internals of the company's decision making process.

    All in all, regarding Ubisoft stepping up to the Hitler of all DRMs, I hope that consumers show their chagrin by not using their dollars on their PC products that have this.

    Unfortunately, as has already been covered, this doesn't actually send a meaningful message to the company, because they look at their low sales and go "Clearly, this is because of all those pirates. What we need is stronger DRM!"

    Maybe not, but at least it might drive them out of business eventually, so we won't have to read about their annoying DRM-shenanigans anymore.

    Lars_Domus on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    I was thinking about a DRM scheme where only part of the program ran on the user's computer and the rest ran on a company server, since key problem with game piracy is that the user has full access to the program and can alter it at will, so there is no way to make a DRM full-proof while still giving the user the full program. So just give them part of it.

    But then I remembered that pirate servers exists for MMOs and facepalmed.

    there are also programs that will let you emulate an MMO server client side. Walking around an empty world can't be a very compelling experience, but you can do it if you like.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • greeblegreeble Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I wouldn't mind Ubisoft's DRM as long as they assured us legally that they would release a patch within 1 year that would remove the online verification.

    greeble on
    PSN/steam/battle.net: greeble XBL: GreebleX

    [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/acz2t/let_me_tell _you_about_demons_souls/"]Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....[/URL]
    I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    So what's the over/under on time between Assassin's Creed II retail release and a cracked version of it hitting the usual places?

    This DRM is "uncrackable", so I'm going with two weeks. The last time I remember a major title taking longer than a month was around the time Operation Buckaneer went down.

    Daedalus on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    A lot of posts have been discussing this - piracy does not necessarily result in lost revenue.

    No offense, but that's a load of crap. Yes, it's correct that the revenue loss from piracy isn't 100%. You have the compulsive pirates who have to download everything yet never play it. Yet the amount of revenue loss isn't zero, either. My friend Dwight (not his real name) has a well-paying job, yet pirates all his games. He tends to play these games to completion, and talk about them excitedly to me. He actively enjoys them. It's pretty clear that if piracy somehow didn't exist, he would be paying for his games. And I'm sure he's hardly the only person out there like that.

    So, the amount of revenue loss isn't 100%, but it isn't zero. The debate often rages about where the number actually is within that spectrum, but that's missing the point. Any nonzero revenue loss means companies lose money. And companies don't like losing money... it kind of runs counter to the entire point of their existence. If you really think that companies should just chill out, that the revenue loss is too small to matter, then I invite you to go down to Wal-Mart, steal a pack of gum while waving it in the clerk's face, and see what the reaction will be.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    This isn't really what I'm talking about though. Static pricing will always fail to maximize revenue from a given market, won't it? Releasing the game at $20 would be no more of a wise decision that releasing at only $60; you'd capture more sales, but lose tons of revenue from all of the customers for whom the game was worth $30/$40/$50, etc. What you REALLY want to have is a variable pricing model, where the guy who thinks it's worth $60 pays $60, the guy who thinks it's worth $80 pays $80, etc.

    What's amazing is that this already happens within the market. The customer who loves the franchise IP and would drop $100 buys the Ultimate Special Edition. The customer who thinks it's worth $60 buys retail. The customer who thinks it's worth $50 waits for a special at a retailer or buys online. So far so good. But the guy who wants it for $20 buys it used. The person who wants it for $10 buys it used 6 months later.

    Piracy is probably LESS attractive to these folks - it only saves them $10. And those who think the game is worth $50 will, from the cross section of gamers I've seen, shell out the $50. Ironically, the pirates seem to be the people LEAST interested in the actual game, based on reports of their playing habits and the economics implied by their decision making. Making them customers would be incredibly difficult, but from what I can tell that's related more to the fact that they're ALREADY far less likely to be customers at any price above $0.

    So, im summary: pricing strategy inflexibilities make used markets viable, pirates are silly geese but not necessarily lost sales or revenue.

    Good post, but is it really true (regarding piracy)? If so...why does DRM exist at all? Why do companies fork out cash to develop these intricate anti-piracy platforms if the lost revenue is so low? They must be getting numbers that support DRM in their product, right? Or are they just blindly following some archaic perception that "they must do all they can to combat the evil Pirates!"?

    I truly believe it is partially a blame game as to why sales suck for some games and also part of it is faith in something one can't prove.

    mrt144 on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I got the ultimate DRM.

    For $50, you have the privilege of going to the Devs house, getting naked, and playing the game on his computer that is has no modem or network card, no USBF/Firewire/eSATA ports, all while two very angry looking men stand over you with shotguns.

    Son, I paid a lot more then that for the pleasure of filling that particular fantasy in Tijuana. Fifty bucks is a veritable bargain.

    Robman on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A lot of posts have been discussing this - piracy does not necessarily result in lost revenue.

    No offense, but that's a load of crap. Yes, it's correct that the revenue loss from piracy isn't 100%. You have the compulsive pirates who have to download everything yet never play it. Yet the amount of revenue loss isn't zero, either. My friend Dwight (not his real name) has a well-paying job, yet pirates all his games. He tends to play these games to completion, and talk about them excitedly to me. He actively enjoys them. It's pretty clear that if piracy somehow didn't exist, he would be paying for his games. And I'm sure he's hardly the only person out there like that.

    So, the amount of revenue loss isn't 100%, but it isn't zero. The debate often rages about where the number actually is within that spectrum, but that's missing the point. Any nonzero revenue loss means companies lose money. And companies don't like losing money... it kind of runs counter to the entire point of their existence. If you really think that companies should just chill out, that the revenue loss is too small to matter, then I invite you to go down to Wal-Mart, steal a pack of gum while waving it in the clerk's face, and see what the reaction will be.

    The problem is this idea that it's possible to stamp out piracy. It's not; piracy has been an issue since the second guy built a printing press. As ubisoft is currently showing us, the consequences of attempting to actually stamp out piracy quickly become worse than just accepting it.

    Piracy happens because it provides better service than retail outlets. Sometimes the service provided is "free games!," but it's also "there's no DRM" or "I can download this overnight rather than going to the mall" or "I can't find a retail copy anywhere." Most people have enough disposable income that they're willing to pay if the service is good; piracy's a hassle if you aren't conversant in how it works and/or a superuser on a private torrent site.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I once pirated a game a million times in one day.

    The developer went bankrupt the next day because of it.

    :(

    Edit:

    BOTP:
    Here is my plan of a protest.

    LewieP on
Sign In or Register to comment.