Great job, Bioware!

[Herbert West]

This thread fails so much. It had the potential to contain some informed posts and valid, interesting, discussion. Even D.Gaider posted here.

Unfortunately it had much more potential to become what it is now: a petty squabble for moral higher ground, where some people avert their gaze from blindingly obvious things and force other codexers to restate them. Subsequently, they get bash them for doing it.

 

[Brother None]

Suppose I owned a model of a bridge and advertised it as a full sized thing? Like, say, a game advertised as being MASSive in depth while actually only being an immitation?

Here's the stickler in that sense.

Our modern society depends on the legitimacy of a transaction being supported by law. If someone outright lies about their product, then this is misrepresentation and punishable in court. This does apply to the game industry, but the problem is in the contentiousness of facts. A game developer can not claim his game is 3rd person and then release a 1st person game, that's grounds for a lawsuit, but a game developer can claim his game has "great immersive value" because that's purely subjective.

Now here's another stickler of our great modern society: these cases are judged in court for a reason, because the moment you take these rights into your own hand you take away the entire foundation of trust on producer-consumer transactions.

In other words, a producer lying gives you the right to sue him for it and/or demand your money back, it does not give you the right to steal his product.

Of course, the issue with the gaming industry lies not in the publishers but in the malleable media. The misrepresentation happens because the media lets it happen. I would love nothing more than to see all these contracts and shady dealings between publisher and media brought to light and to then see Neelie Kroes rain fire and brimstone down on the industry, but regardless, I can't take right into my own hands just because I disagree with the system. It doesn't work that way.

PS: ok seriously does it not occur to you fucking retards that of all possible posts on any forum on the internet ever, "this thread is so useless" IS THE MOST FUCKING USELESS POST OF THEM ALL. You goddamn asstards.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ DamnedRegistrations

I would investigate first. Just like I don't buy games blindly, just because some PR monkey assures me that it's epic and awsum, and check all available info first. Again:

There is enough information out there on Mass Effect for you to determine if you would enjoy it or not. Screenshots, videos, detailed gameplay information, it's all available, from both people who hate it and people who like it. You'd rather read a book or find a brainier game? Where did you get the idea in the first place that Mass Effect challenged your mind?

How many times have we had discussions with some fanboys screaming "how can you say that [insert game] sucks? you haven't played it yet!!!" Do I have to explain you what we tell these people and why? Was anyone who paid attention surprised that Oblivion sucked? Would anyone be surprised that Fallout 3 is an action game with RPG elements? That NWN2 was plain vanilla crap? MotB was another matter, but I suppose one could see it coming too. The previews/interviews were different and my newsposts reflected that. Still I wasn't going to buy it and wasn't interested in torrenting it just to try and see. Yet when a lot of people started posting positive reviews and impressions and explaining what they liked in details, I bought the game as it was clear based on the info that at very least I won't be disappointed.

 

[Xi]

How the fuck does it increase risk for the publisher?

Well, when you pirate instead of purchasing, they aren't making money to cover development costs. Instead of pumping more money into future projects, they start spending less to offset the difference. Then, before you know it, a few developers go under, a publisher calls it quits or switches into new (console)markets.

Fewer games being made equals more innovation, how? If money isn't being made there is less incentive to invest in the first place. In fact, someone argued that consoles have never seen innovation earlier in this thread, but there are plenty of games that prove the contrary.(At least in terms of these markets, the user would agree that they've seen innovation, whether you do or not.) Increasing output will also increase chance for good games. Piracy leads to fewer chances, not more.

So, how do you support a market that will pirate your game, a market that demands innovation and quality, and a market that doesn't care for the well being of the rich investors, hard working developers, and overall system of game development? I think this is where we are at in terms of PC gaming today. Innovations are coming, but practically all of them come in some form of DRM as to ensure the most amount of sales. Steam and impulse are innovations, for example. They offer DRM via online activation, which increases sales, and they offer services to offset this hickup. Certainly better than EA's method, but EA will get there too.

 

[Damned Registrations]

And just because I might find unbiased reviews doesn't mean I can trust them all, or that I should spend a few hours searching around until I've sifted through enough to get what? Maybe 50% accuracy? Let me put it this way. If I had read the thread here on Ironman before I saw the movie, what might I have gleaned from it? I'd have run aground of some awful spoilers, and I'd have heard a dozen varied impressions of it, all quite earnest and forthright. I'd still have no idea if the movie was worth watching, and it'd have been slightly ruined for me. If I were to apply this to the game, it would be much the same, only toss in 50% of it being pure bullshit slung from people who haven't actually played the game properly anyways. My alternative is to review it myself, at no actual cost or harm to anyone.

I suppose you higher beings, having never been mistaken or deceived in any matter, couldn't possibly understand the plight of a lowly creature like myself. My world is so difficult /wrists


Also, LMAO @ Xi for bring up consoles. FF7 was the worst thing to happen to jrpgs. It made the genre popular over here, and now trying to find a game that isn't shit is damned near impossible. Consoles had a golden age similiar to computers for gaming, now they're every bit as bloom filled, and it's certainly not for lack of income.

I'll let you have whatever final words you will, considering you had to cut out 90% of my post to make a reply and refuse to admit the possibility of being mistaken about the quality of a game prior to review.

 

[Xi]

Also, LMAO @ Xi for bring up consoles. FF7 was the worst thing to happen to jrpgs. It made the genre popular over here, and now trying to find a game that isn't shit is damned near impossible. Consoles had a golden age similiar to computers for gaming, now they're every bit as bloom filled, and it's certainly not for lack of income.

I agree on the RPG side, many here would. RPG quality has declined, but many console players would disagree. Also, GTA4 is a great example of innovation and quality from sales success via the console market.(Where games far outsell that of PC in most cases) Had this been a PC exlucise, where people widely pirated, and never purchased, would it have had the development funds it did for this 4th edition? Would it have been as good of a game? Hardly. It would have been pushed out early as development funds ran out. Haven't we all experienced this already? Where is the incentive to invest in a market with rampant piracy?

It takes time to create innovation and it takes money to allow for that time. Piracy takes a chunk out of both. Is it impossible to believe that many of the best possible games were never made because the developers closed down before their time?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Let me put it this way. If I had read the thread here on Ironman before I saw the movie, what might I have gleaned from it?

The Codex isn't a movie site, so your example doesn't fit. I'm sure that if you are concerned about wasting money on a shitty movie, you can find some movie sites/critics whose opinions you agree with.

If I were to apply this to the game, it would be much the same, only toss in 50% of it being pure bullshit slung from people who haven't actually played the game properly anyways.

It's very easy to tell, at least at the Codex, who have and haven't played a game in question, so I don't really understand what you are talking about. Sounds like a cop-out to me. "I can't form an opinion based on other people reviews, so I simply must - MUST - torrent games. CAN'T YOU SEE?!!!"

My alternative is to review it myself, at no actual cost or harm to anyone.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[pkt-zer0]

So, how do you support a market that will pirate your game, a market that demands innovation and quality, and a market that doesn't care for the well being of the rich investors, hard working developers, and overall system of game development?

Well, it's not like Blizzard was doing too bad, even prior to WoW. CD Projekt RED managed to release The Witcher as a PC exclusive, and make an enhanced edition of it for free, too. It's not like they're being killed by piracy, or at least so it seems.
So, you could try asking them for the "how".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Being located in Poland helps too.

 

[Ander Vinz]

Actually, "taking your friend's copy" is piracy, the sort of which Mass Effect's DRM is aiming to prevent.

Damn, no matter how hard I try to be law-abiding citizen, I'm still a thief.

CD Projekt RED managed to release The Witcher as a PC exclusive, and make an enhanced edition of it for free, too.

Enhanced edition still doesn't exist.

@VD: I wanted to argue a bit more but happened to recall Occam's razor. It's all very simple now: good guys offer me free sample of enterntaining thingie. If I like it, I buy it. Evil guys on the other hand, want me to buy a pig in a poke. Fuck them. Simple as that, no moral ambiguities, no shit. You've won, congratulations.

 

[inwoker]

In before failure of the free market discussion.

 

[Brother None]

@VD: I wanted to argue a bit more but happened to recall Occam's razor. It's all very simple now: good guys offer me free sample of enterntaining thingie. If I like it, I buy it. Evil guys on the other hand, want me to buy a pig in a poke. Fuck them. Simple as that, no moral ambiguities, no shit. You've won, congratulations.

Occam's razor doesn't work that way.

 

[ricolikesrice]

...

the main problem with the gaming industry is the average customer.

if jonny goes to a super market and he sees 2 sorts of beer of which he knows both taste equally good....... he d never buy the beer that costs 10times as much as the other... despite it tasting good (like said, the other tastes just as well), right ?

he might pay more for a superior product , i.e. he d easily spend 10% more money per bottle of beer knowing beer X is a lot more to his liking than beer Y.... but he d never pay more for a product that has a cheaper equal in quality, or ?

now we re at gaming. jonny spends 30 bucks on the witcher and gets 60+ hours of solid or even great cRPG entertainment.
a few months later he spends 40-50 bucks on mass effect and gets 20-30 hours of solid or even great cRPG entertainment.

he s paying 33% more for what is actually not even half the content and apparently perfectly fine with it.

message to the industry: you can get away with selling half for more. despite him actually buying the witcher the day he bought mass effect he hurt CD project because he rewarded an inferior game (in content, i wont be the judge on quality/gameplay which boils down to tastes anyhow) with more money.

since its "just 40-50 bucks and got nothing else to play right now" gamers dont even think a second of the message our behaviour sends to the industry.

cant really blame bioware. 7 years ago they might have released a mass effect with a 100 hour campaign + editor to boot trying to make their best cRPG from gamers for gamers. but nowadays their bosses have learned computer gamers are stupid as fuck and we d easily buy a whole trilogy for 3times the profit, so why have ambitious games anymore ?

piracy to get back to topic isnt solving the problem. just like buying games piracy suggests devs/publishers we re interested in a game -and might buy it, if pirating wasnt such an easy alternative.... so removing piracy seems like a good goal.

ignoring those games, giving massive feedback that we re unhappy with how unambitious their games have gotten / rewarding their competition by buying multiple copies of their games.... THATs what would make a difference. (in a perfect world.... in reality for every single person that did this.... there d be 100s who continue blind-buying any overhyped shit...)

troika could rise from the ashes , make a 200 hour + amazing innovative and fun super duper RPG that even gets mainstream fame and hype...... in the end they d still sell at most 2 million copies ..... exactly how much bioware could sell with 10% the effort - who would you think publishers wanted in that case ?

if you re the honest type of guy your best option is simply ignoríng games that arent worth it and in tradeoff buying multiple copies of games that are so.
that way you are perfectly on morale high ground as well - you just wont ever achieve anything given you are 1 against millions of dumbfucks.

if you re the little rebel type of guy, feel free to pirate games that arent worth it, because that way at least some of the retards who pay for these games are fucked over by things like anal DRM... you lose your moral high ground though - if thats important to you..... and in the end you arent really achieving anything either since there s enough honest dumbfucks to make up for you.

in the end i wish all those "morale high-ground, fuck you thieves" people would stop buying inferior games. i doesnt matter jackshit whether you have TW and MOTB, by buying mass effect you still hurt the RPG genre, no matter whether those 20 hours arent THAT bad.

and the pirates would be better off buying a 2nd copy of TW/MOTB rather then fighting a war thats just as stupid as DRM, since pirating inferior games wont stop inferior games from beeing made....

 

[Ander Vinz]

@VD: I wanted to argue a bit more but happened to recall Occam's razor. It's all very simple now: good guys offer me free sample of enterntaining thingie. If I like it, I buy it. Evil guys on the other hand, want me to buy a pig in a poke. Fuck them. Simple as that, no moral ambiguities, no shit. You've won, congratulations.

Occam's razor doesn't work that way.

"If all other things are equal, the simplest solution is the best."
No?

 

[Brother None]

@VD: I wanted to argue a bit more but happened to recall Occam's razor. It's all very simple now: good guys offer me free sample of enterntaining thingie. If I like it, I buy it. Evil guys on the other hand, want me to buy a pig in a poke. Fuck them. Simple as that, no moral ambiguities, no shit. You've won, congratulations.

Occam's razor doesn't work that way.

"If all other things are equal, the simplest solution is the best."
No?

Yes. But you made all other things equal by excluding all external factors, essentially limiting your argument to what is best for you. It's an application of Occam's razor in the widest sense, sure, but it's also an application of Occam's razor to an arbitrarily limited argument.

 

[Ander Vinz]

Yes. But you made all other things equal by excluding all external factors, essentially limiting your argument to what is best for you. It's an application of Occam's razor in the widest sense, sure, but it's also an application of Occam's razor to an arbitrarily limited argument.

Did it hurt something?

 

[easychord]

Yes. But you made all other things equal by excluding all external factors, essentially limiting your argument to what is best for you. It's an application of Occam's razor in the widest sense, sure, but it's also an application of Occam's razor to an arbitrarily limited argument.

As a game buyer I shouldn't buy a game without an enjoyable playable demo so as not to risk wasting money. I should also check the features list before buying. These are the only things that I can depend on.

This is the how Occam's razor can be applied to decide how to buy games without breaking the law.

 

[DefJam101]

I want to know why exactly someone pirating and playing a game instead of not buying it is worse than not buying it and never playing it at all.

Oh, that's easy - on a theoretical level: a large part of our society functioning depends not on the ability of the state to coerce individuals into following law (Foucault, Schulze, Tilly), but in individuals accepting social contracts that state they will not break said law. That means that even beyond direct morality (I will not punch someone in the face because it's wrong) there is also social contract, which means that even so-called victimless crimes are unacceptable the moment they hurt in large numbers - my walking over the grass in the park once is fine, if thousands of people do it the grass dies.

Same goes for piracy. The problem is not when on person who would never purchases it downloads the game, the problem is that by now a network exists and people have made such twists and abuses of morality to explain it all away. By pirating and pretending this breach of social contract is alright because it is victimless, you are supporting and endorsing the wide breach of social contract which does result in harmful behaviour.

Of course, the big footnote is: does it? Does it result in harmful behaviour? Depends on how you look at it. Economically, we don't know. In a social and moral sense, yet it does, because there simply are individuals who become so lazy and spoiled from pirating that they no longer purchase even though they would. They exist, hence the network is wrong.

There is no denying this behaviour set up a model in which people can actually claim some kind of inherent *right* to use products they can't afford. That claim is very harmful to the very basics of our society. In a wider sense.

Kudos to you, VD, and Edward for not ignoring my post.





Seems to be that if you are never going to purchase the game either way, pirating the game has no direct effect on the developers/publishers. However, several other secondary effects can occur:

1) As you and I have said, pirating the game may encourage others to do it who would have, under normal circumstances, purchased the game. There are and will always be people out there who simply do not want to pay for games, if you pirate the game you indirectly support those people and encourage that type of behavior. Unfortunately, is is almost impossible to measure the statistics of this... You can't exactly keep track of all the 'potential' customers, apply "pirate influences" to them and then see if they pirate or not. It's impossible.

2) As for pirates who would never have purchased the game, there is a potential for them to spread word-of-mouth advertising that someone who never bought the game could not possibly give. Much like above, however, we cannot possibly obtain accurate measurements of this. This argument ONLY stands if you assume that the person would have never purchased the game, ever. Under no circumstances would they have ever thrown down money for the game in question.


I think it is important to note that you may do both simultaneously. You can pirate a game, spread positive word-of-mouth*... and yet still encourage pirating for the sake of pirating. Until we can find a way to accurately measure both of these effects, I don't see this going anywhere. How can we possibly judge which one outweighs the other?



*I am no economics major... Nor do I give a shit about economics (or many other things concerning money & government). But from personal observations, I have found that word-of-mouth is good advertising no matter what the content of that advertising is, having it be a "glowing review" is just a bonus. I have found some of my favorite games (X series, Unreal Tournament, Painkiller, Nexus: TJI) through negative word-of-mouth. I heard about them from people who hated them, went and google'd for an hour, and ended up buying them later. It isn't so much about the content of the advertising as much as it is about having the game's existence hammered into your head, and leading you to search for more information.

 

[Hamster]

. Anyway, you can also sample games here by renting them for a weekend, but I don't think that that apply to you guys yet.

There is no need, PC games in Russia cost 15$ for jewel and 20-30$ for dvd box. Everyone can pay 15$ for a game if they are not some bums. Only problem is crappy localisations, but Mass Effect will be released with original voices. You have to be a real asshole to pirate a game in such conditions.

 

[Brother None]

Did it hurt something?

Kind of depends on what you are asking. Does the assumption that you have some kind of right to try a product before purchasing it damage the fundaments of society? Yes. Does the network of piracy that you are supporting by your actions damage the economics of the game industry? Dunno, but I guess yes. Does the very existence of piracy - irrelevant to if it has an economic impact - hurt the niveau of the game industry? Yes.

Seems to be that if you are never going to purchase the game either way, pirating the game has no direct effect on the developers/publishers. However, several other secondary effects can occur:

Y'know, since the analysis a posteriori isn't really working out for us, you might consider one thing: if you can't figure out if something is justifiable by the question "am I hurting anyone", society provides a moral framework to answer the question "do I have the right to do this?"

Simple points:
- People who produce something have the right to expect payment from people who consume it
- People who do not wish to consume something are under no obligation to pay for something
- People who do not pay for something have no right to consume it
- ...
- Profit!

But seriously. Talk about applying Occam's razor: if I were to truly apply this age-tested theorem, the above three points are what this whole discussion amounts to: consumption implies payment, no payment implies no consumption.

 

[DefJam101]

Seems to be that if you are never going to purchase the game either way, pirating the game has no direct effect on the developers/publishers. However, several other secondary effects can occur:

Y'know, since the analysis a posteriori isn't really working out for us, you might consider one thing: if you can't figure out if something is justifiable by the question "am I hurting anyone", society provides a moral framework to answer the question "do I have the right to do this?"

Simple points:
- People who produce something have the right to expect payment from people who consume it
- People who do not wish to consume something are under no obligation to pay for something
- People who do not pay for something have no right to consume it
- ...
- Profit!

But seriously. Talk about applying Occam's razor: if I were to truly apply this age-tested theorem, the above three points are what this whole discussion amounts to: consumption implies payment, no payment implies no consumption.

That wasn't Ander Vinz.. :

Anways; I suppose so, but not everyone is going to accept these things as rights. I don't really have a stance on the whole issue... Though, as someone who just re-read Fight Club a few days ago, I am feeling pretty down on consumer culture at the moment...

 

[Binary]

*Sigh* I doubt VD needs you to speak on his behalf. Anyway VD used indirect remarks that really gave away that he was joining the discussion to "protect the developers"

I did. But you've assumed that I did it to protect my own interests as a developer not because I have an opinion as a gamer on the subject.

I don't think you did it to protect your own interests. I think by being one of them now, you felt like protecting game developers in general. I could be wrong, but that's the perception you've given me. There's nothing wrong with it anyway, just seems out of place for the original topic (DRM).

I repeat, I agree with your views on piracy, except that

a) DRM is not the solution to piracy
b) piracy can't be blamed for poor game sales - perhaps this would even be a topic by itself.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Seems to be that if you are never going to purchase the game either way, pirating the game has no direct effect on the developers/publishers. However, several other secondary effects can occur:

Before we discuss the secondary effect I'd like to say that assuming that most pirates would have never bought games they steal is a HUGE assumption. It's quite possible that that's what you do, for example, but overall, I'd say that most people steal stuff, including games, for 2 reasons: a) because they can and b) because getting stuff for free is ALWAYS better than paying for it. That's a universal wisdom (take that, Kant!)

So, while in theory nobody suffers because pirates wouldn't buy it anyway, that's simply not true.

1) As you and I have said, pirating the game may encourage others to do it who would have, under normal circumstances, purchased the game. There are and will always be people out there who simply do not want to pay for games, if you pirate the game you indirectly support those people and encourage that type of behavior. Unfortunately, is is almost impossible to measure the statistics of this... You can't exactly keep track of all the 'potential' customers, apply "pirate influences" to them and then see if they pirate or not. It's impossible.

Well, that Reflexive quote about piracy, anti-piracy measures and outcomes was very interesting.

 

[elander_]

Sure. And it's a simple fact that piracy brought Arcanum sales down to the point of Troika losing even a chance to make another Arcanum game.

Wasn't there an Arcanum demo? Maybe people simply didn't like Arcanum enough. The game did sell very well for that type of game.

Troika did change the game perspective with Bloodlines and justified it with making a more mainstream game and the game could have been very successful if not for their own mistakes. I mean you can't press a key to skip the intro movie and all the other bugs and problems the game had.

Any my explicit implication is that most of the retards that pirate mainstream AAA games really like the games they pirate, and wish the developer to make more of these kind of games so they can pirate them.

And the obvious answer is back it up.

@Angler: do not aggregate me with pirates. I can always take my friend's copy to try the game if no hacked version available.

And yet this is considered thieving too. I don't care if the law says i have to lower my pants and let myself get screwed by the judge whenever he feels like it. The law is to be useful and protect the citizens from schemes that serve no good purpose and not to be blindly followed.

The law also says that distributing "abandonware" is wrong but if this didn't happen many games would be lost by now. If i have to decide between following a worthless law that allows games to be lost in time and preserve old games then i don't have any doubt about screwing the law.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't think you did it to protect your own interests. I think by being one of them now, you felt like protecting game developers in general. I could be wrong, but that's the perception you've given me.

You are mistaken. Btw, it would be much better if you posted this statement instead of: "...don't give us the "I'm a developer now, feel sorry for me" speech, mmmkay?"

I repeat, I agree with your views on piracy, except that

a) DRM is not the solution to piracy
b) piracy can't be blamed for poor game sales - perhaps this would even be a topic by itself.

a) I've never said a word about DRM.
b) it can be. See that Reflexive and Leon's quotes.

Also this:
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology ... 8d&k=25113

"Call of Duty 4, one of the best-selling games of the year racked up almost 7 million sales accross all platforms, with only 383K of that figure coming from PC."

I guess nobody's playing it on PC and people who pirated it wouldn't have bought it anyway. *rolls eyes*.