Great job, Bioware!

[elander_]

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.

Rule of law functions exactly because individuals do not get to determine when laws are "no good".

But they do sometimes. History will tell you that sometimes laws are broken or removed because individuals simply refuse to follow them.

It sure determines if i think i should follow the law or not. Try catch me playing a game i brought from a friend and show me what harm am i doing to the society for not paying money to a game i don't like to play. It's exactly the opposite. Economy works because people can chose what they are buying and the only thing we see is reviews who are bribed with gifts to deliver what score they want them to deliver and big publishers who bitch about piracy numbers and yet refuse to provide demos for their games.

I'm not saying that piracy isn't damaging game sellings. What i'm saying is that these things are very hard to determine and numbers are easy to twist and game companies will rather blame piracy than admit they made a bad game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Question to VD the developer, not VD the gamer:

Purely hypothetical..

Would you rather have someone pirate and play your game than not play it at all, if they went around and told their friends about the game (who may, in turn, buy the game)?

Even without the if, I'd rather have someone pirate and play the game (and hopefully enjoy) than not play it at all. I think that most developers would agree with that though.

At the same time if AoD is greatly enjoyed by many pirates (who, of course, wouldn't have bought the game otherwise), but sells poorly, that's the end of the road for Iron Tower. Won't break my heart, but why make games that don't sell, whatever the reason is?

because getting stuff for free is ALWAYS better than paying for it.

As illustrated by Troika going under due to insufficient sales? Yeah, it's ALWAYS better.

I'm talking about what's better for an individual when he's considering paying for a game, not what's better for everyone on the long run. For the record, I don't pirate games, but maybe that's because I can easily afford what I need.

I would think it's in the interest of the consumer that those developing quality games actually stay in business.

Goes without saying, but people are fucktards, so what can you do?

The one that concluded that 999 out of 1000 pirates wouldn't buy the games they pirate, right?

Based on what?

CoD4, a very popular game, sold 383k on PC and over 6.5 mil on consoles. The conclusions should be rather obvious, no?

...Console 'tards buy any shit you throw at them?

Quite possible. Was CoD4 a shitty game though?

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's a fact that the game [Arcanum] pirated a lot.

I don't know because i haven't seen any fact on this? How can you prove that someone has played a pirated game? If you can then you can also put him in jail.

Oh, come on. Arcanum was a very anticipated game. Not as anticipated as shooters, of course, but very anticipated for an RPG. Makers of Fallout and all that. Now, imagine that the game is delayed for 6 months. You are dying to play it but you have to wait 6 months just because, BUT! the game is easily available for download. And not some early version, but the final, absolutely playable game.

Now, using common sense tell me that the rumors of the game being pirated are highly exaggerated and that you won't believe them until you see a signed confession from each pirate.

The fact is some game genres cannot be as easily mainstreamed as other games and that may be one of the reasons for Arcanum not to reach their expectations.

So, Leon is lying about piracy to cover his own incompetence, right?

Call me a thief but i have the fucking right as a customer to play a demo of a game that costs 50E or more and unless gives me a good explanation for why they can't offer a demo i don't see any reason to follow the law that only benefits dubious schemes.

What right? You steal games because you can. Because the internet makes it very easy. That's all. There is nothing else to it. No rights, no moral high grounds, no public service. Why bother justifying it? If there was no internet and no ways to get a cracked copy, would you have still done it because that's your right as a consumer?

Another example, if it wasn't for "abandonware" sites most games would have been lost forever. Judges don't think games are art and couldn't give a damn if games are lost or not. In this situation people have no other choice unless breaking the law to do the "right" thing.

There are plenty of abandonware sites that break no laws and provide games that can't be purchased anymore and whose owners/developers are long gone.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: ...

worldwide CoD4 did well on PC selling just as many PC copies as console copies apparently.

the article however (and VDs post) made it sound like CoD4 on PC *worldwide* was outsold 10:1 which is utter bullshit and i m merely pointing out linking/posting utter bullshit isnt helpin his case (which i partly agree with)

So it is apparently or is it a fact? Links please.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

- celebration about cracking of ME DRM

Yeah, that shit was a bit over the top. I apologize for what i had to do with that.

Uh, actually, he - like anyone else - is aware that the system of theft only works as long as everyone supports it. Communal responsibility rather than individual. In other words, he knows that his action help facilitate his own theft indirectly, by making the system more supportable and thus more wide-spread.

Well, that makes it quite useful - His own gain benefits others, are you saying? Well, that's quite compatible with the second postulate, as for as long the other ends do not interfere with humanity then the other ends are not wrong in themselves.

As i said, Gain is not Evil in itself, but only as long as it takes precedence over humanity. The same shit happens when people starts asking a lot of money for books in some places - That hurts humanity since it hurts culture, it matters not if the book in question is a funny novel or a work on philosophy. Both are parts of the whole we call "Culture" and, by limiting access to it, you are screwing all of humanity over. And since games are a product of cultural context and are an element of that same context (and thus part of it) it is the same - By limiting access to it you are limiting access to culture, regardless of our judgement of how much a given "product" deserves that name.

As a fact i almost do not pirate games, since i do not find them as engrossing as once do and i get the feeling i am wasting time every time i play for too long. I mostly pirate books, music, or movies that are hard to get where i live. But it is piracy all the same, and ocasionally i still get games for free, so there we are.

Holly hells. Do you think Kant was a communist? Where could the second postulate possible indicate - and this is the key bit - that humans have the right to own everything they desire? Because that's what your interpretation indicates, but it certainly isn't what Kant said.

That's not what my interpretation indicates. My interpretation is from an entirely moral standpoint. What i am saying is that by puting the "Gain" before the "Humanity" they are turning "Humanity" in a means to the end of "Gain" and, thus, going against the second postulate. Amusingly, as of your post no one even tried to go against that argument. Nor did you, for that. And it is not that hard, right? The second postulate is one. If i am reading too much into it, then anyone can offer me HIS interpretation - and during my stay at the codex i have give enought evidence that i LISTEN to what other guys say, not just make some noise to be cool and for the lulz. No one did, and that makes me somewhat confident i am not reading as much as to reach crazy land.

Also, my interpretation never said anything of humanity having the right to own everything their desire. My interpretation said that by conditioning, for personal gain, who can own what you are violating the second postulate. I never talked of humanity having the Right to anything, but of humanity having the Perfect Duty of not puting other ends before humanity and, thus, of fellow humans.

And i never said Kant was a communist. Hell, i did not even said I was one. I am not. In fact, i dislike "Isms" but are obligued to use them as a means of simplification and communication. If you want to put me into a label say... ummm... i am a Stirnerian Individualist trying to follow Kant's moral philosophy. Yeah, it's weird. Then i am very possibly insane as VD pointed, so at least i have an excuse. What's yours?

It's also hilarious...I get from your posts that you're opposed to materialism, yes? Yet this interpretation comes down to defining human happiness through material goods - games or otherwise.

Emmm... What? Books are material goods, but their contents are not. CDs are material goods, but their contents are not. Piracy does not fuck material goods - It fucks with intellectual properties. If not it would be theft or some other shit, not piracy. If you want it is an "Ideal good", or a service in the way that is something you do not know how to do while they do (putting code in a certain way to reach a certain result).

But by no way it is a material good. We are not stealing the box, printed manual, and DVDs. Just the information.

Does that put food on the table.

No.

Stop with all the philosophical crap, and try to remember reality.

Others are discusing the material side of the topic and are better able to do so, so i leave it to them. My entire point in this discussion was the moral one - that everyone says "It's wrong!" and never arguments about WHY it is wrong to begin with. You, for example: Yeah, that may not put food on the table - So? My argument is faulty because it does not put on the table? Please, looking through a telescope is not directly putting food in anyone's table - It follows astronomy is unrelated with reality?

If you want to go mistical then reality is a social-cultural construct, since we do not experience reality but reality through a prism made up of cultural conditioning, limitations of language, and previous experience... So anything that relates to beliefs, laws, cultural context, and ideas is, actually, more related to what we call reality than most of the shit you do to eat.

But then i would just be pulling your leg by means of being over-complicated. :wink:

Communism makes slaves of the most creative and hard working people.

Of the most creative? Very true, and that's why i am not a communist. Of the most hard working people? Emmm... That's both communism and capitalism right there for you, and that's why i am not a capitalist either. I do not see Bill Gates building homes, making scientific breakthroughs, writing opera, or loading boxes in the port... yet he has more money than all those guys, and more than all those guys in his company that actually WORK.

I am starting to get a very biowarish vibe with all this Capitalism vs Communism shit - But if you guys want to go on with the labeling contest, be my guests.

Bah, this thread has degenerated into a useless discussion when it should be about pressing DGaider to stop avoiding the issue (and quite rudely at that). The issue is, of course, that Bioware fucked over their customers with no damage to pirates, and have not apologized or offered support to the customers.

In fact last night i was around Bio's forums to see the backlash. Their own customers are demanding both an explanation, since obviously the "Against Piracy" argument does not hold any water, and a patch to remove the DRM - Bioware's response? "Puh-lease" or something to that effect. Some limited hilarity ensued before the conspiracy theories started to emerge.

I'll file that under "what a load of crap that doesn't apply to the real world".

The real world isn't some kind of monolitic, static beast other than in the realm of physics (and then i am not so sure about those...). The real world is what people makes of it, and even something as the ongoing debate between pirates and anti-pirates shows change is constantly trying to manifest itself from those parts of humanity that feel it should be diferent. As much as an amount of "realism" is needed as for the context not be always changing, an amount of "idealism" is needed for the context to even change every now and then.

Less lucky? How many people can't afford a 15-25 game (that's what it would cost after 6 months to a year) if they actually do have a paying job?

In places outside USA and the EU you need to add something because of importation, since there are no local publishers, and some inflation by means of "The Market." Assasin's creed, the newest shit you can get there for an example, goes for 268,61$ in local money. That's 86,648 in US dollars IF you can even find it in stock. Older games? PoP: The Two Thrones (the next notorious example in the list as i surf the website) goes for 128,19$ - Or 41,35 US dollars, and that's around the cheapest it goes. Now, don't even try to ask how much is an original Windows XP back there: Last time i checked (back when it was new) it was a fucking fortune, and then with the limited "installs" - Yeah, right.

To put things in perspective the standard monthly income for someone who is not in the upper echelons of some enterprise's ladder goes around 1200$. In some cases more, but most of the time way down at around 1000$ or even 800$.

Now, everyone and his mother has a computer here (but, by the anti-piracy team values, should still be running windows 3.11 in them) - By smart buying, exchanging old components, and building it myself i managed to get a machine able to, for an example, run Crysis in pretty high detail and without any kind of overclocking at around 1000$ in local money. Ridiculous enought in comparison? And this little hole is the prettiest one in the region.

Sincerely, does it amazes you piracy is rampart everywhere in the world but in USA and the EU? That's what i said when going about not everything being USA and the EU.

My point of view is that piracy is wrong for those who can afford the shit (since the developer actually deserved somethin), but not for those who can't - And that then no one has the right to tell them "Pay or fuck you", since then they are actually calling for the pirate attitude of "cry me a fucking river while i torrent your shit." If the local price were reasonable only the jerks would pirate the game, and then they are the jerks so no one cares.

I think that you are a smart guy, Sage, so I assume that you can't be a fucking moron. Thus, I think that you are a deluded guy who read some Kant's bullshit, liked it, and is now using it as his own personal Bible that has answers to all questions.

You have to understand that Kant's ideas are flawed, deeply flawed, because they don't apply and can't exist in the real world at all. That's like Marx-Lenin bullshit. Sounds great in theory, but sadly doesn't work. The Russians had to learn it the hard way.

http://faculty.risd.edu/faculty/dkeefer ... ntcrit.htm

Here is a quote that applies to you:

"It is very easy to be lulled by this moralistic lullaby into intellectual submission to Kant's program here. And while we should not want to forego the insights into duty and its metaphysical presuppositions and retain them as some touchstone or magnetic point in guiding our actions, a commitment to these principles with fanatical consistency in the absence of deeper humane commitments to the specific or particular dignity of others and cultivated values of oneself would seem to produce moral monsters! Is it not possible for a fully Kantianized agent to feel only contempt and revulsion for all others, both generally and, wherever possible, specifically. We may be very grateful that this antipathetic individual is held in check by the dictates of reason, but such an individual is hardly the best candidate for the ideal human moral agent!"

I actually think you may have a point there.

The problem with morality is that as soon you hit the Absolute side you went too far, but while you do not hit it there is always the risk of going from "Reason" to "Convenience" without ever noticing it. It is human nature - That's why i maybe slide towards the absolute side of morals (in every system i embrace and study, something at times turns to be quite funny), that without taking it to the Absolute is only matter of time finding excuses for it to become only followed in words instead of thoughts and acts.

A moral system only reason to be is to... Whats the word? Shape the impulses and forces of human nature in a specific way, to channel it to particular ends. That's why i was discussing the morality of capitalism - If everyone is going to get screwed along the way then there is something wrong with the values behind it. Yes, i know: Capitalism is an economic system, not a moral one. But in today's world it has become sort of a Belief - The "Communism vs Capitalism" discussion, for an example that appeared in this topic already. And things like "The Market" are acted upon like a fucking divine entity by not just a few guys.

A system that tries to shape and channel impulses towards "screw the next guy", "go after the money", and "Everyone for himself" is not really doing a good job at being a system by wich almost the entire world lives by. What about the guy who does something to enrich culture instead of pursuing wealth? What about the guy who does something to lend a hand instead of screwing the next guy? What about the guy who go and teaches how to read to those who didn't even had the money or chance for public school? They get locked in the lower levels of society and screwed over and over - And those guys deserve much more than those idiots at the top who only cared about the money and the power that comes with it. Oh, and they doesn't deserve games.

That's a flawed system right there - one enforcing primal, savage, animal attitudes instead of civilized and moral ones. If you want to make a system based on "Merits" make one were everyone is valued by how much they enrich humanity (subjective as that can get) instead of how many people you screw day in and day out. Without a moral system that forces us to become Human we are nothing more than rabid dogs, as the state of the world shows us. Maybe i am stupid in believing people should care for the next guy and humanity as a whole but, hey... There are worst ways of being stupid, i think.

Causing harm to customers - bad. Check
Causing harm to publishers/developers - not bad. Check

If there is something i hate that is oversimplification. I never said causing harm to publishers/developers is not bad. I said that a system that requires you to be either immoral (puting gain before humanity) or immoral (harming a group of people to help another) or... well... immoral (not allowing a fraction of humanity access to something) is inherently flawed from a moral perspective.

The only time i lashed against Bioware was when critizing their moral stance (pay or fuck off) and the guy who acts like they are all starving because of piracy.

Oh, and guys? Stop with the communist bullshit. Just so we are clear: Saying Capitalism is Immoral =/= Saying Communism is Moral Utopia. Are you seriously retarded or just being jerks? Sith vs Jedi, Open Palm vs Closed Fist, Capitalism Vs Communism... Grow up.

And yes, My Interpretation of Kant vs Everyone Else is also a Binary System, but since Kant is on the side of Absolutism then... well... it is justified, no?

I am not talking from any given system there. Communism is flawed from a moral perspective since it puts the individual beneath the state, while the state is no more than an abstract construct and the individual a very real human being. Capitalism is flawed since it puts the individual beneath other abstract constructs as rampart competition, the holy market, and Wealth. I think both systems have good elements, yeah... like everything. That do not mean the system are moral or not flawed in nature or practice.

He's adding in his communist perspective and trying to show how all goods must be equally distributed.

I said all goods must be equally distributed? Nope. Communism decides everyone is EQUAL in everything, and thus must have access to the SAME goods in the SAME amounts. Also, communism decides a given task is a given for ALL - Without taking particular considerations and talents in view. It is as deeply flawed and immoral as capitalism.

I am saying everyone is EQUAL just in the need to obey moral duty. Every individual is unique (some are stupid, some are not - Some have talents in this or that, some like cash and some prefer to have just enough to go on and use their time for art, or writing, or shit), but they all have the same moral duties. They way the go about those moral duties is for each one to guess and decide, as far as they do follow their moral duties.

+1. Kant isn't flawless, but he's not nearly as stupid as the rambling sage is making him look.

Guy, keep it civilized. When i must go time and again over what i said because you and the other guy obsessed with making assumptions out of an apparently irresistible need to label everything into easy to understand but incomplete concepts, i seriously do not see how you can say "anything" is stupid. If we are going to turn to flames then notify me so i can stop trying to discuss in a peaceful manner instead of just hurl shit around.

I was having a better time at the codex before trying to become reasonable... At least i could answer the flamy comments without feeling i was acting like a fucking chimp.

Exactly, even science does not revolve around absolutes (...)

Kant is qualified (Edit: WTF i was thinking? The word is considered, sorry) both as Deontological and Absolutist, and actually is seen as one of the most known examples of both values converging (something far less common that it seems). Remember "You can't lie even to save someone's life from the known murderer that asked you directions to his house" ? Yay, that's a pretty simple example of Moral Absolutism. There is NO way around it - As there is NO way around "Humanity should ALWAYS be the End and NEVER the means". If the system does not allow for it, then the system is wrong. Period. Quite simple, don't you think?

The "Kantian" answer to that murderer thingy is that you refuse to tell the murderer even if that's dangerous, but you don't lie nor tell him where to find the victim since you have Perfect Duty not to lie and Perfect Duty to always have humanity as an end in itself. Most other systems would allow you to lie in that case.

A conflict of duties is inconceivable

Thus any system that creates a conflict of duties is flawed. Since in the system you seems to have conflicting duties to the system and to the whole of humanity, then, as Humanity is ALWAYS the End, the system is flawed from a "Kantian" perspective (and, since the system's End should be humanity as a whole it is, by this too, flawed). You can cry, call me an evil communist, or whatever shit you want - But not before either answering that one point or showing how you can follow with capitalism without EVER screwing a human being.

Oh, and does that means Kant is a Communist? Nope. Does it means it is a Capitalist? Nope. It just means what it means: Everyone has a Perfect Duty to do A, the systems wants them to do the oposite, thus, from a Kantian perspective, the system is Flawed. This is no rocket science.

And, Xi - Nothing personal, but your assumption about every interpretation but your own being inherently flawed does not comes as very philosophical and reasonable. And the name calling in the rest of your posts is out of place.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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."

Take the numbers and twist, twist, twist!

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951

7 million global sales, 383K North America PC sales

The NA sales ratio as 10:1 for 360C.

And that makes sense to you? The game should have sold at very least double that. In this day and age <400k copies on PC is a complete and utter failure due to the extreme shittiness of the game. Was CoD4 that shitty?

I wouldn't be surprised if 75,000 copies of 360 CoD4 were bought explicitly for rental.

Ok. So, let's say that out of 6.5 mil, 100k copies were bought for rental. And? What changed?

 

[Brother None]

But they do sometimes. History will tell you that sometimes laws are broken or removed because individuals simply refuse to follow them.

No, this has never happened. What has happened is that individual refusal sometimes led to mass refusal, and that is enough to change laws. But individual initiative alone is never relevant.

I'm not saying that piracy isn't damaging game sellings. What i'm saying is that these things are very hard to determine and numbers are easy to twist and game companies will rather blame piracy than admit they made a bad game.

I agree. DRMs suck, publishers are being idiots, and I doubt DRMs result in any kind of net sales, and think it's time for PC publishers - beyond Valve - to seriously explore alternatives to fucking over their consumers.

None of that either explains or excuses piracy, tho'

What i am saying is that by puting the "Gain" before the "Humanity" they are turning "Humanity" in a means to the end of "Gain" and, thus, going against the second postulate. Amusingly, as of your post no one even tried to go against that argument. Nor did you, for that.

Uhm...you do realise no one goes against it because you presuppose absolute moral authority to what most of us would consider an outdated philosophical system, right?

You don't make any argument, all you're saying that "if Kant is right, then...", but none of us think Kant is right. Hence, your argument is vapid and irrelevant.

Again, I like Kant as you seem to - and I think by now I should admit you obviously know more about him than I do and would win any indepth internal discussion (which I will, for that reason, avoid), but - and this I will note - I have never seen an attempt to apply his morality to modern capitalism that wasn't convoluted and ultimately failed.

Now I'm no relativists - perish the thought - but there is something that is way too reactionary for me to adopting a moral philosophy that can not accept the state of the world either as it is or as it can realistically be foreseen to become. It is true you can adopt such a system for personal values and even preach it, but I fail to see that why in a case where the morality isn't applicable at all, you can not simply either minimize damage (in which piracy really isn't the obvious answer) or adopt the morality of the majority.

I said that a system that requires you to be either immoral (puting gain before humanity) or immoral (harming a group of people to help another) or... well... immoral (not allowing a fraction of humanity access to something) is inherently flawed from a moral perspective.

Sounds like a case of simply minimizing damage to me.

 

[ricolikesrice]

....

So it is apparently or is it a fact? Links please.

looking for the "half of that for PC link" right now, will post when i find it. (which may be tomorrow when i got more time to search or never if i m remembering things wrong)

anyway like i said crysis sold 1 million (source: EA, crytek, look on their site) and i wont post the 1000s of sales charts which showed crysis always beeing behind CoD4 for pc only.... except for the first week.

so even if its not actually half of 7/9 million, its still a pretty safe bet that CoD4 sold more than 1, possibly 2 million on PC.... NOT 383k which is the number of how many copies were sold in the US alone (BN´s link) - not the number of worldwide sales.

as for wheter CoD4 is shitty or not. i say it is, but according to mainstream its the best game of 2007 and it outsold crysis which (imho) is the far superior fps (and would still be even if its graphics were worse than CoD4...)

i might however add that CoD4 came out at the same time as crysis and from any forum you usually see crysis lovers flaming with CoD4 lovers, so i imagine plenty of people who bought crysis didnt buy CoD4 and the other way around which MIGHT be an explanation for (if there are) lower sales on pc.... while console gamers had only CoD4 in that time and genre.

anyway, i ll be really interested in starcraft 2 s sales to see where we re standing with pc gaming sales compared to consoles. not a huge blizzard fanboy but i enjoy their games and most importantly they really have "cost for content" with stuff like awesome editors, good multiplayer AND long singleplayer...... something bioware utterly fails at since after NWN1.

 

[DefJam101]

The game should have sold at very least double that. In this day and age <400k copies on PC is a complete and utter failure due to the extreme shittiness of the game. Was CoD4 that shitty?

Well... yes actually. Friend of mine bought it for me as a birthday present, it sucks balls.

The single player is 5 hours long with movie-stereotype characters; such as every black guy being a gangsta' and every british guy being a pussy. And the game's gameplay is run n' gun point n' click L33T DELTA PHORCE TACTIX. The graphics engine is amazing, but plagued by bloom and typical CoD 'bleckh' art-design. The multiplayer is Counter Strike with iron sights and fucktarded upgrades and levels.


I wish that it had sold badly because it sucked; but I doubt that is the case. I have heard some wildly different figures for the PC, though. And as a Steam game, listed as a top-seller, I doubt it only sold 350k.

 

[elander_]

Now, using common sense tell me that the rumors of the game being pirated are highly exaggerated and that you won't believe them until you see a signed confession from each pirate.

What i'm saying is that there is no facts about this, only speculation.

So, Leon is lying about piracy to cover his own incompetence, right?

He cannot lie about what he doesn't know. He figures that the reason was piracy. It may be that not enough people were interested in playing that kind of game compared to their own expectations or because the game wasn't as good as their previous games. I did enjoy Fallout a lot more than Arcanum.

What right? You steal games because you can. Because the internet makes it very easy. That's all.

Wrong. Most of my games are originals brought directly from the store when i could easily torrent from the internet. Fallout collection, Planescape, Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil, and more.

There is nothing else to it. No rights, no moral high grounds, no public service.

Of course there is. I'm doing a service in not buying shitty games and support dubious commercial practices. By not trying a game i can loose the chance to play a good game that was badly advertised. I don't see what's wrong with this when you do buy the game you want to play besides offending the law. Consumers have the right to know what games they are buying, if not a legal right then a moral right.

There are plenty of abandonware sites that break no laws and provide games that can't be purchased anymore and whose owners/developers are long gone.

Not really, most abandonware sites have no rights to distribute those games. The reason they do it is because nobody complains, but it's still illegal. The TES forums and other publisher sites censure all links to sites like HOTU or Abandonia.

 

[Brother None]

Of course there is. I'm doing a service in not buying shitty games and support dubious commercial practices. By not trying a game i can loose the chance to play a good game that was badly advertised. I don't see what's wrong with this when you do buy the game you want to play besides offending the law. Consumers have the right to know what games they are buying, if not a legal right then a moral right.

Thin line you're walking there.

Of course consumers have a right to know something about the product they're buying. Performance, requirements, some glances from screenshots and videos, promotional but also informative.

But where do you draw the line? You already claimed right to the demo. What's next? What about Lionheart, a game that turned to shit soon after the start? Do I have the right to know it turns to shit for myself? In other words - do I have the "moral right" to play the entire game from start to finish to check if the entire product is to my satisfaction?

No, of course I don't. So who draws the line? Obviously, the publishers do. Tough for you, but that's life. Don't agree with it, don't buy it, but if we turn the line-drawing over to the consumers...that won't end well.

Not really, most abandonware sites have no rights to distribute those games. The reason they do it is because nobody complains, but it's still illegal.

No it isn't. It's in violation of the games' UELAs, but UELAs do not have the force of law. Abandonware sites - as a rule - are not illegal.

 

[pkt-zer0]

I'm talking about what's better for an individual when he's considering paying for a game, not what's better for everyone on the long run.

Well, I'm fairly sure that I, as an individual, would likely be better off with more Troika games than less. And if matters such as this didn't come into consideration, people wouldn't buy games at all - the free version does the same, comes with no strings attached, unlike the DRMed retail version, and is equally accessible. What reason is there to buy the game, then?

For the record, I don't pirate games, but maybe that's because I can easily afford what I need.

For the record, I do pirate games, but spend ~50$ on games a month, and that's about the entirety of my spare cash as a uni student.

Goes without saying, but people are fucktards, so what can you do?

People in general are fucktards, sure. However, fans of Troika's stuff would make sure that the devs get some money for their work. Then it's not so much a problem with piracy, but with the reliance on fucktards to generate revenue, because fans alone won't be enough. (Which might also explain why stuff like Oblivion had such excellent sales, I guess.)
Is it too idealistic to believe that success can be built on the assumption that there are enough non-fucktarded people to buy your game? I don't think so - see Stardock and GalCiv2. Would that work with larger companies and budgets? I'm not so sure about that, but until Blizzard reports heavily losses on Starcraft 2 due to piracy, I'll lean towards "yes".

Based on what?

Based on their various sales data / estimated number of pirates eliminated via DRM and whatnot. The point was that even if those statistics would be directly applicable in this case, they'd be supporting the view you oppose.

Quite possible. Was CoD4 a shitty game though?

Well, was Bioshock a shitty game? Not really, just nothing that PC gamers hadn't already seen, except with a graphics upgrade. Whereas on consoles it's a brand new and exciting flavor of awesome.
The same goes for CoD4, except I don't really see how it'd be new or innovative even on consoles.

anyway, i ll be really interested in starcraft 2 s sales to see where we re standing with pc gaming sales compared to consoles.

It'd be especially interesting if Blizzard shipped Starcraft 2 with little-to-no DRM. Considering they removed the copy protection from Warcraft 3 and Starcraft in the latest patches, that doesn't seem terribly unlikely.

 

[Fez]

No it isn't. It's in violation of the games' UELAs, but UELAs do not have the force of law. Abandonware sites - as a rule - are not illegal.

What law allows people to copy games after a few years? I thought it was legally the same as copying a game that is just released, unless someone has specifically allowed it. I know the ESA go around and warn the abandonware sites to remove games protected by them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As much as an amount of "realism" is needed as for the context not be always changing, an amount of "idealism" is needed for the context to even change every now and then.

Idealism that doesn't take human nature into consideration, idealism that's based on fantasies and dreams rather than on understanding and analysises is a very, very dangerous thing. "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood" was quickly transformed into the famous Reign of Terror that took 40,000 lives.

"Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes."

70% were people whom the revolution was supposed to liberate. It would ironic if it wasn't so tragic. In some cities guillotines were working without breaks, chopping heads off 24 hours a day.

Now, the Russians weren't so lucky. Their idealism and flirting with Marx cost them much more.

"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day."

That's only in 2 years.

In places outside USA and the EU you need to add something because of importation, since there are no local publishers, and some inflation by means of "The Market." Assasin's creed, the newest shit you can get there for an example, goes for 268,61$ in local money. That's 86,648 in US dollars IF you can even find it in stock.

Let's not forget that games need to be played on something and Assassin's Creed requires a top notch PC:

The list of minimum system requirements is as follows:

* Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
* RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)
* Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0 –compliant video card or DirectX 9.0 –compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*

Are these free in your country? If yes, can you get me one? I'll pay for the shipping. Yes, I know you said that you've managed to build one out of old fridge parts and a sewing machine, but I doubt that every gamer is that handy with hardware. And $1000 bucks that you spent still gotta be a lot of money in your country.

Sincerely, does it amazes you piracy is rampart everywhere in the world but in USA and the EU? That's what i said when going about not everything being USA and the EU.

Fact? Have you seen my link showing that CoD4 for PC sold under 400k in North America, while on the consoles it sold 6.5+ mil? Any conclusions?

A moral system only reason to be is to... Whats the word? Shape the impulses and forces of human nature in a specific way, to channel it to particular ends. That's why i was discussing the morality of capitalism - If everyone is going to get screwed along the way then there is something wrong with the values behind it.

Nothing is perfect, but are there better alternatives at the moment?

A system that tries to shape and channel impulses towards "screw the next guy", "go after the money", and "Everyone for himself" is not really doing a good job at being a system by wich almost the entire world lives by.

I wouldn't describe capitalism like that. Let's take Obsidian for example. It's a growing company that's doing better and better. Neither "screw the next guy" nor "everyone for himself" nor "go after the money" apply to them. Sure they try to make games that sell, but that's not the main driving focus.

What about the guy who does something to enrich culture instead of pursuing wealth? What about the guy who does something to lend a hand instead of screwing the next guy? What about the guy who go and teaches how to read to those who didn't even had the money or chance for public school? They get locked in the lower levels of society and screwed over and over...

Says who?

And those guys deserve much more than those idiots at the top who only cared about the money and the power that comes with it.

Well, I'm working for one of the biggest assholes you've ever seen. Do you know what the difference between him and me is? He managed to build this entire company from scratch and give well paying jobs to 500+ people and I didn't. So, while the guy's an asshole he deserves every bit of what he got because a) he built it all himself and b) he (and guys like him) keeps a lot of people employed, well paid, medically ensured, and generally well taken care of.

That's a flawed system right there - one enforcing primal, savage, animal attitudes instead of civilized and moral ones.

You are mistaken.

If you want to make a system based on "Merits" make one were everyone is valued by how much they enrich humanity (subjective as that can get) instead of how many people you screw day in and day out.

Again with the screwing. I came to Canada with nothing 12 years ago, unless you count a wife and a 2 year old kid. I worked my way up to VP Sales without screwing anyone. I've been running my own business at some point, also without screwing anyone. If it's not a meritocracy, I don't know what is. And yes, enriching humanity sounds awfully subjective.

 

[Brother None]

Well, I'm fairly sure that I, as an individual, would likely be better off with more Troika games than less. And if matters such as this didn't come into consideration, people wouldn't buy games at all - the free version does the same, comes with no strings attached, unlike the DRMed retail version, and is equally accessible. What reason is there to buy the game, then?

I would think people's ingrained social contract morality does a lot more to stop people from buying than does any thought of supporting developers.

We don't steal from stores primarily because of social contracts and secondarily because it's difficult. Since it's not difficult for stealing games, those people that ignore said moral social contracts have no more barriers.

What law allows people to copy games after a few years? I thought it was legally the same as copying a game that is just released, unless someone has specifically allowed it. I know the ESA go around and warn the abandonware sites to remove games protected by them.

What law doesn't?

Actually, copyright law is hazy on this, your interpretation is right too and the one upheld by ESA, but what courts generally allow for is this: if commercial exploitation of a product is non-existent and the owner of the game's rights makes no active claim towards exploitation of the product, the product can be offered for free. Inactivity creating free traffic, so to speak. It becomes illegal the moment the owner of the game's rights asserts their rights to the game, but as long as no one claims these rights they do not exist: for example, you can offer RoA I and II for free on Abandonware sites because no one contests this right, but RoA III has been reissued recently enough for its publisher to contest the right of free publishing, and download RoA III is illegal. Luckily, I own the trilogy set.

Note that this varies per country. I believe Germany is more stringent about these things than the USA.

 

[Chefe]

There's not enough facepalms in the world to describe this thread, but here are some anyways.

In fact, it also deserves a faceplant.

Again with the screwing. I came to Canada with nothing 12 years ago, unless you count a wife and a 2 year old kid. I worked my way up to VP Sales without screwing anyone. I've been running my own business at some point, also without screwing anyone. If it's not a meritocracy, I don't know what is. And yes, enriching humanity sounds awfully subjective.

Shit, you're from Canada? That changes everything.

 

[Fez]

What law doesn't?

In the US copyright law allows for the author's life plus 70 years. For corporate creations it is also a similarly substantial length of time. Not just the mere 20 or less years that many abandonware titles are. I would say that clearly doesn't allow for it. That would make it seem rather black and white to me if there was a legal argument. I don't know of and have never heard of anyone discussing any provisions in the law for the copyrights involved with games or software that change this, which is why I don't know why anyone would assume that abandonware sites are anything other than illegal if they offer games that have not been released with permission by the owner. Illegal, but people just ignore it.

Actually, copyright law is hazy on this, your interpretation is right too and the one upheld by ESA, but what courts generally allow for is this: if commercial exploitation of a product is non-existent and the owner of the game's rights makes no active claim towards exploitation of the product, the product can be offered for free. Inactivity creating free traffic, so to speak. It becomes illegal the moment the owner of the game's rights asserts their rights to the game, but as long as no one claims these rights they do not exist.

Note that this varies per country. I believe Germany is more stringent about these things than the USA.

So you believe that in practice it's basically decided on a case-by-case basis if it is worth pursuing or if they just turn a blind eye to it for now? Are these things more lenient with games than they are with other forms? I know there are still a lot of very old works in music and movies that are protected. Germany, as part of the EU, allows for the same sort of term for protection as the US too, so the legal backing is there. Is it the enforcement of it that isn't happening in that case?

It's a strange situation altogether.

 

[Brother None]

So you believe that in practice it's basically decided on a case-by-case basis if it is worth pursuing or if they just turn a blind eye to it for now? Are these things more lenient with games than they are with other forms?

Actually it's more straightforward than that: copyright is not a relevant factor for abandonware because there is nobody willing to enforce it.

Copyright is not a law that is enforced by courts or police, it is a right owned by an individual or corporation that they can exercise to stop someone from breaking copyright. But the fact of breaking copyright does not become illegal until a claim of copyright is made.

These rights are more well-protected in cinema, music and books because they are considered to have more longevity and lasting value. Game publishers do not consider games that are 10 years old to have any value - theoretical or otherwise - as commercial products, and thus forfeit their own claim to copyright (I believe, but I'm not sure about this part, that copyright can cease before the time of life+70 if the right is forfeited either actively or through total inaction).

 

[Fez]

Ah, I see what you are getting at now.

 

[elander_]

No, of course I don't. So who draws the line? Obviously, the publishers do. Tough for you, but that's life. Don't agree with it, don't buy it, but if we turn the line-drawing over to the consumers...that won't end well.

That's a good question. What if i don't find the demo good enough and think i have the right to play more than what they give me? As a consumer i have to defend my own position and not that of the publishers.

I don't think it should be the publishers the only ones to decide where to draw the line because this leads to abuses. The best solution will be somewhere in the middle of what publishers and gamers want but something is always better than nothing.

What happens is that publishers will always try to find legal ways to push their stuff into costumers and costumers will always find ways around it. It's very easy to borrow a copy from a friend or to torrent a game and this attitude of keeping gamers uninformed does nothing more than to support those guys who crack games and make money with it.

No it isn't. It's in violation of the games' UELAs, but UELAs do not have the force of law. Abandonware sites - as a rule - are not illegal.

I had this information confirmed by a moderator in the TES forums. There are no abandonware games according to the law. Every games has a legal owner be it an association or a person and to redistribute them you need a legal authorization from that person or you need that person to declare the game freeware. Sites that distribute freeware games are not ilegal, of course, but those sites distribute a lot of games without any written permission from their owners (they don't even know who they are) and this is what is illegal and the reason why the TES forums censor those sites.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Actually it's more straightforward than that: copyright is not a relevant factor for abandonware because there is nobody willing to enforce it.

It depends on the "abandonware" in question. Companies love to repackage old titles on a new system and resell it. And for some reason, console publishers love to dog sites that host ROMs of 10 year old financial flops with no chance whatsoever of a "reprint" just as much as ones that sold pretty well.

But the fact of breaking copyright does not become illegal until a claim of copyright is made.

Yes and no. Basically you're saying the whole "it's illegal unless you are caught/have charges pressed against you" spiel. Which is technically correct. Copyright law is enforced mostly by the "victim" as opposed to criminal law which is enforced by the state, not the victim. It's hazy to say the least.

These rights are more well-protected in cinema, music and books because they are considered to have more longevity and lasting value.

And the general populace would also benefit far more from these works adhering to the original intent of copyright law and entering the public domain after 14 years (I could live with up to 30), instead of the bloated mess companies like Disney have turned it into. Just my short anti-modern-copyright rant however.

Game publishers do not consider games that are 10 years old to have any value - theoretical or otherwise - as commercial products

Wii virtual console plus the recent crackdown on emulation sites would tend to disagree. In the case of PC games however, I could buy that. But that probably is more due to the fact that many of the abandonware titles are made by companies no longer in existence and by that virtue have no real interest in the matter.

 

[Xi]

And, Xi - Nothing personal, but your assumption about every interpretation but your own being inherently flawed does not comes as very philosophical and reasonable. And the name calling in the rest of your posts is out of place.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree about our interpretations. I will cede to humility if it can be shown, but so far I have not been swayed by what you've said. As for the name calling, well this is the codex, but my apologies.

Maybe you will agree with me when I say that piracy is proof that consequentialists, dabbling in a little bit of relativism, far out weigh people seeking for a higher moral ground. In the most simplistic way to understand a pirate, within the concept of Occam's Razor, piracy exists because consequence for piracy does not.(Or at least perceived consequence.) Even if you are seeking to apply a moral principle for your actions, I have a hard time adapting the deontological point of view to pro-piracy, as you've been doing. Maybe you aren't wrong to apply this philosophy, and maybe I am wrong from my own application of it, but it's a matter of progressive thinking, and one of us is doing worse than the other. I guess that's the beauty of it though.

 

[obediah]

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."

Take the numbers and twist, twist, twist!

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951

7 million global sales, 383K North America PC sales

The NA sales ratio as 10:1 for 360C.

And that makes sense to you? The game should have sold at very least double that. In this day and age <400k copies on PC is a complete and utter failure due to the extreme shittiness of the game.

According to the gamasutra link Brother None posted CoD4 was the highest selling PC game that wasn't WoW or Sims related. Also, the 383K doesn't include Steam sales. I guess it's up to Activision whether or not we ever see those numbers. We won't because the bigger the disparity between 360 and PC the better for their "War On Piracy".

Was CoD4 that shitty?

I don't know. But it was definitely consolized. It's not so surprising that more people bought a 360 game for the 360 than for the PC.

I wouldn't be surprised if 75,000 copies of 360 CoD4 were bought explicitly for rental.

Ok. So, let's say that out of 6.5 mil, 100k copies were bought for rental. And? What changed?

If each copy is rented just 11 times, that's 1,000,000 people that played the game without Interplay getting paid. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but that number has to have someone outraged!

 

[racofer]

In fact, it also deserves a faceplant.

Wow he's just like Dalsin

 

[Rat Keeng]

Just a quick note on borrowing games, that does not count as piracy; if it did, you could never give away a copyrighted product, without becoming a criminal. Selling games as used, or going to a second hand place and trading games with them, is also perfectly legal.