Great job, Bioware!

[kris]

I'm sure there are lots of nice places and nice people in the many post communist shithole countries out there, they are still shitholes because of the lack of human right, lawlessness and endless poverty. I'm not much of a believer in cultural relativity, some places are better then others.

And which glorious heaven on earth country do you live in?

 

[MetalCraze]

Maybe stardock is the exception, but they aren't pushing the same unit sales as these companies are, not even close.

great job comparing stardock to EA. you seem to forget that stardock also puts a much lesser budget into their games. it's all relative.

as for DRM - just because you saw at torrent sites 3 or 4 posts "omg I bought this game" doesn't mean it happens to everybody (tbh it happens always in the first week or two when there's no proper crack - it's usual). you seem to forget that a large number of legitimate customers can't activate the game at all. so was it a working DRM? hell no. how can you say it works if it does not let people who bought it play the game.

fortunately however EA has no games in the nearest years that I will want to play.

 

[GeneralSamov]

Hypotheses. Tell me what happens if I fap, not if I don't, ffs.

Are you trolling or do you comprehension failures? Obviously, if you fap, the consequences are the opposite of not fapping. You are less likely to begin a sexual relation with a woman, less likely to rape someone, etc. Yes, these are hypotheses as I obviously haven't done a scientific study on this matter. If that bothers you, stop arguing on forums.

Also, you're assuming 'fapping in the toilet' as an action that occurs several times, every time you feel the need to discharge. You have to isolate the fact to a single instance.

No, I don't have to at all. The number of times the action is taken is simply a multiplier of the effects. A single instance is simply less severe.

I hope you're not trying to tell me I encourage fat chicks to commit suicide when I fap.

Didn't think of this, but it's a good point.

Some good points, but I don't feel like arguing over semantics, so I'll pass.
Also, a "good point"?
Have a nice day.

 

[MaskedMan]

how can you say it works if it does not let people who bought it play the game

I don't think the DRM is specifically designed to let people who bought it play the game, EA already has their money so they are of no concern.

Seriously though, if it turns out this kind of copy protection actually hinders the "zero-day piracy" or whatever, and it gives them a week or so without a cracked copy on the net, I'd grudgingly have to accept it. This thread was originally about how the CP was an unnecessary pain in the ass that only harmed legitimate customers. If it actually stops the pirates it is justified. It is still a pain in the ass, it harms legitimate buyers, and I hate it because it seems like it is the future of CP, at lest with EA, but if it works the way it was intended they can't really be criticized for using it, just for how badly it is implemented, and how it fucks up for people who have purchased the game. Oh, and the 3 installs is just bullshit, I seriously hope they remove that later, as it is a lot of people will probably get nocds from "teh benevolent hackers" (aka the people who got us into this mess in the first place), hell, I know I will.

Also, let's all be friends. NO MOAR HATE PLZ:

(that pic is from a pirated comic btw, teh hypocrisy!)

 

[Herbert West]

That pic is so gay.

 

[Barbader]

VD's arguments seem reasonable to me. He doesn't like the obtrusive and disruptive DRM and other annoying stuff of that ilk and he doesn't like the "Robin Hood" syndrome.

This thread will go in circles until it finally spirals into Retardoland.

IN BEFORE...

 

[WalterKinde]

So as a paying customer just bend over and take in the butt in the name of filesharing eh?
While i myself am an advocate of NO DRM on digital media, i am practical enough to accept there must be checks , for example i have no problem with cd keys for software/games provided its not in addition to other things like this new securom or starforce checks, like most modern gamers i hate the cd/dvd check copy protection after all should something happen to that disc, the game publisher is not going to send you a new one for free. And thats even if the game in question is still being sold, if its no longer for sale you are SOL since if we want "to play by the rules" it would mean not getting the p2p version.
What amazes me is that some people are willing to surrender their consumer rights over this , second sale etc, if they had their way fair use would 100% be outlawed as would the law of second sale and that 3 install/activation limit effectively kills that
Also lets not forget the time WILL come when ME will not be as profitable as it once was and EA or whoever has the activation servers will simply discontinue them, so far most people have assumed they will just issue a patch to stop the activation limit however when dealing with drm crippled media so far that has not been the case, google video, virgin megastore, MLB, Microsoft music store, all these places have shut down and the only message you get as a customer is "sorry no refunds and don't bother us with your complaints that the music/movies no longer work" at most some give you coupons, others not one thing.
And neither EA or Bioware has said they will remove the activation limit sometime in the future folks have just assumed that they will.

 

[DefJam101]

What? How is that bullshit?

He just said that the lost sales from DRM rumors, the bugfest, the people who will not install DRM on their machines, the online activation, and the limited amount of activations would counter the sales gained from having an un-cracked game at release. He never said it would sell bad, he said that a couple extra to no extra sales would be gained by including DRM, which screws over the occasional customer. Assuming this is true; it makes no real sense to include DRM.

Like I was saying, this same backlash existed with HL2, and it still sold well despite such claims. Also, Valve has not abandoned Steam do to lack of sales. Maybe we can argue that sales would have been higher without steam, but that's seems a bit delusional to me. Valve explicitly believes that their method for DRM works fairly well and actually converts sales. They have good sales figures to prove this too.

We already talked about this and it has little to do with the situation at hand. Most of the backlash from HL2 at launch was from Steam; a (at the time) shitty little program with lots of bugs and annoying online support. The backlash started a while after release; Steam wasn't exactly publicized until people had bought the game and figured out that this program needed to be fixed up a bit. Nowadays Steam is fairly easy to use and not very intrusive, certainly not like other 'methods' of copy protection... and as such it is a good method to stop piracy and promote buying games.

It's also worthy to (again) note that no one ever said the game would sell bad. He said that DRM would not effect sales significantly enough if cracked in the first few days to be worth screwing over the occasional customer.

Not to mention that this DRM was cracked a day or so after release. You aren't going to get any extra sales from that, anyways (according to the '2 weeks' theory). If the goal of DRM is to prevent the game from being pirated in the opening few weeks, then this DRM has failed horribly, and no extra sales will be gained. Why are you two talking about this?

Checking around local torrent sites, the DRM has still not been 100% defeated and the pirates are struggling to get it to work properly. So in a sense, it's still working as some of these people, the ones who really want to play it, will be converted into purchasers because they don't want to deal with how difficult it is to pirate.

This is true, the game is not 100% cracked yet. The above statement does not apply. You can however, still play the game up to a certain point, and then you need to use console commands.. most pirates seem to be waiting for the game to be 100% cracked.

Doesn't matter anyways, let's just assume that the game has not been cracked until it is 100% cracked.

Again, DRM has not been shown to lower sales, and in fact many titles that utilize DRM have sold well,

As far as I know that guy never said the DRM would lower sales, just not bolster them enough to justify screwing over a few customers. I don't think this is worth arguing over since we don't have any statistics to look at, if non-cracked (for 2 week launch period) DRM successfully and consistently improves sales then it might be justified.

Just from asking around the community I've heard of multiple reports of people who won't buy the game because of the copy protection, so that may balance out a few extra sales gained from "opening 2 weeks" pirates.*

Again, this is useless without statistics.



* It's funny; most of them still thought the internet activation thing was still in.. and I heard some crazy rumors about ID verification and computer scanning. Even if the DRM isn't that bad, rumors spread fast about this stuff.

 

[Xi]

you seem to forget that a large number of legitimate customers can't activate the game at all

Provide a link or stop spouting this shit. There is most definitely a few people who have struggled with the online activation, but it is not a large number as you say. There is simply no evidence of this. The check happens in the background, and most users don't even realize that it happens at all. Go figure?

How do they stop your firewall from blocking the authentication, or your anti-virus, protection software? How do they fool proof a PC that is loaded with spyware/viruses or that is in such poor health it simply cannot do the online check? You act like it is always the fault of the DRM, but these same issues exist without DRM and they always will because not all PC hardware/software/setups are created equal.

As for Stardock, I think having a smaller dev team with a smaller budget focusing on a niche market is a good idea, but of you check the torrent sites, you will find all of there games available too, and some of them even have forms of DRM as well. NoCD checks, cd-keys, etc. Maybe they aren't as focused on the issue, but they still may be acruing a loss on their products via piracy. The million dollar question is how much? EA, Valve, and many others feel it is a real problem, in spite the fact that you feel they are just a greedy corporate satan.

Just from asking around the community I've heard of multiple reports of people who won't buy the game because of the copy protection, so that may balance out a few extra sales gained from "opening 2 weeks" pirates.*

That means nothing, as I posted before, you can see the same backlash with HL2, and it sold like hot cakes regardless. IF you want to make the case that it would have sold more without steam and it's DRM, then go for it, but as you've said you provide ZERO statistics and just pull random shit out of your ass "what if" "what if"! The fact is that games with DRM are selling rather well, not poorly as you say. Maybe we don't know the exact impact of the DRM itse;f, but it leans far more in favor that it actually works than that it doesn't, sales figures as proof.

Again, this is useless without statistics.

Yep, your entire argument is absolutely useless because it doesn't have anything more than a few forum posts buy some random users saying "they wont buy it" because of the DRM. But, when they try to pirate the game and fail to make it run properly, if they want it enough, they will buy it. Then they will realize that the DRM wasn't even noticeable and was in fact, no big deal.

 

[DefJam101]

What? How is that bullshit?

He just said that the lost sales from DRM rumors, the bugfest, the people who will not install DRM on their machines, the online activation, and the limited amount of activations would counter the sales gained from having an un-cracked game at release. He never said it would sell bad, he said that a couple extra to no extra sales would be gained by including DRM, which screws over the occasional customer. Assuming this is true; it makes no real sense to include DRM.

Like I was saying, this same backlash existed with HL2, and it still sold well despite such claims. Also, Valve has not abandoned Steam do to lack of sales. Maybe we can argue that sales would have been higher without steam, but that's seems a bit delusional to me. Valve explicitly believes that their method for DRM works fairly well and actually converts sales. They have good sales figures to prove this too.

We already talked about this and it has little to do with the situation at hand. Most of the backlash from HL2 at launch was from Steam; a (at the time) shitty little program with lots of bugs and annoying online support. The backlash started a while after release; Steam wasn't exactly publicized until people had bought the game and figured out that this program needed to be fixed up a bit. Nowadays Steam is fairly easy to use and not very intrusive, certainly not like other 'methods' of copy protection... and as such it is a good method to stop piracy and promote buying games.

It's also worthy to (again) note that no one ever said the game would sell bad. He said that DRM would not effect sales significantly enough if cracked in the first few days to be worth screwing over the occasional customer.

Not to mention that this DRM was cracked a day or so after release. You aren't going to get any extra sales from that, anyways (according to the '2 weeks' theory). If the goal of DRM is to prevent the game from being pirated in the opening few weeks, then this DRM has failed horribly, and no extra sales will be gained. Why are you two talking about this?

Checking around local torrent sites, the DRM has still not been 100% defeated and the pirates are struggling to get it to work properly. So in a sense, it's still working as some of these people, the ones who really want to play it, will be converted into purchasers because they don't want to deal with how difficult it is to pirate.

This is true, the game is not 100% cracked yet. The above statement does not apply. You can however, still play the game up to a certain point, and then you need to use console commands.. most pirates seem to be waiting for the game to be 100% cracked.

Doesn't matter anyways, let's just assume that the game has not been cracked until it is 100% cracked.

Again, DRM has not been shown to lower sales, and in fact many titles that utilize DRM have sold well, *snip*

As far as I know that guy never said the DRM would lower sales, just not bolster them enough to justify screwing over a few customers. I don't think this is worth arguing over since we don't have any statistics to look at, if non-cracked (for 2 week launch period) DRM successfully and consistently improves sales then it might be justified.

Just from asking around the community I've heard of multiple reports of people who won't buy the game because of the copy protection, so that may balance out a few extra sales gained from "opening 2 weeks" pirates.*

Again, this is useless without statistics.



* It's funny; most of them still thought the internet activation thing was still in.. and I heard some crazy rumors about ID verification and computer scanning. Even if the DRM isn't that bad, rumors spread fast about this stuff.

 

[Balor]

Damn, looks like I've missed all the fun. And cannot be assed to read past page 15 cause it’s all going in circles anyway. So, here is my (a bit belated, but what the hell) stand on Piracy and DRM:

Piracy != theft, that's obvious. When you steal something, one whom you are stealing from gets 'minus' and you get 'plus'.
When you pirate something, developer/publisher get 'zero' and you get 'plus' - resulting in positive dynamics overall, hah.
So, it’s just ‘lost profit’, pure and simple. And that’s quite different from theft.

Of course, it does not mean that piracy is not harmful, though – when large enough percentage of people will engage in piracy instead of buying the product, the devs will be left with all the expenses and no income – hence, making games will become unviable from commercial point of view.
Anyone with half a brain would understand that and will buy games he likes, and wants more games like that to be done.

Therefore, in a perfect world, where people are reasonable, journalists and developers are honest, and every game comes with a demo that shows all it’s pros and cons – piracy and DRM would not exist.
People would pay for games they like (because it ensures that more similar games would be developed), and, obviously, will not pay for games they don’t like and will not play.
However, our world is not a perfect one.

Some people are stupid and greedy. They will play the game, like it, but will never buy it if a pirated copy is available – because they don’t plan ahead - like that pig in a well-known fable. They might have tons of money, but unwilling to part with it without a serious reason… like, say, NOT having a pirated copy handily available.
Fortunately, those asshats are also impatient. That’s where DRM comes into play. It is never made to be ‘100% crack-proof’ in mind – that’s impossible. It does, however, delay cracks, keygens, and ‘casual piracy’ – long enough that majority of those who CAN pay will say ‘oh, bugger that, I cannot wait anymore’ and shell it out. Of course, it feels bad to be a ‘collateral damage’ in a battle against morons, but it’s inevitable, because there are much more morons then reasonable people out there.

Some people are simply too poor – for them either ‘buy a game’ or ‘tighten one’s belt’. Usually it’s teenagers. While one can say: fuck them, games are luxury, cannot pay – tough luck… question is, while such person from a legal standpoint is a pirate, but he is not even a ‘lost profit’ – cause he would never generate any anyway! However, like it was mentioned quite a few times already, such people usually more then make up for it with their ‘viral marketing’ – promoting this game for those who might actually buy it. Also, DRM will not work in this case – they will simply wait for a proper crack, or not buy it at all (again, no profit gained). So, everyone is happy – devs get cash, paupers get games, customers get DRM, mwahahaha. Well, latter can (and should, and it even happens sometimes) be fixed by an official ‘no-cd patch’ or equivalent.

An other aspect of our ‘imperfect world’ are journalists being cheap whores and devs being lying pricks. They promise you ‘teh bestest game evar!’, they will not issue a demo, cause ‘no demo will do justice for a game of such pure awesomeness’… you buy it… and get severely disappointed. At best you can return it… but that’s not an option available everywhere.

So, d/ling it a pirated copy, seeing if it is as good is it’s advertised and invariably buying it later if you like it simply makes the world closer to a ‘perfect place’, amirite? Well, of course not – from a POV of a developer who’s only in for the money and willing to lie about his game to boost initial sales (before ‘it’s utter shit!’ sets in, despite all the bought hype).

So, it’s all shades of gray allright.
Piracy =! Theft, yet it’s == lost profit and therefore bad - when lost profit accumulates to the point of not covering the expenses. Some people, who will NEVER buy it, no matter what, (because they physically cannot, for different reasons) are irrelevant – and it should not bother anyone whether are they playing or not… unless developer actually cares about his product, and wants people to experience it, not just sell as many copies as possible to buy a Bentley to compliment his Ferrari. In that case, he might actually want them to pirate it! Think Pathologic developer Ice Pick lodge. They encouraged it, I’m telling 100% truth.

Btw, you know a small oasis of perfection in our imperfect world? Where making games is the whole point, but not means to an end? It’s located deep under the earth, populated by dwarves and ruled by Tarn Adams.
In fact, I’ve just sent an other donation to him. You should too.

P.S.
Oh, and ultimate solution for all the flaws of ‘imperfect world’ would be ‘subscription service’ like in MMOs (but charged not monthly, but based on how much time you actually spend playing).
Say, 5 hours – 5$, 200 hours – 200$. Pretty fair – you would not spend 200 hours playing a game you hate, and I would not mind spending a buck to play a game for an hour, see that it sucks and log out, never to play again. Fair and pirate-proof. Alternative is setting up your own server, but usually it’s much more trouble that it’s worth… again, see ‘cheapskates that will never generated profit no matter what’.

P.P.S. It's way past midnight here, so excuse my English, spelling and insanity in general.

 

[spiwak]

Some people are simply too poor – for them either ‘buy a game’ or ‘tighten one’s belt’. Usually it’s teenagers. While one can say: fuck them, games are luxury, cannot pay – tough luck… question is, while such person from a legal standpoint is a pirate, but he is not even a ‘lost profit’ – cause he would never generate any anyway! However, like it was mentioned quite a few times already, such people usually more then make up for it with their ‘viral marketing’ – promoting this game for those who might actually buy it. Also, DRM will not work in this case – they will simply wait for a proper crack, or not buy it at all (again, no profit gained). So, everyone is happy – devs get cash, paupers get games, customers get DRM, mwahahaha. Well, latter can (and should, and it even happens sometimes) be fixed by an official ‘no-cd patch’ or equivalent.

This exactly my stance/situation. As much as I would love to pay developers for every game I play, I simply can't since starting college and paying my way through. I think "tough luck" is a shit way out at that point because A) any real developer/artist in his right mind wants the product to be seen and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and B) you're denying said art or whatever to people based on class or economic situation. It just so happens that the video game is an "art" medium that is way more expensive for the consumer than any other. So I literally can't afford to buy anything but the games that I really really love (which I do), and only pirate the rest. Nevermind the fact that I don't have the hardware to play new PC games anyway.

This has absolutely no effect on the developer, really, because I wouldn't buy the game anyway since I can't afford it, except that instead of buying very few games I just wouldn't be buying any games at all due to the risk I might not end up liking it.

 

[Unradscorpion]

I think this whole thread qualifies as a

And by posting in it I just hopped in.

It's simple as this:
if(piratedgame=enjoyable)
{pirating=stealing}
else
{pirating=okay}

 

[Pegultagol]

The recent successes of DRM are conditional triumphs for the market-based capitalism. Soon all games published by major industry players will have whatever is deemed successful.

 

[MetalCraze]

it seems crackers won this one. according to rlslog and nforce - saves work, galaxy map works with a modified reloaded crack even for corrupted savegames.
hopefully this will make EA not to install and spread nazi DRM anymore.

now before you will start another round of unrelated rant about piracy - no I'm not supporting it. I just don't think that cracks are bad. or good. it only matters how you use them. I for one will wait for starforce crack for upcoming rus version because I love my dvd-player.

 

[mahdi]

I don't understand how this conversation continues when Brother None won the thread like 10 pages ago.

 

[Lingwe]

I don't understand how this conversation continues when Brother None won the thread like 10 pages ago.

Because it only needs a few more posts until it reaches page 25.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

I don't understand how this conversation continues when Brother None won the thread like 10 pages ago.

Quote please.

 

[Balor]

I think this whole thread qualifies as a

And by posting in it I just hopped in.

It's simple as this:
if(piratedgame=enjoyable)
{pirating=stealing}
else
{pirating=okay}

I suspect you are missing the point. Why pirate a game you hate? Just to see how much it sucks? Are you a masochist?
And BUYING games you don't like is not only stupid - it's counterproductive, because, right, it would mean that more game like that would be made! Again, if you are a masochist - go ahead.

Repeating myself- stealing and failing to generate a profit - are quite different things.
I will never play Barbie Adventures. I will not buy it ever. I will never pirate it either - even if someone will pay me to do it!
Should devs of this game accuse me of not putting money into their pocket? If I pirated and somehow thoughtly enjoyed it, nothing would change - except it would be stupid of me not to pay for it - because I would, naturally, want a sequiel 'Erotic adventures of Barbie and Ken', hah.

 

[Balor]

Talking in law language, actus reus happens only on paper - you are not physically depriving devs of a copy of a game, or stealing their money right after you d/led the game and hit the .exe. However, 'on paper' is still enough to get you fined or in jail.
Mens rea only presents in cases of 'I pirated, I liked it, but will not buy it, screw those devs'.

In this case, it can technically be qualified as stealing, I guess.

 

[mahdi]

I don't understand how this conversation continues when Brother None won the thread like 10 pages ago.

Quote please.

This is fairly interesting in how it goes against EVERY FORM OF ECONOMIC THEORY EVER INVENTED EVER.

Lumpy, I'm not sure if you ever read any book or economics or know anything about it, but I'm going to talk down to you now in a condescending matter because I assume you haven't. I apologize for that in advance.

You see, dear Lumpy, there already exist products that have unlimited consumption: streetlights. Pavements. Highways (non-toll-based). Bridges. Canals.

There is no way to limit the consumption of these products and there's no need to because the existence of these products implies unlimited consumption. But there's a catch: they do not produce themselves.

"Oh noez", thought late-19th century Londoners. "Whatever shall we do - beyond the obvious stereotypical tea-drinking?" Thankfully, social networks and contracts had already advanced that an institution existed that could support such broad needs (in the Tilly sense, not the evil Foucault sense): states.

Funny thing: the very reason states provide such "public services" is not primarily based on the needs of people: after all states do not provide food and shelter (except to the neediest) for free, but they are more basic needs. The reason is less de Swaan-ish, namely that there is no one else who will, simply because these goods can not be sold, because there is no way to limit consumption.

Sounds familiar? The product is free to everyone, I can not arbitrarily bar anyone from consuming this product called streetlight, it is free to everyone and for that reason can not be profitable to anyone, instead being produced unprofitable by everyone via the state.

Can you see the problem yet?

The basic rule of any freely consumable good in our society is that it must either be freely produced (air) or produced by an institution willing to produce without profit (state and non-profit NGOs like charity).

Tic-toc tic-toc tic-toc. Bumped into it yet? You assume that despite your insistence that this product has to be spread freely on some arbitrary notion on the fact that it is digital rather than material...that despite that, there will still be someone willing to produce this good.

Here's the big ol' surprise for you: no there won't.

 

[Xi]

I think there is a fine line between downloading a game, playing it for 5 minutes and saying "this game sucks", and downloading a game playing it for many hours, or until completion, and then never paying for it. Certainly the former doesn't seem so bad and may be indicative of demoing a product. You use it very little and decide it isn't for you. On the other hand, it's obviously wrong and constitutes a loss in profit as the person liked the game well enough to play it for a long time.

So, how do we differentiate between these types of pirates? Therein lies the problem. How do they trust people with such ease of power, and lack of consequence for never paying, to regulate themselves? I don't think you can, and for this reason I find the concept of DRM, the search for regulating distribution of a game, good even though it has not matured into a 100% functional system. It's only a matter of time before it does, and I can sympothize with people who believe it may go too far, as some of it already has, but I also respect the right of the owner to add such things to their product seemingly to promote sales.

While neither side of the debate can provide much evidence of DRM functionality, the Pro-DRM side offers the zero-day piracy concept to show that there is some evidence promoting the functionality of DRM. I think we can all go along with the Anti-DRM sentiments that dislike the very intrusive 3 time activation, multiple online checks, birth certificate style of regulation, but it is through our distaste of this adaptation of DRM that we might voice our concerns to the companies that use these things. After all, they do value us as customers, whether you or I believe, and want to give us the best experience possible because this is the best way to create return business. So, it's not as if we can pretend that they completely hate us and just want to take our money and watch us die, that's hardly the case.

So yeah, I guess it boils down to how some people believe in self-regulation, for instance they don't need police to regulate and enforce the laws for them, while on the other hand some of us do not believe that people will ever function without some type of police force to regulate the law, aka DRM.

And while we all disagree, I'm sure we can agree that we want gaming to thrive and become something more than it has been in the past. The question is how we get there. Has piracy lowered sales, resulting in lower funding for innovative/creative ideas do to risk, or has it promoted innovation and creative design by shunning products that are sub-par sending a clear message about what gamers want in quality standards? Difficult to say, but UI guess I've leaned toward anti-piracy and pro-drm as a means to help circumvent this practice. If it turns out I was wrong, no big deal because the entire point was to work through the current problem so at the end of the day we have a more functional system for game development in place.

Anyway, thought I'd toss in my last cents in this thread. Cheers

 

[Unradscorpion]

I think this whole thread qualifies as a

And by posting in it I just hopped in.

It's simple as this:
if(piratedgame=enjoyable)
{pirating=stealing}
else
{pirating=okay}

I suspect you are missing the point. Why pirate a game you hate? Just to see how much it sucks? Are you a masochist?
And BUYING games you don't like is not only stupid - it's counterproductive, because, right, it would mean that more game like that would be made! Again, if you are a masochist - go ahead.

Repeating myself- stealing and failing to generate a profit - are quite different things.
I will never play Barbie Adventures. I will not buy it ever. I will never pirate it either - even if someone will pay me to do it!
Should devs of this game accuse me of not putting money into their pocket? If I pirated and somehow thoughtly enjoyed it, nothing would change - except it would be stupid of me not to pay for it - because I would, naturally, want a sequiel 'Erotic adventures of Barbie and Ken', hah.

How do you know if you liked the game if you haven't played it yet?
So if you liked it(the pirated version) enough to pay for it, then you are lowering their profit by not buying it. But if you are playing it, and not enjoying it enough to pay, then they aren't losing anything, because you wouldn't buy it anyways.

 

[Xi]

How do you know if you liked the game if you haven't played it yet?
So if you liked it(the pirated version) enough to pay for it, then you are lowering their profit by not buying it. But if you are playing it, and not enjoying it enough to pay, then they aren't losing anything, because you wouldn't buy it anyways.

No, if you are playing the game, and pretending you don't like it, then you need to purchase the game as you're playing the game. This is what constitutes piracy, regardless of how you try to irrationalize it in your mind. Once you play through the initial areas, and get a feel for the game, you would then be required to make a decision. After you've played the game entirely, or most of the way, you owe them your money because you liked it enough to play for so long.

Edit: Wanted to add how this is pretty much an example of the breakdown of self-regulation. Some people would be too stupid to know if they even liked the game or not. It's funny to argue with these people as they will say shit like "I played the entire game, but didn't like it." This kind of sentiment, while I can understand where they are coming from, displays the entire breakdown of such a system and re-illustrates why a police force will always be needed, as your common peon is just to stupid to know the difference between demoing something and actually playing/liking a game. Pretty ridiculous and backassward but funny.

Re-Edit: Most people would only consider something worth purchasing if it was the second coming of Jesus. So where do you draw the line between something that is decent, aka ME, and something that is fantastic? What triggers the "OK" to make the purchase in these people's minds? Obviously, there is no real standard or functional method in the self-regulating piracy system. People would come up with all kinds of anti-purchase ideas simply because they would rather not pay for anything. How often is there a gaming studio that impresses so much? If this were the case, CD Project should have been the only company to see any RPG sales as of late.

 

[pkt-zer0]

I think we can all go along with the Anti-DRM sentiments that dislike the very intrusive 3 time activation

Let me ask something: would you have any complaints against the limited number of activations even if it was possible to identify the consumer without error, and tie the purchase to the person?