D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Shadow of the BEAST said:
Hell yeah, no piracy on them consoles.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Arma dev: pirates/legal buyer is 100÷x(y+z)/3
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
Hell yeah, no piracy on them consoles.
Utako said:
I remember...a thingy...that my mother used to do to me before bed. She made pretty-shouts come out of her mouth and it made me sleepy and peaceful. Sometimes I try to pretty-shout to my children but it never seems the same. I wish my memories of it weren't wrapped in the stupor of youthful muffle-headedness because I'd love my kids to hear the true version.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
It isnt an question if it happens or not. Its how common it is, and if it hurt your business. Clearly it does on the pc.
You know. If piracy wasnt so prevalent pc gaming would actually be the biggest platform by a large margin here in europe. And console ports would be an afterthough.
You know. If piracy wasnt so prevalent pc gaming would actually be the biggest platform by a large margin here in europe. And console ports would be an afterthough.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Tylahedras said:
That would be the heavy rain developer, the guy was a huge douche:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=444489
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
subversus said:
You made your money on the first sale doctrine, and I guess they got paid a salary or on a contract
So no boo-hoo, devs gotta yo' schpeel please
Billychu said:
basically if they can make you pay money for watching the game I don't see any reason why they shouldn't do this. But I don't see any reason why somebody would pay for this. That means that their proposition holds not enough value and thus should be free because nobody would buy this.
See, nobody should restrict anybody from making money unless it's legal. It's not your business how other people want to make living. Nobody should condemn a person for desire to live better/use money for other means like hiring more people to develop a better product. All you can do in this case is a)to accept their terms by paying money and thus accepting their proposition as it holds enough value for you b)not accept their terms by not paying and not buying c)not accept their terms by not paying and still get the product/service by using loopholes. But trying to condemn other people on a basis that they want to make money is very, very low. Everyone wants to live better including you and me.
It's interesting that you assume causation between making more money and living better.subversus said:
The premise put forth by this post is laughable. Publishers making millions of dollars do not need my help in making the industry worse for consumers. "I'm okay with this because I'll pay for it" is just nuts; that I might pay for it does not mean that I will enjoy doing so. I will continue to condemn the trend of nickle-and-diming amongst publishers because many of the companies that do so are already rolling in cash and the industry has proven quite profitable without such behaviour. The only people getting screwed are the consumers, who are now getting the same thing for more (or, in some cases, less for more).
You also put a lot of faith in legislation, which is particularly backwards seeing as corporations have a pretty well-established history of lobbying.
Treemonkeys
Member
Their game is a throwback to 90's hardcore military sims that are gone because the weren't profitable. Pirates are not their problem.
Joseph Merrick
Member
it's not a point, it's fact. hehe. degrade refers to the fade/degrade drm system they have been using since operation flashpoint. 24/7 gaming makes spanel look a little bad with their headline and quote pulling, but it's an ok interview http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/17/i...ractives-ceo-on-fighting-piracy-creative-drm/1-D_FTW said:
the interview and the recent interest in the drm system was triggered by a forum thread making the rounds a while back in which a pirate asked about a degrade effect in the game and got banned. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=126991
inky said:
I see nothing wrong with what happened to banks and US. People overlooked the stuff because of their greed and inertness but that's what people do and that's what they are.
I don't want to make this OT thread so I think I'll post here one last time and won't bother with piracy threads anymore.
Conversion on F2P games is about 3-8% according to Valve. Some exceptional cases like Team Fortress get 20% conversion. If you take a look at numbers provided in OP it's exactly these 3% of people who payed for the game. We also get Skyrim, Portal 2 and The Witcher 2 who sold well on PC. These are those exceptional cases with higher conversion to paying customers. All PC gaming is F2P now even if it's legally not. It's up to customers to decide if they want to pay and only about 10% of people actually do it. These numbers are also confirmed by my acquantaince who was working at retail for 20 years and did a bunch of studies. Also I can confirm it from my personal experience of selling books.
In my opinion these 10-20% of people are people who are developed a bit more further than Pavlov's dogs. All other live mechanically by their instincts not seeing further than their own nose and they steal everything that is not bolted. They only abide those laws for which they can be punished legally and they follow only those rules which are set unanimously by society and therefore breaking them = shunned by others. It's a sad reality which is backed by psychological studies and partly my personal experience. When I'm making a piracy thread I don't make a thread about people downloading stuff. I'm making a thread about people who will take a TV from a shop if there are public riots in the city or an earthquake shattered all windows.
Diprosalic
Banned
is it really that hard to understand that many pirates just pirate the game because they can? maybe they play it for 2 minutes and pirate another game. i know dozens of people that pirated skyrim and not one played it more than 15 minutes.
they cant count all those as lost sales since they wouldnt even bother playing the game if it wasnt "free".
they cant count all those as lost sales since they wouldnt even bother playing the game if it wasnt "free".
Darknessbear said:
Yep, that's what's happening in every thread about piracy. Nobody will defend piracy but there's an incredible amount of downplaying the effects of piracy that's rather surprising for a forum where even the slightest admission of piracy will get someone banned. Darknessbear shouldn't have equated the people doing that with pirates, that was dumb and was probably what got him banned, but that leaves his question why so many people don't want to believe that piracy *really* hurts publishers and developers and will always downplay piracy just like Darknessbear described.
staticneuron
Member
Glix said:
There is nothing misleading about what they said. Chances are they worded it that way because they really cannot pin down an exact number of actual pirated copies out there without running into logical missteps.
ymmv said:
This is all because piracy is one of those things that arent directly noticeable (probably it does not help that it isn't physical) and there are many reasons and grey areas. It isn't as easy as just plain theft and even plain theft has different degrees of seriousness. Nobody is denying the fact that it happens and that it is bad. The discussion points are always in the grey areas. Hence the reason these things always get people on the fence.... either on the anti-piracy or the piracy side.
It is the same with how to run a country or how to fight crime. There are different ways of doing it and different views on what is right and what is wrong. Are we going with strong DRM or keep it open and hope for the best. If we all had straight facts there wouldn't be a discussion.
People don't "believe" that piracy really hurts publishers and developers because they don't know if it really does. It is very hard to form an actual opinion on something where the facts are either not there or there are a lot of grey areas on how to interpret those facts.
smh... What exactly are you trying to say? Piracy is not an issue? Is that what you are implying?Glix said:
Yes, that is the point. How can that not be the point?Alextended said:
Probably not everyone that pirates would've bought it, but if only a part of pirates would've bought it then the devs would've made more money. Why is that not obvious?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Selective quoting sucks, if you're gonna reply do it properly. I like how you pretend you're stating facts despite your whole argument latching on a very big, fat "probably". Again, those were "failed" attempts so clearly the pirates in this case wanted features they couldn't have and so could have bought the game for them and there wouldn't be a discrepancy between those "failed" attempts and the legit customers. Then again, maybe there isn't that much, considering their deliberate wording.shuyin_ said:
Does it really matter how big it is? Does a number matter? Devs lose money, that's what matters.neorej said:
I didn't pretend anything, hence that 'probably'. I can't state facts as i don't have numbers. I'm just relying on logical deductions.Alextended said:
So your reasoning is: 'because pirates couldn't play online with their pirated copy and since they could've bought the game if they really wanted online-play, the conclusion is that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway'.Alextended said:
Well, by that line of thought you might just as well say: people that pirate, don't care about games that much so they wouldn't have bought them anyway. Which is false since they care about them enough to pirate and play them.
I'd argue that since they did want to play online, they care and want to play the games (for free) so they would've bought the game if they couldn't pirate. It's just that in some cases they are content with free SP, instead of paying money for online.
Indeed, although it would be quite easy to tell apart which of the 100 attempts came from same computer and thus get more realistic number. (unless it is already.)
Cop out. I think it's safe to share your opinion as long as you're not throwing around any baseless accusations.
Well, I guess we'll find out!
I think it's just as unfair to assume a developer is blowing a problem out of proportion for the sake of "sending a false message" as it is to assume anyone in this threads is a pirate, or potential pirate.
The only assumption I will ever make is that anyone who justifies a pirated copy of anything as something other than "wrong" is just trying to make themselves feel okay with it. There is no reason to pirate anything. If you feel a game has DRM that you are not going to support, that is not a reason to pirate it. It is a reason to not buy it. If it doesn't have a demo, that is not a reason to pirate it to "try it out". It is a reason to not buy it, or wait for a price drop.
The above statement in no way assumes anything about any individual poster, and if you feel somehow it does, then perhaps you are a part of the group I have lumped into this assumption (which, mind you, is baseless and is only a product of my own opinions and thoughts, no data).
I wonder if 10$ for a game + A LOT OF SUPPORT + 1 click purchase will reduce pirates to minority instead of current majority. Same goes for movies but there are a lot of good services developing on that front.
I will still say these kinds of accusations are entirely pointless. Arma can blame piracy all they want, but in the end, it's not going to help them put out a successful product.
Take a look at Valve's philosophy. Have they ever complained about piracy? No, because they understand the market, and understand that the pirate userbase can be seen as just another market to exploit.
Work on converting pirates to paying customers instead of demonizing them, and your business will be more successful.
Take a look at Valve's philosophy. Have they ever complained about piracy? No, because they understand the market, and understand that the pirate userbase can be seen as just another market to exploit.
Work on converting pirates to paying customers instead of demonizing them, and your business will be more successful.
Woo-Fu
Banned
I miss the good old days, back when people wrote articles that they didn't want to get any attention. /smh.
Clearly this model does not and will not work for every developer. You cannot simply say "oh looks at this developers stance and approach, it works fine" and expect to apply that to all. It is a competitive market, and unfortunately not all developers have the capital to invest into such systems.
Pirates absolutely deserve to be "demonized". If you do something wrong, and continue to do it, then you deserve what ever accusation is thrown your way. No one here is entitled to anything for free, and we should all remember that, always.
Also, to be clear, there is no point (or sense) in referencing the quality of a studios product. Let their lack of sales and reception sink their ship, as the market will always do when a studio isn't putting out quality products (unless you're Bethesda, in which case you can tell everyone to fuck themselves and put out shite).
I think you just haven't met many people like me (or not known it).
For starters, I don't pirate, because I really have no reason to. I have a massive and growing backlog of unplayed games. I support the industry plenty.
I've often argued that piracy is not a negative, that it's a chaotic force. Copyright was made to protect artists from publishers, not publishers from customers. But once they got their hooks into the law, they twisted the law to their own ends. I don't believe that personal not-for-profit copying is a serious threat to publishers. I do believe that right now (thanks to the internet), personal piracy is more common than it's ever been, but I think that it can and should be minimized (not stamped out) in more strategic and thoughtful ways, while the rest should be turned to become a positive. I believe that the current war against piracy is destructive to all involved. And I believe that a number of groups enjoy blaming their own failures on piracy.
I don't mind if you disagree, but please don't assume I'm a pirate.
I didn't assume you, or anyone else was a pirate
There is no positive benefit to someone consuming a good they did not pay for. The group of people that pirate aren't large enough to impact sales positively through word of mouth, and they aren't going to go out and buy a copy of your game to support it.
Also, we've been conditioned to think piracy is acceptable in a digital medium because there is no physical product, when that is entirely inconsequential. Sure, the pricing model needs to change, but this is a bigger issue with retail than it is with publishers. Publishers need to maintain a certain level of "parity" with brick and mortar stores to ensure continued support. Does the relationship suck? Yes. Is piracy the answer? No.
DRM sucks, I agree. However, there is no reason (or excuse) for any of us to pirate a game to "stick it to the man". Don't buy the product. The impact that has on the industry as a whole is far more significant than pirating a copy could ever be. If things continue the way they are, and the market doesn't change soon, we'll soon be ushered into an era where those middle of the road titles simply don't exist anymore. We'll be left with "AAA" titles (which will be primarily shooters, unfortunately) and Indie titles.
I just don't think there is any grounds, at all, to support piracy in any manner. It is and always will be negative. It doesn't teach anyone a lesson, and only impact legitimate consumers in a negative way. Chicken before the egg, etc. Just remember that crazy DRM came around *after* people started pirating games, not the other way around.
Monty Mole
Member
I can't even grow my own cabbages now?
Did you "grow" that piece of software? You knew what the hell I meant.
I think what most people say as that it's utopian to think that you can stop piracy from happening just like it is in a retail setting to assume you can design a full proof way to prevent shoplifting.
The way you keep making a profit in spite of theft is to do a reasonable amount to prevent piracy but not inconvenience your customers and make the actual product as attractive as possible for potential buyers.
People aren't finding piracy acceptable so much as they are being realistic. It's going to happen and making your product as unattractive as you possibly can via ridiculous DRM won't make that stop. The only thing it'll stop is people from buying your product like when I constantly have to pause and check into the DRM scheme used for any given Ubi product because maybe I'm going to take it in the ass or just not bother at all because fuck them. That why I didn't buy a product I was quite excited about: From Dust. I didn't pirate it, I just didn't bother.
The question isn't whether anyone's entitled to something for free, it's whether and to what degree publishers are entitled to legal armtwisting drumming up business when making the product appealing can't vs. the degree users are entitled to kill the goose laying the golden egg. Either way, we're making a societal decision to make someone's life worse and someone's life better.