Support NeoGAF

[lsslave]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it's it pretty much piss easy to run pirate games on 360? And then it's just disc images. I imagine PC game piracy is a headache with serial codes, cracks, patch issues etc.

I don't really believe piracy is the main issue with disappointing sales, and I don't know what the problem is, but it doesn't really matter either way. The games aren't selling as well as publishers would like, so a lot of them are bailing out, that's their decision. The publishers are not wrong. If they say it's not worth their time and money to support PC, they shouldn't.

lsslave I think that post breaks some GAF rules, might want to remove it.

It might get me in hot water... a risk I think is worth taking. Its a strong argument, and one I've made before.

As of this exact moment I have absolutely not ONE thing "pirated"

I have said before, many times, that I download music in order to see if I like it and delete it if I hate it while I turn around and buy it if its good.

I've never been in trouble before, I was just making a stance. I don't encourage pirating, I encourage being a savvy consumer. I might get in trouble this time depending on what mod reads it, but nowhere in my post do i encourage pirating or where to find it, I only point out that it has put my money (and a ridiculous amount of it) into the pockets of various people based on content that they claim I should be sued for using.

Metallica = pro suing downloaders = full on boycot by me.

The Hurt Locket = pro suing of downloaders = I will NEVER watch this movie, not even on TV or at a friends house (which is actually illegal, the more you know!)

Edit: Just for a strong clarification on this -> to understand how long they have attacked people for it, recording a cassette tape of songs off the radio is 100 percent illegal (in the music industries eyes at least :lol ). Taping a TV show is illegal (yet VCRs have record and we have PVRs ) in the eyes of the broadcast medium.

 

[StuBurns]

Those are really the only two developers still producing big budget PC exclusive titles. Crysis did really well. So did The Sims 3. Dragon Age, while not entirely exclusive, was developed for the PC first and foremost, and it did well for itself. Later this year Civ 5 will sell boatloads.

There is a market out there for big budget PC games, and because the market is usually so empty it is much easier for these games to stand out and really develop a consistent fanbase that turns other people on to the game.

I don't think anyone is calling for Epic to abandon the console market. Gamers are spread across more unique platforms than ever. But Epic's PC efforts are lackluster, hand-offs to other developers as a port, or completely absent.

You say Crysis did really well, but the quote above from the CEO said different. I have to take his word over yours. But your other examples, all good. It seems that it's the style of game more than anything. Tastes are certainly different on different platforms. I think if Epic have no real interest in making something more traditionally PC centric, working primarily on consoles is fine. However I don't think they really have that much of a choice in where their games go in terms of something like Gears. Microsoft are the publisher, I would imagine it's their call. And I know a lot of developers consider that 'second party' with owning IP rights a holy grail of position within the industry, it's hard to be down on them when if nothing else they are just doing the best to protect their company possible.

I remember something Carmack said about moving to the consoles with Rage, about how id is a massive company now, and they have a direct responsibility to their employees to take care of them. And they can't afford to take major gambles anymore. Which is sad, but honorable.

It might get me in hot water... a risk I think is worth taking. Its a strong argument, and one I've made before.

Fair enough, just giving you a heads up.

 

[CozMick]

I don't know a single person bar myself that bought a copy of Gears 2...........

Every single one of my friends list that played it were on "flashed" 360's with a torrented version of the game. :lol

But, money is money and if they make more on console then so be it.

 

[Plywood]

Shut the fuck up Epic and put some fucking dedi's on your fucking game, because you can't do netcode for shit.

Use all that wonderful console money you got.

 

[Sciz]

If PC games kept selling alright, developers wouldn't had to make simplified, watered down consolegames in the first place.
If I was a publisher, I would stop making PC versions as well because releasing a PC version means you sustain a culture and an audience of pirates which would, maybe, buy the console version of the game instead. I think that releasing PC versions indirectly hurts game sales in general.

I've never seen evidence that suggests that, as a platform, the PC suddenly started moving less software than it used to. Time and technology marched on, game development got more expensive, and unsurprisingly there's more profit in having your game on more platforms.

 

[Demigod Mac]

They're still clinging to an antiquated model of PC gaming that is no longer relevant.

Look at Valve.
Look at Blizzard.

They "get it".

They are having incredible success in the PC market whereas others just throw their hands in the air and blame piracy for all their woes. In fact, I'd say those two are so successful that they're drowning out all the other developers who haven't gotten the memo.

 

[lsslave]

You say Crysis did really well, but the quote above from the CEO said different. I have to take his word over yours. But your other examples, all good. It seems that it's the style of game more than anything. Tastes are certainly different on different platforms. I think if Epic have no real interest in making something more traditionally PC centric, working primarily on consoles is fine. However I don't think they really have that much of a choice in where their games go in terms of something like Gears. Microsoft are the publisher, I would imagine it's their call. And I know a lot of developers consider that 'second party' with owning IP rights a holy grail of position within the industry, it's hard to be down on them when if nothing else they are just doing the best to protect their company possible.

I remember something Carmack said about moving to the consoles with Rage, about how id is a massive company now, and they have a direct responsibility to their employees to take care of them. And they can't afford to take major gambles anymore. Which is sad, but honorable.


Fair enough, just giving you a heads up.

I appreciate it, and I did notice that my post might seem a little "PIRATE SHIT PEOPLE!" but its not, its all about being a savvy consumer (as I put with my edit, just to reiterate, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive. I actually like that line, totally in the face of "you wouldn't download a car", some good wit for 2 AM :lol )

Its all in how you look at it, but if you start treating businesses like people you should care about then you will buy every game full price and think that waiting for certain games to price drop is wrong. I don't think that at all, I think people should care about the businesses they have stock in, thats about it.

Nintendo is sure doing well without me rushing out to buy New Super Mario Bros. Wii because I don't want it full price, whereas when I first joined in GAF I was the kind of person who had to buy every game full price because "it helped the company"

I've grown since I just spent 2 years (and counting :/) barely making ends meet with this fucking economy and now everything is about being smart

 

[dimb]

You say Crysis did really well, but the quote above from the CEO said different. I have to take his word over yours.

His end stance on it is that it did well, even if he words it to make it look like it underperformed, the company simply set their expectations too high.

The multiplayer was considered throw away by most players, so for a single player shooter to sell through in this day and age is really something. Furthermore, their expectations were very short term. Crysis ended up having fair legs, which makes sense given the "future proof" graphics.

 

[Zzoram]

Name one dev that was killed because of piracy.

Go on do it!

Iron Lore Entertainment.

Titan Quest is one of those games that got a bad reputation due to a crashing problem only in the pre-release leaked pirated game and not the legit game when it was released, plus the game was pirated way more than purchased, and I think that they also got way more support calls from pirates than customers. They said that if even 10% of the people who pirated Titan Quest paid for it, they would've been able to fund their next game.

 

[CozMick]

Which game was it that sold 30,000 copies but had 70-80,000 players online at launch?

That shit was crazy.

 

[Kosma]

Iron Lore Entertainment.

Titan Quest is one of those games that got a bad reputation due to a crashing problem only in the pre-release leaked pirated game and not the legit game when it was released, plus the game was pirated way more than purchased, and I think that they also got way more support calls from pirates than customers. They said that if even 10% of the people who pirated Titan Quest paid for it, they would've been able to fund their next game.

Yep.

Guys behind Titan Quest are making another PC game though...and its being funded by fans partially.

 

[subversus]

Which game was it that sold 30,000 copies but had 70-80,000 players online at launch?

That shit was crazy.

Demigod?

 

[Kintaro]

PC Gamers have long since moved on without Epic. When the console realm eats itself alive, they will come crawling back to the platform begging for forgiveness. They may or may not find any. /Master Race.

j/k, but seriously, PC Gamers have forgotten about Epic.

 

[Chris_C]

For once us console peasants get to drink the tears of the bitter PC master race.

So salty, so sweet.

 

[CozMick]

Demigod?

You sir have a great memory

The dev must have been fucking fuming.

 

[StuBurns]

His end stance on it is that it did well, even if he words it to make it look like it underperformed, the company simply set their expectations too high.

The multiplayer was considered throw away by most players, so for a single player shooter to sell through in this day and age is really something. Furthermore, their expectations were very short term. Crysis ended up having fair legs, which makes sense given the "future proof" graphics.

But the problem is, who are we to set the expectations? It sold well, that's cool, but it didn't sell well enough for the money they put in. They were not happy with the sales.

Imagine if GTA4 only sold two million copies, yeah two million is a good number, but it cost $100M to make. If you're making Peggle, sure, two million is incredible.

I can imagine the frustration for the dedicated hardcore PC gamer when it comes to things like this, or even things like Rage being designed for the consoles primarily. And maybe seeing things like "We're ignoring PC gamers because piracy" is very annoying, but whatever the reason, to make a game like Gears, which is apparently what they want to be making, it needs to be on consoles. And if Microsoft are willing to pony up for it, they'd be stupid to turn down that 'second party' relationship.

I don't have a 360, I'd love Gears 3 on PC or PS3, but I fully respect Epic's tough position, it'd be near impossible for anyone to turn down that blanket of safety and cash.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Just a few musings, bit spacey after work.

I think that the key quote to look at is the Carmack one. While it may be the case that the market is smaller, I think that it's more likely caused by a combination of the migration towards the convenience of console games and the PC market failing to grow at the pace at which the console market has.

The thing is, pretty much every engine is going to be developed at least to prototype stages on a PC, and all of the assets will be produced there too; so the issue isn't really development costs but QA and publishing costs. Having to test, manufacture, market and distribute a SKU that will sell poorly compared with the others would be a hard decision for any business.

Hopefully more publishers will start looking to DD to mitigate the publishing costs problem, although testing is still a big issue made monolithic by the infinite hardware-combos situation.

 

[IrishNinja]

They're still clinging to an antiquated model of PC gaming that is no longer relevant.

Look at Valve.
Look at Blizzard.

They "get it".

They are having incredible success in the PC market whereas others just throw their hands in the air and blame piracy for all their woes. In fact, I'd say those two are so successful that they're drowning out all the other developers who haven't gotten the memo.

this is a common statement, but is it fair to act as though every PC dev and their offerings apply? pointing at the houses of WoW and steam doesnt seem universally applicable to me.

For once us console peasants get to drink the tears of the bitter PC master race.

So salty, so sweet.

Spoiler

shhh, brother. allow the endangered species their moments.

 

[spwolf]

oh, so developers *want* to make simplified, watered down games on consoles, and then when the pc downport sells even worse, they will once again blame piracy, andmaybe the next time, there's no PC version, or it gets Ubi'd... and then it sells even less... etc...

if thats all you got from my post, then yes.

 

[StuBurns]

this is a common statement, but is it fair to act as though every PC dev and their offerings apply? pointing at the houses of WoW and steam doesnt seem universally applicable to me.

Valve and Blizzard are pretty much platform holders at this point. Steam and Battlenet are as important as PSN and XBL.

I don't think it's a position that is possible for every publisher. I suspect there is a limited amount of those services PC games care to deal with at any given time. One for every developer would be very strange.

They also both had upcoming games that everyone wanted to launch their platforms. I don't imagine there is anything with the draw of a HL2 upcoming from any publisher to launch something like Steam.

 

[ghst]

For once us console peasants get to drink the tears of the bitter PC master race.

So salty, so sweet.

sorry about that, i like my cermonial blow jobs to come with a glass of champagne, just so happens my blimp was flying over your project when i needed to take a leak.

 

[Servizio]

Because every pirated copy means one less sale.

 

[Mael]

What? The end of the original SNK had nothing to do with piracy. They were bought by a terrible company that screwed them eight ways from Sunday, leaving them with a debt (which SNK didn't actually accumulate) that forced them to close.

I'd say that's far more worthy of the name piracy than the usual lame kind :lol

I appreciate it, and I did notice that my post might seem a little "PIRATE SHIT PEOPLE!" but its not, its all about being a savvy consumer (as I put with my edit, just to reiterate, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive.

 

[Saty]

But again, selling better on consoles doesn't say anything necessarily 'bad' about the PC.
Besides, if they are making bucketload on the 360 then Epic should be even less hesistant about offering a PC version.

How did UT3 do on consoles? from what i gathered, the game didn't chart in it's debut month (Nov. 2007).

 

[Q8D3vil]

but pirates can't play online without original key or using lan-online programes ( i used one of them to play borderland thanks to the crappy netcode ).

but most of the games today can't be played online without a legit serial number.

epic is a known as a MP games dev.
if people didn't buy their game ( UT3 ) that's because the online MP was shit nothing more nothing less.

 

[subversus]

Valve and Blizzard develop online games for now. Valve offers really good service of updatiing your game with tons of fixes on sometimes a daily basis. They're just too convenient. Portal 2 will feature coop. I gues Episode 3 will follow the suit.

Blizzard's removed LAN. That fact tells a lot.

But if you go single-player on PC you must produce something remarkable for people to buy it after they've "tried it". You must go straight to their heart :lol Like The Witcher did. But The Witcher cost only 5 million to develop according to their PR.

 

[strem]

Valve Ann Blizzard have built empires on the PC so don't give me this piracy crap. That excuse is sooo tired. If debs aren't bitching about piracy on the pc they are bitching about used game sales on the consoles. Quit making games if it's so bad or stfu

maybe if gears didn't hitch their wagon to that piece of shit called gfw live then maybe people would of knew the game was on the pc

 

[lsslave]

I'd say that's far more worthy of the name piracy than the usual lame kind :lol

:lol

Thats the thing, piracy isn't theft. My wonderful country (Canada) has an amazing supreme court that fights for the citizens rights and have stood by that many MANY times (even causing major international fire from powerful companies at points)

Pre-editing (I should have stood my ground... kind of regret not doing that... but sometimes you have to pick which battles you're willing to fight) I mentioned how piracy can be used by the savvy consumer to find what is good before purchasing, hence the test-drive comment. The post is edited now (last page) but whatever, I still stand by the idea that a developer/producer/etc. embraced piracy as preview would do so much more for society than the current treat everyone like criminals (especially the legit customers!)

 

[TheYanger]

Valve Ann Blizzard have built empires on the PC so don't give me this piracy crap. That excuse is sooo tired. If debs aren't bitching about piracy on the pc they are bitching about used game sales on the consoles. Quit making games if it's so bad or stfu

maybe if gears didn't hitch their wagon to that piece of shit called gfw live then maybe people would of knew the game was on the pc

Quit trotting out this tired argument. Valve and Blizzard are successful because they offer services that you can't replicate with piracy, not because the products themselves are immune. There are PLENTY of illegitimate SC, WC3, Diablo 2, heck even wow players out there. But ultimately, the service you're looking for is Battle.net, Wow servers, Steam, and you can't pirate those.

To then shoehorn this into every other company is absurd. For instance, TitanQuest was mentioned earlier - Iron Lore would have LOVED to offer something like Battle.net, I'm sure, I'm pretty sure I've read as much, but they couldn't afford to do it themselves and their publisher wouldn't front it for them. End of story, they don't have the infrastructure for it, and TQ ends up being an insanely heavily pirated game and they go out of business. Go figure.

:lol

Thats the thing, piracy isn't theft. My wonderful country (Canada) has an amazing supreme court that fights for the citizens rights and have stood by that many MANY times (even causing major international fire from powerful companies at points)

Pre-editing (I should have stood my ground... kind of regret not doing that... but sometimes you have to pick which battles you're willing to fight) I mentioned how piracy can be used by the savvy consumer to find what is good before purchasing, hence the test-drive comment. The post is edited now (last page) but whatever, I still stand by the idea that a developer/producer/etc. embraced piracy as preview would do so much more for society than the current treat everyone like criminals (especially the legit customers!)

Previews are Demos. Xbox live arcade has those. Downloading the full game and playing it through then NOT buying it, is stealing. Big difference, most big games do have demos still. Don't try to justify piracy because of your personal actions, it's clear that the VAST majority of internet thieves do not share your moral fortitude.

 

[gofreak]

Thats the thing, piracy isn't theft.

...

Pre-editing (I should have stood my ground... kind of regret not doing that... but sometimes you have to pick which battles you're willing to fight) I mentioned how piracy can be used by the savvy consumer to find what is good before purchasing, hence the test-drive comment. The post is edited now (last page) but whatever, I still stand by the idea that a developer/producer/etc. embraced piracy as preview would do so much more for society than the current treat everyone like criminals (especially the legit customers!)

So, me taking a car out for a spin from a garage without permission shouldn't be considered theft either then?

This is very very simple. Someone's offering you something on specific terms. If you take it outside of those terms, it is stealing. If software makers want to offer you a trial, they'll do so. If they don't, sorry, you're out of luck, go buy some other software from someone else who does. But taking the full game to 'test drive' it isn't a morally valid excuse for piracy.

 

[lsslave]

So, me taking a car out for a spin from a garage without permission shouldn't be considered theft either then?

This is very very simple. Someone's offering you something on specific terms. If you take it outside of those terms, it is stealing. If software makers want to offer you a trial, they'll do so. If they don't, sorry, you're out of luck, go buy some other software from someone else who does. But taking the full game to 'test drive' it isn't a morally valid excuse for piracy.

Alright, so I guess if I go by your logic there is about 30K spent on movies/music I would never have spent (well movies not so much, but fuck the industry I go on 2 dollar night, their 30-40 dollar movie nights can fuck themselves) but music I have spent a fortune between concerts/CDs/etc. that I would never have heard before (of course now I have Youtube and those days are gone)

I don't pirate games, but look at the music industry. The actual ARTISTS embrace it (at least the good ones)

Also, and the reason why the Canadian supreme court stands by its decision, your CAR is still in your GARAGE. The CD is still in the store. THAT means it is NOT theft. I stand by that ruling, as do many people in Canada, and the only reason its trying to change is pressure from foreign businesses (in fact, the Canadian equivilant to the RIAA is suffering now that artists don't support them due to their response to piracy. They took a really big hit when a lot of big name artists stopped supporting them over it, for Canadian artists and how big you consider them I suppose, but its a big deal here)

Edit: Also, any UKer here can spit in your face for that argument since Joyriding isn't theft in the UK

 

[dreamcastmaster]

I think that the majority of PC OWNERS are using them for internet and work, the gamers have moved to consoles and developers are blaming the lowered sales to piracy just becuase they can read torrent trackers and see how many times a games has been downloaded 1DL = 1 lost sale logic.

 

[Mael]

:lol

Thats the thing, piracy isn't theft. My wonderful country (Canada) has an amazing supreme court that fights for the citizens rights and have stood by that many MANY times (even causing major international fire from powerful companies at points)

Pre-editing (I should have stood my ground... kind of regret not doing that... but sometimes you have to pick which battles you're willing to fight) I mentioned how piracy can be used by the savvy consumer to find what is good before purchasing, hence the test-drive comment. The post is edited now (last page) but whatever, I still stand by the idea that a developer/producer/etc. embraced piracy as preview would do so much more for society than the current treat everyone like criminals (especially the legit customers!)

That's why demo should be there for savvy customer, i mean not every game is like the latest Nintendo blockbuster people buy without even trying, I was very nearly buying Football Manager BECAUSE the demo was so good (but lack of hdd space said no).
If you want your savvy customer to stick with you treat them them like worldclass customers like in the days where the boxed games where full of goodies, not like worthless peons only worth mention when you fail to stuff their mouths with crap.

It's not even limited to PC games, back in the days when some house like Squaresoft made games and sold them with maps and all I would buy every single stuffs they released in whatever country they managed to release it.
Now when I see their big budget stuffs, I'm not even considering them must buy if only because of how the packaging is done.
Theses publishers/devs treat their customers like shit so much that people actually prefer going through the trouble of finding a crack through the seedy corners of the web instead of giving them money?
I'd say the fault is on the publisher/dev more than the customer since God knows people don't actually like to get virus of the web

(my favourite is the whole 'you wouldn't download a car', well yeah of course I wouldn't mainly because it's a fucking car)

 

[dimb]

But the problem is, who are we to set the expectations? It sold well, that's cool, but it didn't sell well enough for the money they put in. They were not happy with the sales.

Imagine if GTA4 only sold two million copies, yeah two million is a good number, but it cost $100M to make. If you're making Peggle, sure, two million is incredible.

If they wanted to sell more copies then they needed to make a better product and target a bigger audience. Making a graphically intensive game that scales down poorly is going to have a limited audience. When Crysis came out playing it on a graphics card even a year old was a sub-optimal experience at best, completely borked at worst. The situation isn't as black and white as it is on consoles.

If they wanted Crysis to sell better they should have boosted the multiplayer experience. I can't think of a single other shooter as big as Crysis in terms of budget neglecting their multiplayer as much. Earlier in the console lifecycle we saw other games like The Darkness try stuff like this, and there just isn't a market for it.

Crytek just isn't on the same level as other big budget developers. They're a company who have done a really great job with tech, and a really uneven job with everything else. Crysis wasn't any different from Far Cry in that respect, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they didn't see a sales bump putting them on top. It's easy to point a finger and blame the consumer for low sales, but at the end of the day it falls on the developer to make a product that appeals more to the market. Crysis did well for what it is.

I can imagine the frustration for the dedicated hardcore PC gamer when it comes to things like this, or even things like Rage being designed for the consoles primarily. And maybe seeing things like "We're ignoring PC gamers because piracy" is very annoying, but whatever the reason, to make a game like Gears, which is apparently what they want to be making, it needs to be on consoles. And if Microsoft are willing to pony up for it, they'd be stupid to turn down that 'second party' relationship.

I don't have a 360, I'd love Gears 3 on PC or PS3, but I fully respect Epic's tough position, it'd be near impossible for anyone to turn down that blanket of safety and cash.

I'm still not sure if the benefits for remaining second party outweigh being multiplatform. We just don't have the numbers, but I always find it hard to believe that a game like Gears couldn't double or triple it's numbers if it was available on multiple platforms.

Bad Company 2 and COD are perfect examples of titles that just explode with sales because they open themselves up to multiple markets. I find it hard to believe that even Microsoft can account for those losses, but I might be wrong. Looking at Bungie it seems obvious to me that these companies putting out big hits are missing out if they aren't gearing towards multiplatform development.

 

[toastyToast]

Wasn't the last good PC game Epic made UT2004? UT3 sold like shit on consoles too and Gears of War wasn't really suited to a KB+Mouse set up. It also launched when Microsoft was trying to make a Windows live a pay to play service.

If Epic were to put out something now and have it flop I'd understand. Must be because of that console money.

 

[C4Lukins]

Whether it is piracy or Epic making shitty games the past few years, no matter what your opinion on the matter is the PC space has changed significantly. Very few core games have been successful in the past 5 years. If you look at the best that the PC core community has produced in the past few years, The Witcher, Crysis, Stalker, Company of Heroes, these games are really struggling to hit the million mark. Spore did not live up to everyones expectations. And then you have PC centric games like Mass Effect, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Dragon Age, Left for Dead and Fallout that seem to perform sales wise much better on consoles and in some instances their PC sales are so horrible that they could not justify their budgets if they were exclusive to PC.

Of course WOW, Popcap games, the Sims, and soon to be Starcraft 2 still prove the relevance of the PC, not to mention the multitudes of Steam, Flash, and Facebook games. It is becoming increasingly difficult though for developers to justify staying PC exclusive while creating big budget games. I think even Blizzard will have trouble justifying Diablo 3 as a PC exclusive game, and they will be leaving several million in sales if they go that route.

 

[gofreak]

Alright, so I guess if I go by your logic there is about 30K spent on movies/music I would never have spent (well movies not so much, but fuck the industry I go on 2 dollar night, their 30-40 dollar movie nights can fuck themselves) but music I have spent a fortune between concerts/CDs/etc. that I would never have heard before (of course now I have Youtube and those days are gone)

I don't pirate games, but look at the music industry. The actual ARTISTS embrace it (at least the good ones)

I'm not saying every dollar in value that's pirated is a dollar the software vendor or music vendor would otherwise have got. If I could steal anything I wanted with impunity I'm sure I'd steal a bunch of shit I'd never otherwise buy. How's that a reasonable pro-piracy/theft argument?

My argument is very simple, and clear, and if your courts don't recognize it, then I would be flabbergasted. That is: it is exclusively the provision of the vendor to stipulate the terms under which something is offered to the consumer. The consumer has no obligation to accept those terms, the consumer has every right to reject the terms and not take the product. However, the consumer has also no right to make up the terms of the transaction, and to force those on the vendor.

Making a distinction with digital goods on the basis that there's no reduction in CDs in a store is a complete farce. That's basically saying that because there is no physical stock with digital goods, the customer can entirely make up whatever terms he or she wants when it comes to acquiring those goods, and force them on the offerer. That kind of logic if were widely adopted would completely pull the rug out from under the digital economy. Whether something has a physical presence of not is not the determining factor on whether it's theft to take it outside the terms offered by the vendor. It doesn't matter what form the product is in, if you take it outside the terms offered by the vendor, against those terms, it is theft.

If music artists want to give away music for free, if labels want to do that, and to rely on tour revenue etc. as their main income, then that's ENTIRELY their perogative. But the customer cannot force them! It has to be the terms the artist or label voluntarily presents.

 

[lsslave]

That's why demo should be there for savvy customer, i mean not every game is like the latest Nintendo blockbuster people buy without even trying, I was very nearly buying Football Manager BECAUSE the demo was so good (but lack of hdd space said no).
If you want your savvy customer to stick with you treat them them like worldclass customers like in the days where the boxed games where full of goodies, not like worthless peons only worth mention when you fail to stuff their mouths with crap.

It's not even limited to PC games, back in the days when some house like Squaresoft made games and sold them with maps and all I would buy every single stuffs they released in whatever country they managed to release it.
Now when I see their big budget stuffs, I'm not even considering them must buy if only because of how the packaging is done.
Theses publishers/devs treat their customers like shit so much that people actually prefer going through the trouble of finding a crack through the seedy corners of the web instead of giving them money?
I'd say the fault is on the publisher/dev more than the customer since God knows people don't actually like to get virus of the web

(my favourite is the whole 'you wouldn't download a car', well yeah of course I wouldn't mainly because it's a fucking car)

That requires a demo though. Some demos are terrible and make a good game seem wretched, and much worse is the "trailer" demo where the only part of the game thats fun is in the demo (much like trailers in movies)

Its like an album, can you justify 20$ on an album based on one single?

But I agree, its up to the dev/pub to SELL the games to us. My stance on piracy? (as someone who doesn't pirate games) I will probably not even touch Final Fantasy 15 after the abominations of 12 / 13 (in my eyes people, this is an opinion). The series has wasted over 100$ of my money, I will never touch it again. This is someone who has been with the series for 20 years.

I miss the good old days of "HOW MUCH CAN WE CRAM INTO THIS BOX" as much as you though :lol

Edit:

I'm not saying every dollar in value that's pirated is a dollar the software vendor or music vendor would otherwise have got. If I could steal anything I wanted with impunity I'm sure I'd steal a bunch of shit I'd never otherwise buy. How's that a reasonable pro-piracy/theft argument?

My argument is very simple, and clear, and if your courts don't recognize it, then I would be flabbergasted. That is: it is exclusively the provision of the vendor to stipulate the terms under which something is offered to the consumer. The consumer has no obligation to accept those terms, the consumer has every right to reject the terms and not take the product. However, the consumer has also no right to make up the terms of the transaction, and to force those on the vendor.

Making a distinction with digital goods on the basis that there's no reduction in CDs in a store is a complete farce. That's basically saying that because there is no physical stock with digital goods, the customer can entirely make up whatever terms he or she wants when it comes to acquiring those goods, and force them on the offerer. That kind of logic if were widely adopted would completely pull the rug out from under the digital economy. Whether something has a physical presence of not is not the determining factor on whether it's theft to take it outside the terms offered by the vendor. It doesn't matter what form the product is in, if you take it outside the terms offered by the vendor, against those terms, it is theft.

If music artists want to give away music for free, if labels want to do that, and to rely on tour revenue etc. as their main income, then that's ENTIRELY their perogative. But the customer cannot force them! It has to be the terms the artist or label voluntarily presents.

You are very anti-piracy. The problem is, piracy is here to stay. It isn't going anywhere.

The mentality that you present though, THAT is the bad part. When you treat potential customers that way then they will never want to become your customer. You create a provision of people who detest you. Your goods become meaningless to them.

Yes, companies need to protect their rights, but my entire argument (that I had to edit) was largely under the foundation that if companies would embrace the benefits instead of attacking everyone they would win. You are trying to stand for the pirates that don't buy it, but instead you are using that bullying mechanic to punish everyone much like game devs do and punish the paying customers.

That is what is wrong with the piracy problem, when you start bullying people you lose so much more. Embrace the future, find ways to make those people customers (EA is attempting this, I hope they succeed), and remember that without customers/fans/etc. you're so fucked that its not even funny. For example, after your stance, I'd boycot your company. I wouldn't have pirated your goods in the first place, but I would still boycot it without a doubt (I've done it to many artists, if any music artist goes the Metallica route they never get 1 cent of my income ever again, even if they retract)

 

[TheYanger]

That requires a demo though. Some demos are terrible and make a good game seem wretched, and much worse is the "trailer" demo where the only part of the game thats fun is in the demo (much like trailers in movies)

Its like an album, can you justify 20$ on an album based on one single?

But I agree, its up to the dev/pub to SELL the games to us. My stance on piracy? (as someone who doesn't pirate games) I will probably not even touch Final Fantasy 15 after the abominations of 12 / 13 (in my eyes people, this is an opinion). The series has wasted over 100$ of my money, I will never touch it again. This is someone who has been with the series for 20 years.

I miss the good old days of "HOW MUCH CAN WE CRAM INTO THIS BOX" as much as you though :lol

Doesn't matter if I can justify it, it's not my right or decision to make that call. If I don't think it's a good deal, I won't buy it. It's that simple. That's called economics. If enough people do it, they'll lower the price. If enough don't, then clearly it IS worth what they're asking, and I simply am not willing to pay it.

Just because you don't think something is worth what they're charging (Or because you DEMAND a demo or whatever) doesn't give them any obligation to give it to you.

 

[2San]

People didn't like UT3? It was pretty good, reminded me of UT99 which I think is the best one. :O Sure the console version was crap, but the pc version was pretty good. The only downside was that no one played the game.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

Epic didnt really go all out with digital did they ? I remember UT3 not being on Steam for quite awhile when they released it, but when they did i saw this interview in which Mark "Chocolate" Rein said it was very successful on it -

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/midway-gamers-unreal-tournament/33064

Gears of War PC came out with problems galore (most thanks to GFW Live), plus being a 1 year old console port (which i guess most would have played on the 360 originally anyway), coming out when MW1 did, i dont see how this had a chance, and it also doesnt have a digital release (even now, with GFW Lives marketplace up and running).

Should be interesting seeing how Bulletstorm does if its day n date with the console releases on all digital services, surely with PCF developing it could resonate with PC gamers, we will have to see.

Anyhoo, its not like Epic churn out games every year, wasnt there like 3 to 4 years between each UT (except 2003/4 of course) ? And they even pumped out loads of good stuff for UT3 for free in a premium age. Piracy comments aside, i dont get the Epic hate :/

People didn't like UT3? It was pretty good, reminded me of UT99 which I think is the best one. :O Sure the console version was crap, but the pc version was pretty good. The only downside was that no one played the game.

I loved it, infact i preferred it to UT2004 (except for the removal of Assault, grrr). Personally i think the type of game UT3 is just wasnt what gamers at the mo are interested in, hence the lack of players. Didnt the Steamworks inclusion and sales bump it up a bit though ?

 

[C4Lukins]

People didn't like UT3? It was pretty good, reminded me of UT99 which I think is the best one. :O Sure the console version was crap, but the pc version was pretty good. The only downside was that no one played the game.

I think it is just a burned out genre. Between Quake and Unreal, I just think that FPS games have become more interesting online and have evolved, and that specific itch has been either met or has been surpassed with Counterstrike, Halo, TF2 and Call of Duty.

 

[makingmusic476]

Why is the money on consoles? Because everybody who licenses UE3.0 focuses on consoles! The majority of notable PC devs make their own engines.

Epic's just pandering to their customers here, though I'm sure UT3 being a total flop didn't help.

 

[Mael]

That requires a demo though. Some demos are terrible and make a good game seem wretched, and much worse is the "trailer" demo where the only part of the game thats fun is in the demo (much like trailers in movies)

That's their problem though, would you give a job to the guy who can't present himslef properly? I know that most don't especially if there's people equally as good who can :-/
this is a busy world, people won't go see a movie if the trailer suck ass, how do they cope? They make bitchass good trailers!

Its like an album, can you justify 20$ on an album based on one single?

if I'm actually learning how to play the said single I actually will just to immerse myself into the artist universe (guitar player here), otherwise there's always iTunes and the likes to get a sample of the album.

But I agree, its up to the dev/pub to SELL the games to us. My stance on piracy? (as someone who doesn't pirate games) I will probably not even touch Final Fantasy 15 after the abominations of 12 / 13 (in my eyes people, this is an opinion). The series has wasted over 100$ of my money, I will never touch it again. This is someone who has been with the series for 20 years.

I personnally played them all (except XIII but that will come) but I can safely say that I didn't buy any of them since FFVI (well there's XII but I like that one). I will still play them but that's mostly because I know friends who buy them so I can get it from them.
If my friends can't lend it to me, I won't buy the games, I'll just stop playing them like I did when Rare jumped ship and started releasing shit instead of games (and that was just before Star fox Abomination).
Point is, I don't how them shit, if they want my money they make goods that's worth my money or I'll do something else.

I miss the good old days of "HOW MUCH CAN WE CRAM INTO THIS BOX" as much as you though :lol

Amen to that

Doesn't matter if I can justify it, it's not my right or decision to make that call. If I don't think it's a good deal, I won't buy it. It's that simple. That's called economics. If enough people do it, they'll lower the price. If enough don't, then clearly it IS worth what they're asking, and I simply am not willing to pay it.

That's the thing though, people are not finding the usual pc game worth the deal, they're used to be treated better than the usual console peons, heck most console peons don't like it either on most games => games usually fall in price pretty quickly because they don't hold their value shortly after release.

Just because you don't think something is worth what they're charging (Or because you DEMAND a demo or whatever) doesn't give them any obligation to give it to you.

And just because they don't give in to my demand doesn't mean I should be expected to dump my hard earned money into their latest grand epic either.

 

[gofreak]

You are very anti-piracy. The problem is, piracy is here to stay. It isn't going anywhere.

The mentality that you present though, THAT is the bad part. When you treat potential customers that way then they will never want to become your customer. You create a provision of people who detest you. Your goods become meaningless to them.

You have to allow consumers make up the terms on which a product will be offered? That's a farce.

I am anti-theft, simple as that. Piracy is theft.

The definition of theft is taking something from someone else without their permission. Making up rules on how you are going to acquire something - be it a physical or digital product - that are outside the terms of renumeration authorised by the offerer is THEFT.

If we did not have these rules, the economy would simply disintegrate.

There are many people who want a free lunch, who want to have things for free, and who aren't willing to pay for products. They are NOT customers.

If you are not getting customers with your current offering if you need to convert more people into customers, you adjust your offering. But the key point: YOU, the vendor, adjusts the offering. That is your exclusive right. Those who are not customers, in the meantime, have absolutely no right to take your products.

companies need to protect their rights, but my entire argument (that I had to edit) was largely under the foundation that if companies would embrace the benefits instead of attacking everyone they would win. You are trying to stand for the pirates that don't buy it, but instead you are using that bullying mechanic to punish everyone much like game devs do and punish the paying customers.

That is what is wrong with the piracy problem, when you start bullying people you lose so much more. Embrace the future, find ways to make those people customers (EA is attempting this, I hope they succeed), and remember that without customers/fans/etc. you're so fucked that its not even funny. For example, after your stance, I'd boycot your company. I wouldn't have pirated your goods in the first place, but I would still boycot it without a doubt (I've done it to many artists, if any music artist goes the Metallica route they never get 1 cent of my income ever again, even if they retract)

I'm not saying companies have addressed piracy perfectly or shouldn't try to address it better or convert pirates into paying customers. If that can be done, of course companies should try to do so.

But when you talk about companies 'embracing' pirates etc. the key point for me is that it is the company has to voluntarily do that. Pirates have no right to swarm a company in the hope that the company will appease them. And have no right to continue taking products from the company. The right thing for anyone to do if they are not happy with the offer a company is making is to reject the offer and the goods. Rejecting the offer and the monetary terms, and taking the goods is theft. There is no two ways about it.

It sounded like you were justifying piracy because it's a 'test-drive' or because it's not a physical good. My argument is about what makes something theft or not theft, and those two arguments are irrelevant in defining that.

 

[dimb]

Piracy comments aside, i dont get the Epic hate :/

They just go out of their way to ignore the PC. Small games the size of Torchlight/Peggle do really well on PC, and yet Shadow Complex is a 360 exclusive.

More often than not they take the free marketing from Microsoft rather than delivering content to a broader audience.

 

[lsslave]

Doesn't matter if I can justify it, it's not my right or decision to make that call. If I don't think it's a good deal, I won't buy it. It's that simple. That's called economics. If enough people do it, they'll lower the price. If enough don't, then clearly it IS worth what they're asking, and I simply am not willing to pay it.

Just because you don't think something is worth what they're charging (Or because you DEMAND a demo or whatever) doesn't give them any obligation to give it to you.

I will agree with you there, they have NO obligations.

As a consumer I stand by my rights though, if I want something and they do not provide it I feel there is little reason for me to place my dollar in that product.

I feel no sympathy for a company that goes bankrupt for providing terrible products. As I grow older (and suffer through poverty at the moment *we're talking the legal definition of poverty, if it wasn't for my family I'd be on the street right now*) I have learned that every dollar I have in my entire life is worth something.

It is up to the company, the marketing, etc. to incetivize me to spend my income. IF they can not get me to let go of my money then I see no reason why they need it. Companies whose games bomb but did little-to-no advertising I feel no sympathy for, you can't just throw things at a wall and watch which one sticks in any market.

The world is an economic rollercoaster, but GAF is so much of a minority that in reality essentially no ones opinion on here matters (note: GAF hype games that don't sell, GAF hypes some wretchedly abysmal music also..., TV GAF HYPE FAIL TIME! etc....)

GAF's influence is really minor, in fact its discussions like this that keep me on the site. With that in mind, it is through GAF I have discovered some very amazing pieces of content I would never have learned of/cared for in the first place (see: Pushing Daisies, Valkyria Chronicles) and there are some very bright minds that enter this site.

There is also a hive-mind that needs to break... but it probably wont.

Back to the intial statement though, companies can't expect people to sell their content. I am not a paid advertiser, I don't give a shit who buys their game. I don't even buy multiplayer games because I don't count on communities to sustain (MAG being free of course, and much loved) and if I do I wait to be sure it will sustain.

 

[Mael]

You have to allow consumers make up the terms on which a product will be offered? That's a farce.

I am anti-theft, simple as that. Piracy is theft

Hold your horses, because you repeat it doesn't mean it's true.
There's a reason we consider pirates actually pirates and it's not because of the eye patch I tell you.
Digital piracy is at worst COUNTERFEITING, because like this piracy nobody lose an actual copy of the product but gets another products that's a COPY of the original.
And there's laws against COUNTERFEITNG that are pretty steep actually.

By making the analogy that piracy is theft you're defeating your whole argument because it shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It's like saying diarrea is the same as vomiting because you expell stuffs from your body, but they're really quite different

 

[ymmv]

Quit trotting out this tired argument. Valve and Blizzard are successful because they offer services that you can't replicate with piracy, not because the products themselves are immune. There are PLENTY of illegitimate SC, WC3, Diablo 2, heck even wow players out there. But ultimately, the service you're looking for is Battle.net, Wow servers, Steam, and you can't pirate those.

To then shoehorn this into every other company is absurd. For instance, TitanQuest was mentioned earlier - Iron Lore would have LOVED to offer something like Battle.net, I'm sure, I'm pretty sure I've read as much, but they couldn't afford to do it themselves and their publisher wouldn't front it for them. End of story, they don't have the infrastructure for it, and TQ ends up being an insanely heavily pirated game and they go out of business. Go figure.

Another point to make is that the only PC games that are financially successful are meant to be played online on secure servers. Single player games on the PC are dead in the water since they can be easily pirated without any repercussions for non-paying pirates. Publishers try to fight back with draconian DRM but in the end these drastic measures only hurt the people who buy the original games since the DRM will be stripped from the pirated copy.

 

[lsslave]

You have to allow consumers make up the terms on which a product will be offered? That's a farce.

I am anti-theft, simple as that. Piracy is theft.

The definition of theft is taking something from someone else without their permission. Making up rules on how you are going to acquire something - be it a physical or digital product - that are outside the terms of renumeration authorised by the offerer is THEFT.

If we did not have these rules, the economy would simply disintegrate.

There are many people who want a free lunch, who want to have things for free, and who aren't willing to pay for products. They are NOT customers.

If you are not getting customers with your current offering if you need to convert more people into customers, you adjust your offering. But the key point: YOU, the vendor, adjusts the offering. That is your exclusive right. Those who are not customers, in the meantime, have absolutely no right to take your products.




I'm not saying companies have addressed piracy perfectly or shouldn't try to address it better or convert pirates into paying customers. If that can be done, of course companies should try to do so.

But when you talk about companies 'embracing' pirates etc. the key point for me is that it is the company has to voluntarily do that. Pirates have no right to swarm a company in the hope that the company will appease them. And have no right to continue taking products from the company. The right thing for anyone to do if they are not happy with the offer a company is making is to reject the offer and the goods. Rejecting the offer and the monetary terms, and taking the goods is theft. There is no two ways about it.

It sounded like you were justifying piracy because it's a 'test-drive' or because it's not a physical good. My argument is about what makes something theft or not theft, and those two arguments are irrelevant in defining that.

Essentially so, but again in Canada it was determined that downloading music wasn't theft. Many Canadian music artists actually fought on the side of it not being theft as well, numerous ones having received INCREASED sales since people started downloading music.

Now - this isn't to say that people will always buy their music legitamitely. Nor any other product.

The problem is, when people treat pirates all the same, all like criminals it really hurts the potential customers. Today we have YouTube, and I can honestly say since YouTube I have not downloaded music. I have the benefit of being able to listen to songs from a band on MySpace and YouTube and for me that works fine. I go and buy my music based on what is good. Both of these things do wonders.

I am what you would call... a... er... "streamer" I guess.

I don't think I have actually pirated anything since I was a kid to be honest. I am actually fighting for this argument on the outside of it (which might seem odd)

Now, I understand your point, that the vendor has the right to declare how their content is issued/used/purchased/etc. BUT in this day and age the vendor now has 2 options.

#1 They can alienate a customer base by treating them how they do (which you agree with me on the stance its not exactly the best move and lets face it, it is actually hurting a lot of industries. In fact, the RIAA is really REALLY doing a poor job of its lawsuits since no one is siding with them suing the single mom who downloaded 22 songs. They are trying to exert force but so far haven't succeeded in actual courts and just hope people will settle)

#2 They can do what the music industry is doing (on the ARTIST side of it, not the EXECUTIVE side of it) and embrace it. Certain game companies are doing this, EA (previously mentioned) being a prime candidate example of this. EA is finding ways to incentivize the legitimate purchasers while actually profit from downloaders/used game purchasers. This is a great business model for games.

Another game company (since DemiGod got mentioned) that is doing good is Stardock. They don't punish their legitamite customers. This may not be making them billionaires BUT it builds them a devotely loyal fanbase. Again, they are embracing that it happens, and found a way to draw in a clientel.

When I said embracing it, this is what I meant by it.