Dragon Age 2 leaked

[Ellen of Kitten]

I'm of the mind that there's a planned leak for these things. Someone in management of these things is like, "Wilbertson, get me a copy of the full game by the end of the day!" and Wilbertson is like, "yus boss!" Then the boss looks both ways, and slips it of his window, on the the information super highway (internet, for those of you born after the 90's...). He then consults his crack team of people that tabulate the markets reaction to the "leak," and just how well recieved it is. Any bug reports that come in from forums, and any quick fixes. The model of that games future is adjusted accordingly.

Is the above to whimsical for you? Here's the shorthand; Every damn game that gets near completion seems to get "leaked." It happens to often to be coincidence.

 

[ImprovizoR]

EA obviously has a mole inside who's leaking all of their most anticipated games. Find the prick and amputate his hands. Oh wait...that's a bit medieval. Better to just throw him behind bars.

You know what I want now? I want DRM on consoles. If PC gamers have to deal with DRM so should console gamers. Console pirates just download the game, burn it to a disc and play like they're the most honest people in the world. When Crysis 2 got leaked everybody talked about PC pirates ruining PC gaming. No one talks shit when console games get leaked and it happens all the time. More console games get leaked than PC games. If PC needs DRM so do consoles. If consoles don't need it, neither does PC. Simple logic. End of story. If piracy is really that big of an issue that they constantly talk ab out it, maybe they should actually do something to prevent it. And it's time to include consoles in the whole idea.

 

[omega 616]

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

Or people B,C,D pirate the game of the same site and end up with 0 sales but 4 people enjoying your work.

That would never happen though, as it has been proven by pulling facts out of my ass dot com that friends of pirates always buy games the pirate has stolen, lets not forget that the pirate always buys the game is it is good enough. (sarcasm for anybody who didn't get it).

I am not saying you are pulling facts out of your ass, I see these arguments so god damn much, it's a joke.

Anyway, I am not going to get dragged into a another piracy war ... been in about 6 of them already.

DA2 doesn't need hype, thats like saying the next COD will need hype to boost sales.

 

[imperialus]

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

Case 1: Someone beats you up you and steals your I-Pod. He sells it to a pawn shop and then turns around and buys a family pack of Ho-Ho's and a 40 of Jack. You in turn get dealt with by a health professional to give you stitches, and a week or so later go buy a newer I-Pod.
Case 2: You are not attacked and continue listening to your I-Pod.

Wow! Just look at the economic benefits created by that guy who robbed you! He helped the pawn shop owner, kept the qickie mart clerk and liqour store clerk employed. You helped Best Buy's bottom line not once, but twice, not to mention the intern who stitched you up helped create the next generation of doctors! How can you argue that that guy stealing you I-Pod was not a benefit to society as a whole?!

 

[Legion]

This kind of analysis is about as reasonable as saying "Buying games when they are on sale is unethical, because you didn't pay full price!" The merchant knows they can get more total sales by having the sale. They might even give away free ones to build up hype.

That argument doesn't hold any water.

Retailers buy a set amount of games from the publisher for a set amount of money. They then choose how much to sell them for in order to maximise profits.

If one retailer sells theirs for $60/£40 and another sells theirs for $50/£35, then the company that made the game still make the same amount of profit for each game sold, the retailer is the one making less money per game.

 

[Savagezion]

Two things I'd like to apologize for, first that it took me so long to respond to this, I didn't get a quote mail so I figured the topic had died. Second for dicing your post into bite-sized pieces and responding to them, I know its annoying to see that but you make a lot of points and I'd rather not garble up my responses.

Yeah, I just assumed that from the weird behavior that it quoted Squid instead of you. Not sure how that happened. Plus, I don't find thread necromancy nor failure to use the search bar a sin. If you think about the fact that both of those are a sin on alot of forums you can find an ironic contradiction of forum posters. Not allowed to post a new thread on an already covered topic, and your not allowed to "necro" a thread.

As far as chopping up my post, it was a long one. I pretty much expected any response to do so. So no worries.

Piracy is impossible to stop.

Fact.

However, DRM isn't even about stopping piracy, its about slowing piracy down and limiting it to as small a group as possible. Why did every game back in the day use disc checks? Any sufficiently clever person knew how to get around them, and anyone with even some moderate experience in IT knew how to do away with them entirely. So why put them on there at all?

To stop someone from saying to their "Oh hey I got this game, its totally awesome! Oh don't bother buying it, here's my CD!" Now some companies choose to put no DRM on their titles and that is their business (like GOG.com), as long as the DRM is disclosed before-hand people have the right to choose not to purchase that item because they don't like the DRM. If the gaming community as a whole didn't put up with DRM (like we didn't put up with it for the PC edition of AC2), then companies will see it is costing them far more money than it is making them and act accordingly. Or if they refuse to follow the consumer trend, they'd go out of business and other companies would not follow their example.

One thing is that DRM is suspected to be used for a multitude of purposes. It's purpose gets dissected in every one of these threads almost. I have never bothered to read those responses because I am not fervent in regards to why DRM is used. I am a fan of Stardock, and if you know anything about them and why they forgo DRM then you pretty much see my stance on it. You can let your friends use your disc for any Stadock game and have it installed on their computer and they are good to go. Stardock "combats" piracy by accepting it and not dumping millions of the company's money on DRM just to delay the inevitable.

~snipped anecdotal evidence on potential benefits of piracy~

And hey, game companies are allowed to release their products free of charge and ask for donations from users if they thought it was worth the price of admission. I don't know how viable a business model that is but anyone is free to try it.

Now, do I think your cousin is automatically a bad person for breaking copyright law and taking something to which he has no right? Not really. Should he be punished for circumventing one of the major parts that keeps the world economy spinning, both to prevent him from doing it again and as a warning to others? Yes. Not like on the level of those wackos who work for the music industry who sue for like 30,000$ a song, but yes he should be punished.

Well, I highly suspect that those cases of people being sued for ridiculous amounts are a sham like the Blizzard case. No court is going to charge someone with the unlawful acts of others. That would be like charging someone $10,000 for going 10 miles over the speed limit to set an example to all the people out there speeding and not getting caught. That isn't how the court system works. That is how the media works though and this site is proof enough that people buy into it.
As well, a thread was started and deleted from this very site about a month or two ago titled "The reason I pirate and probably always will" and it actually was an argument that would stand up in the court of law. I went to go back and show my cousin the thread but it had already been deleted and I had unfortunately forgotten the argument. This irritates me as well and feel the thread should not have been deleted but simply locked.

I am the type of business man who likes to evaluate my purchase before buying instead of relying on hype and a pretty cd case.

And now we get to the heart of it all.

We are not entitled to anything except what the company says we get beforehand. People have no right to try things before they buy them.-snip-

I can semi-agree to that but we do have the ability and the game companies know this. So they opt not to release demos and to slant marketing and then they get upset when people don't stand for it when they have the ability not to. How dare we go around them for a demo? How dare we want to know what we are buying when their marketing is slanting the product? You see what I mean surely. Granted, we may not "have the right" but a lack of demos and such is a large outcry in the gaming communities nowadays and the companies are ignoring this. Writing to my congressman is not the solution to this. Maybe if we lived in after-school special land. But the world doesn't work that way in reality. Hell, that branches into a whole other 2 or 3 topics of discussion itself.

Customers wanting to see if this purchase is right for them is not a bad thing.

Fact again. Doesn't give anyone the right to take someone else's property without their permission. Either their sales pitch is enough for you or it isn't.

Bingo. Most of the time, it isn't. Thus I am already a "lost sale". Piracy is not the reason for this, their marketing is in this particular scenario. A fool and his money are soon parted. If I am not 100% behind my purchase, chances are I will opt not to purchase it or hold out and buy the game off ebay for much cheaper or something thus not giving the devs a dime anyways.
The game company is opting to ignore an entire demographic by not making demos. They choose to forgo those sales of people on the fence that a demo would lock in on the hopes they will just go ahead and buy it.

That crap about the downloads is playing the victim for publicity for the most part. These companies deal with millions of dollars every day on every half decent title. The key to that whole sentence is bolded. No one knows that dollar amount because it is speculation and speculation doesn't hold water.

Major companies and governments base pretty much everything they do looking forward off of speculation. Figuring out market trends the past few years and their own sales to figure out how much money think they can spend on projects this year. Then next year they find out if they're right or not.

Read the first line of your statement then the last right after. Speculation doesn't hold water. I can throw imaginary numbers out there on how many pirates are "lost sales" too. But until we know the facts, no one will know for sure. However, once we know the facts speculations and predictions are irrelevant. So speculation means nothing.

CEOs are greedy people, it has to do with raising stock returns. The gamer crowd is just making it out to be more than it is because a million dollars to them sounds like a LOT of money.

A million dollars isn't chump change to anyone. Rich people get rich because they don't do stupid things with their money. Usually.

It isn't chump change to any one person no. It is chump change to a corporation. They will make it sound like they are going out of business because of it to any one person. But look at it in the sense of total assets. Remember that the rights to games sell for more than any game has claimed to lose due to piracy. Plus remember this is all based on a 'speculated' million dollars.

Also, accusing them of being greedy and divining their supposed motivations for crying how much piracy is hurting looks an awful lot like you're trying to paint them as the vicious tyrant who oppress us poor gamers, why, whatever can we do to fight those evil powers? Pirate!

No, what I am doing is pointing out that they blow this whole thing out of proportion. If piracy was as bad as they make it out to be no company would dare do what Stardock does. It would be corporate suicide. When in actuality they are choosing to lose money to pirates by investing millions in DRM. They are essentially paying tons of money to have their game stolen. Stardock knows they can have their game stolen for free. And that isn't based on speculation.

If the 'gamer' market at large REALLY had a problem with not having demos for most games or the demos just not being representative enough of the actual game, people would stop purchasing those products and companies would realize that their consumers just aren't going to take that crap. Since it hasn't happened yet..

You forget that we live in a world that isn't perfect. Someone isn't going to opt a purchase of a game they aren't sure about or do without when they do have another option that is fast and easily accessible to boot.

 

[Redingold]

I find Notch's argument to be complete crap. If I steal a new 3D TV but watching it convinces 4 friends to by it it is still stealing. If you pirate a game it is the same thing.

Oh great, more childish arguments like this. He's written a length post discussing the economics and intrigue in the scenario and you basically 'lulz' it away with the same old tired "But if you stole a material good blah blah blah" argument. As always incorrectly trying to apply physical goods economics to a virtual good.

His argument is very simple:

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

This is his point. And yes, He'd much rather person A bought the game, but he can't deny that the availability of the game via other means did end up turning better than zero profit. He's making an argument from an economic standpoint, not an ethical one.

This kind of analysis is about as reasonable as saying "Buying games when they are on sale is unethical, because you didn't pay full price!" The merchant knows they can get more total sales by having the sale. They might even give away free ones to build up hype.

Yes there is a difference of volition here, in one case the merchant is purposefully taking the per unit price hit for the overall gain, and in the other they aren't, but they do end up with similar results.

Please, if you want to discuss this, at least address the full issues at hand, and don't reply to thought out prose with the equivalent of a 'party line'.

I don't see that. I see piracy spreading through word of mouth too. After all, consider if B, C and D also pirate the game. Then consider person E. He would've bought the game, but after seeing how easy it was for A through D to pirate it, he decides to pirate it too. Net gain: -1 sales

Making up hypothetical scenarios doesn't really prove anyone's point, because someone else can probably construct one in which the opposite thing happens.

 

[Jezthesiren]

My fiance and I have this argument from time to time. In the end, piracy is in a grey area: for some it is a lighter grey and others a darker grey. Most stances I've seen on the issue agree, to some extent, that it is ethically wrong - that we live in a system that recognizes any form of stealing as improper and harmful to those who produce and sell said product. However, not everyone's personal moral code agrees with these ethics when it comes to the piracy of data rather than material goods.

 

[Savagezion]

Furthermore, I could smack the people in the face that ***** about the used games market. That is downright retarded and nonsensical from an economical standpoint and I seriously can't believe customers are falling for it. I work in sales and the nature of business is Shrewd jackass assholes get a better deal than the nice people you would rather give the better deal to because it is a cost casualties game.

Er... What?

Re-sold games constitute a concrete 1:1 loss of sale to the producer plus an obscene and undeserved profit to the retailer. How is this more justifiable than filesharing?

Because file sharing is a 1:infinite ratio of lost sales in theory. The fact that it is a physical copy of the game is why used games aren't as bad. Demand will cause more physical copies to come into circulation. Used games have been around since the first home consoles in the days of Atari. That was before video games were as widely acceptable as they are today and were a much bigger risk.

By keeping the price point as high as it is for as long as they do the publishers are "opting" to overlook a demographic in the gaming market. Some people out there cannot justify a 60 purchase on a single game. A non-successful (crappy) game stays at 60 bucks for at least 3 months. A successful one (one that people want to play) stay at 60 bucks for 9+ months before they see a price drop. That is a year you have ignored the people who have been waiting for a price drop. They "lost a sale" because they refused to drop the pricepoint when used (cheaper) copies were available. Dropping the price of a new game to say 40 bucks would probably combat used games sales quite a bit by severely chopping their resale value as well as gaining a wider demographic due to entering a lot more people's budget to buy new.

 

[MisterShine]

One thing is that DRM is suspected to be used for a multitude of purposes. It's purpose gets dissected in every one of these threads almost. I have never bothered to read those responses because I am not fervent in regards to why DRM is used.

You said something about speculation being useless I think =P

I am a fan of Stardock, and if you know anything about them and why they forgo DRM then you pretty much see my stance on it.

~snip

Stardock "combats" piracy by accepting it and not dumping millions of the company's money on DRM just to delay the inevitable.

And as I said, publishers are able to release DRM-free products, and personally I prefer such a system myself but I understand why many publishers don't. Also I'd keep in mind the difference between companies like Stardock and EA, Activision or Ubisoft. As far as I can tell a Stardock game has never even broken a million units sold, and their games tend be rather niche-market in the first place, unlike the Big 3 who spread themselves out over many genres and styles. Also of course they make truck loads more money than Stardock does. If Stardock ever released a AAA game with a tens of millions of dollar budget, I wonder if they might change their DRM tune, at least somewhat?

On your second point and "just to delay the inevitable". Inevitable it may be, but there are lost sales (lets not speculate how many) because pirating is a viable option on day 1. For many impulse buyers who lack moral fiber, if they see a pirated version isn't readily available they'll buy it legit just so they can play it properly (I've seen such comments several times). Lets again not speculate on how much money that gets the companies over time, but we can say it definitely happens and that publishers who go after those sales maybe aren't wasting their time.

As well, a thread was started and deleted from this very site about a month or two ago titled "The reason I pirate and probably always will" and it actually was an argument that would stand up in the court of law. .. This irritates me as well and feel the thread should not have been deleted but simply locked.

I agree that this is unfortunate. I'm certain it has something to do with the gaming industry telling the editors that if they want news items and interviews they'd better crackdown on pro-piracy talk here, and I don't blame them for that decision.

Though it leads to the ridiculous situation where the pros and cons of pedophilia can be discussed but piracy cannot. At which point I slam my face into my desk repeatedly to make sure the Stupid doesn't catch on.

And it is more unfortunate that I didn't get a chance to see or respond to that thread, I always feel in discussions like this that there are points of view I'm just not seeing, thus limiting my own perspective further.

So they opt not to release demos and to slant marketing and then they get upset when people don't stand for it when they have the ability not to.

Hm. This reads a lot you're saying companies deliberately don't release demos because they know we can just pirate it, and then use the resulting pirating numbers to play up their own financial hurt? First off thats incredibly paranoid of you, second you're speculating again! Follow the rules man =)

How dare we go around them for a demo? How dare we want to know what we are buying when their marketing is slanting the product? You see what I mean surely.

I do indeed, but companies have rights that should be protected just like the consumers do. Demos are not simple things and cost the company what could be very valuable resources, resources they might just not have. Companies show tons of prerelease info, such as screenshots, gameplay videos, story snippets, interviews with the developers on game mechanics.. customers are usually well informed on their purchase if they choose to look for it, and if that's just not enough we are free not to purchase anything. Now matter how cool we think something looks or how much we might want it doesn't give us the right to take what the property owner says we can't.

And if we do violate that rule, we've undermined one of the major trusts of our economy: that people who make creative works be paid in exchange for those works by the people who want to use them. I'm all for things like sharing knowledge and information freely, but in order to make that work on a large scale and to compel corporations to do it, things would have to change pretty radically.

The game company is opting to ignore an entire demographic by not making demos. They choose to forgo those sales of people on the fence that a demo would lock in on the hopes they will just go ahead and buy it.

True. However, I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed, just because you, me or anyone wants it another way.

It isn't chump change to any one person no. It is chump change to a corporation. They will make it sound like they are going out of business because of it to any one person. But look at it in the sense of total assets. Remember that the rights to games sell for more than any game has claimed to lose due to piracy. Plus remember this is all based on a 'speculated' million dollars.

Corporations being able to afford any potential losses of piracy does not change the fact that it is wrong. They've made the product and they deserve to be reimbursed for it by people who want to use it.

Say you're Activision. You just released Blops, for 60 dollars a pop. Lets say after licensing and distributing and paychecks and blah blah blah, you get 30 dollars out of each sale. You sell 10 million copies. Yippie! 30 million dollars for you! But then you check some torrenting sites and find that 5 million people downloaded a cracked version. Now maybe a lot of those people also bought it or weren't going to buy it in the first place, but how many people are just cheap? Betting on people being selfish has rarely not worked out well. Wouldn't you try to protect your investment just enough to not receive too many complaints from your consumers?

When in actuality they are choosing to lose money to pirates by investing millions in DRM.

Or they're forcing some pirates who can't wait a few days for a crack to purchase the game. But crap, now we're speculating again.

You forget that we live in a world that isn't perfect. Someone isn't going to opt a purchase of a game they aren't sure about or do without when they do have another option that is fast and easily accessible to boot.

Yeah, and people also make up dozens of excuses to justify their feelings of entitlement or just don't give a shit about other people getting what they deserve and steal the games. Either/or I guess.

I think I can sum up our general points thusly:

Neither of us support piracy as a whole, however you think that companies should be 'forced' to providing more hands-on information with regards to their product, and their failure to do this is the cause for their slow suicide, thus casting the blame entirely on all pirates is unfair. My view being that companies are free to do as they wish, and it is the consumers who vote with their dollars or by telling said company in droves that they want things changed, and that violating copyright protection at all is undermining our economic system, and allowing this is a terrible precedent for our economy.

How'd I do?


EDIT:

Since the guy you were talking to didn't, I'll provide it.

Oh, I'm also gonna get around to making an analytical pirate thread at some point, and I'd like to see you in it.

Thanks a lot TU4AR, thats a very interesting read.

I promised myself a few months ago I wouldn't get involved with any more piracy threads, but damn if it seems that I've broken my vow I think the 'anti-piracy' side needs to get a little more in-depth as to its reasons and a little less with the "It's stealings. Its wrong. Duh" attitude. Persuasion never works that way.

 

[Hyper-space]

It leaked already? Honestly, either the people at dev teams hate security or are plain sloppy with it. Who the hell leaks these things?

They could have waited for a couple of days for it to get out at least.

Honesly, DA2 didn't need more advertising, piracy or not. Not with all the campaigns. And while Minecraft was a cheap, infinitely replayable game that anyone could buy, the same could not be said about Dragon Age. I only played it twice before having finished all the quests, adopted all the conversation options and exploring everything and DA2 doesn't sound too different. So I'm not sure it will be good advertisment.

The game is not yet playable, from what ive heard there is a release date checker, which until the 8th cannot be cracked, as it requires first downloading from their servers. When they get their hands on that piece of code from Bioware, they will crack it and THEN, it will be playable.

 

[znix]

The game is not yet playable, from what ive heard there is a release date checker, which until the 8th cannot be cracked, as it requires first downloading from their servers. When they get their hands on that piece of code from Bioware, they will crack it and THEN, it will be playable.

It is totally playable on consoles. The PC version which leaked a day or so ago is NOT playable yet.

 

[Hiphophippo]

On a different note, I wish the PC version had leaked as well. I've already pre-ordered it long ago but if the chance arises to play it a week early I don't think I could resist the temptation...

Likewise. I've actually already bought to copies of the game in full (for myself and a friend. He bought me the first. seems fair.) and will be picking it up come tuesday. But that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate a little pre-street date loving.

 

[TechNoFear]

In the digital world, if you copy something you have not hampered the creator to sell copies of it.

Actually you have hampered the creator's ability to sell their product, as they must now compete with your free version.

As a budding developer myself I can say that if some 10 year old pirates a game I make in the future and likes it enough to become a loyal fan of mine. Chances are he/she will probably buy my products when they grow up and earn an income. This is a new age, and new rules are required to make it work fluently.

Your and the Minecraft dev's biggest problem (in selling your work) is obsurity; no one knows you make a product they may want.

This is not the case for a title like Crysis 2 or DA2.

Business models will change to bypass piracy. This change will move away from offline games to online subscription/RMT based, online achievements and purchaseable DLC, a move we are seeing more often at the moment.

I have developed commercial software since the 80's and now create asset protection and safety systems for mining multinationals. I do not make money from the software I create (in fact I often lose money on it), I make money from the service agreements and hardware.

 

[BeeRye]

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

People need to stop with this shit argument. Far more often than not person A pirates the game, shows it to persons B,C, and D, who in turn go and pirate the game or simply have person A stick it on a disc for them at the time. I'm sick of hearing about people who "download a game to see if it's worth buying", then go and buy it afterwards. We all know you play your pirate copy and never buy the game, no need to lie.

The whole word of mouth argument works quite conveniently for Notch as an indie developer. Sure word of mouth was the best way for his game to gain exposure. Dragon Age 2 has a massive advertising campaign both online and in the print media. It does not need pirates to tell their friends it's great. If you play games and have had access to the internet during the last 3 months, you know what Dragon Age 2 is and you most likely know if it's a game you want to buy.

There is a disturbing trend with people's sense of entitlement. The amount of times I've seen "I can't afford more than a few games a year so I pirate the rest" as an excuse on these forums is unreal. You aren't entitled to the game, if you can't afford you don't get it, it really is that simple. The attitude of a pirate very much is a thief's attitude. Argue all you like that "you're not depriving them of a physical copy they can sell". Do you think someone who steals an ipod from a store does it to deprive the store of the item? Of course not, they do it because they want the item but they don't want to pay. It is the exact same motivation with piracy, people want things but aren't willing to pay so they take them. It really is the attitude of a thief.

 

[tiamont]

People who support piracy seem to love making up scenarios. Lets make up one, shall we?

You are writing a book. And I mean a book upon the popularity and money attracting levels of GRRM, Robert Jordan, Tolkien, James Patterson, ect. While you are writing this book I sneak into your house and, with my handy dandy little flash drive, make a copy of your book. I leave the house and go to a publisher and promptly get a deal because, hey, it is an amazing book. I sit back and make a million off the book because I'm charging $1 for it on the e-readers while you are left standing there going 'well, damn' or if you were lucky published it as well to compete against me.

You started out with nothing physical. Just data on a hard drive. A copy of that data was created. People paid for that copy and there were no profits sent to the original creator which is you. And now since obviously you are completely okay with this as you say 'yes online copying/piracy/whathaveyou is good!', you go back to writing another book and hope no one steals it while I never ever fear about getting sued. The only difference in this scenario is I charged $1, while some copy-cats/pirates charge nothing. The argument of "A copys, B, C, and D hear it is great form A and buy it" doesn't hold water. The only way it would happen is if A thinks B, C, and D should pay and he shouldn't. Or B, C, and D are idiots and pay instead of getting the free version. If they're not idiots the only thing that I could see keeping them from pirating the item would be having a moral aversion to it.

 

[tiamont]

All pirates charge nothing. Nobody is making money off of pirated games. Nor is anybody claiming that they created the games which they distribute/leech. So your made-up scenario doesn't really hold water.

Not arguing for piracy here, just poking holes.

True true. Usually the only ones you hear charging for things are people who are selling the fake games anyway to swindle you. But what is the difference if they say 'I made this' versus 'I copied this'? Why does it matter if the pirate is making profit or not? The only ones that care if someone pirated something or not are people who don't want to download pirated things. I can't see a person who supports piracy getting all up in arms about a copy-cat saying 'I AM !' They are copying a game, why should it matter if they are copying a simple name? If there is a clear reason for any of these, I just don't see them. But it is 1AM and I just got home from work, so that might be why.