In utilizing the "revolutionary" MW2, piracy count has skyrocketed...
- Thread starter Turtleboy1017
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Demigod was pirated more because the people in Europe couldn't get their hands on the game until well over a month after it was released in North America. That 90% came about because those people wanted to play the game, and well, not sit around and read about it. I'm sure the piracy rate is quite different now, as I would think many of those people later went out and bought the game.Eclectic Dreck said:
Not really, maybe it really all boils down to moral relativism or maybe it boils down to moral realism, that debate has been raging for centuries and no-one has an argument with anything other than an internal logical consistency to boast, but the fact of the matter is that there are strong pros and cons for piracy with no obvious right or wrong. Both sides of the debate have a point. That's just not the case with murder (in most cases) or rape.-Stranger- said:
It was actually 82% and despite that Stardock actually have the right idea about piracy unlike most game companies:Eclectic Dreck said:
"[Stardock] very much don't like it when people pirate our stuff. Our position has simply been that people are going to pirate a game whether it has draconian copy protection or not and the people who will buy a PC game will buy it and the people who won't won't." source [http://forums.demigodthegame.com/348336]
The problem most companies have is that they assume each pirated copy of a game is one lost sale which is ludicrous, the truth is most people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them anyway.
Yah, this. I remember having a conversation with the Stardock CEO (no shizzle) and his views were very mature. He rightly said that very, very few pirates will ever be 'won over' into buying a game and those that are 'won over' are basically just an illusion; they were just 'test-driving' the product. Genuine 'never pay for stuff' pirates can't be won over because they were never going to spend anything on the games they play.Heathrow said:
So, you are going to argue that because the company would like to make money now and in the future for premium content, you should steal the game? I'm having a really hard time seeing the merit of your argument. Why SHOULD a developer give a person with this attitude any rope at all? Why should they even make a game for the system if this attitude is prevenalt? Boycotts? Fine. Whining on the internet? Fine. Any of the other completely ineffectual gestures people have threatened? Fine. But what you advocate is STEALING, which is very nearly universally discouraged across the world as a whole. You're dressing it up as something noble or "fighting the power" holds even less weight than IW's argument that the removal of this key feature in the first place was done with the player in mind.bagodix said:
And, at the end of the day one cannot possibly argue that the utter lack of preventative measures did anything but exacerbate the problem. Some people who pirated the game early on might indeed have purchased a legitimate copy when it became available. It could even be argued that those that did not would never have purchased the game regardless of release time. As such, the argument comes down to a central component - did NOT using anti-piracy measures increase or decrease revenue for the game. I hate to say that thus far, nobody has ever come up with any real figures (because it would likely be nearly impossible to attain), but at the end of the day the developer/publisher has the right to protect their investment. I draw the line at protection that compromises my computer obviously (which is what spore did, and thus why it was so widely disparaged).YuheJi said:
If you pirated the game, then what you did is steal directly from the publisher and the developer. Since some of those developers have children (as evidenced by the end credits announcing production babies), it stands to reason that you indeed deprived children of some quantity of money that may have gone towards food.BGH122 said:
The core argument you're making is "it's okay to steal because my purchase does not significantly affect the bottom line". While it may be true that your stealing the game has little impact on the whole, you have still stolen an item (a crime in most countries that can visit this board). This means what you do remains illegal, and none of your sputtering justifications change this.
Constructing a straw man argument as you have (I asserted that anti-piracy measures are based on the perceived impact of piracy on the PC, you countered that they still make money regardless), is an excellent demonstration of rhetorical fallacy. I am not arguing that they won't make money. I won't even argue that they might make less money. What I AM arguing is that the people who made the game believe that there is more money in using stricter controls rather than more lax controls on piracy. As the people who slaved over the product, I'm fairly certain that their position is so utterly secure in this that it needs little defending. When I go to work, I expect to be paid. I suspect that the rest of you do as well.
So, people can champion this "victory" if they want, because it will inevitably prove a phyric victory at best. All you people are doing is demonstrating yet again that it doesn't make much sense to put a game out on the PC at all, and reinforcing the notion that better controls should be used if one even attempts to set foot into the market.
Wouldn't that say more about their thoughts on resale than on piracy? Unfortunately buying PC games second hand has been unfeasible for a while now. I remember buying a copy of Diablo 2 back in 2001 which didn't come with a CD-key, needless to say I haven't bought a used PC game since.bagodix said:
No one thinks that publishers/developers would not simply say that it does not make sense to make games for PC if absolutely no people bought or pirated it? Trying to claim that those pirating the game are the only ones demonstrating "The pointlessness of making pc games." is just stupid. It is an argument that needs to not be made at all because the only logical way to prove that it is worthwhile to actually create PC games is to buy games regardless of their feature set or quality.
I'm honestly surprised that publishers/developers don't complain about the used game market. Here you have a crowd who have demonstrated a willingness to purchase a game at a (slightly) lower price point and yet they see none of the money in return. The effect from the publisher/developer point of view is the same as if the person pirated the game afterall. Dead Space for example only sold 1.5 million copies yet 3 million people played the game. If I were EA I'd think that was more than a little disconcerting.Heathrow said:
It's not justified, but if they simply left the dedicated servers in instead being dicks and forcing IWNET on us, (which has been rampantly hacked)A. then they wouldnt have more piracy than the usual pieces of crap who are too cheap to put there money into their hobby, considering how insanely popular it isEclectic Dreck said:
B. this whole controversy would not be here
and C. I would be playing MW2 right now
Piracy is never justified (except for maybe really old stuff that can be considered shareware), but all i have to say is karma is a *****
For the record, I didn't pirate the game, even though i really want to play it, il jsut wait til my roomate gets it for xbox
I personally wish more gamers, especially those in the PC community, voiced their protest this way, with the suggestion that those who didn't purchase let the developer know why. Any business will quickly change tactics when consumers don't purchase a product and let the business know why they didn't purchase it. As the saying goes: money talks.-Stranger- said:
Pirating the game basically gives the developer more excuses to include even worse DRM, less options, or to simply stop supporting the platform (which in my personal opinion, IW/Activision seem to be going this way with the CoD/MW franchises).
I'm having trouble seeing how it wasn't justified. Let's run through the process for a moment.FURY_007 said:
Call of Duty 4 lauches to staggering success on consoles and limited success on the PC.
IW notes a high trend of piracy on PC, which they believe has harmed their bottom line.
Historically, local anti-piracy measures are quickly bypassed. A new tactic is called for.
Since most of the game content is played online, IW settles on using servers under their control across the board. This would allow for post launch updates of the anti-piracy measures.
Internet complains.
I'm having trouble seeing just where in the process IW jumped the rails. They want to be paid for their work and wish to deny people unwilling to pay the ability to access the game. This is generally the process used in most business. For example, I don't get to eat a cheesburger from McDonald's without paying.
It seems strange that once seperated from the actual physical act (say shoplifting) theft beomces much easier to justify. Afterall, there is a virutally zero chance you will be caught and prosecuted for piracy, and since the entire crime can be commited in a few clicks of the mouse many pirates seem to readily disassociate the action piracy from it's meaning (the game is good enough to steal but not good enough to purchase).
Ugh. I can't believe you guys actually think this piracy is a good thing.
When game developers look at pirates, they don't see them as people protesting the choices of the development team. They see a bunch of greedy assholes who just don't want to pay for the games. If you want to protest the actions of a developer, then you don't buy their game. If enough people don't buy the game then that proves a point to the developer. But if a ton of people just pirate the game, all that says is that there needs to be stronger anti-piracy in video games.
When game developers look at pirates, they don't see them as people protesting the choices of the development team. They see a bunch of greedy assholes who just don't want to pay for the games. If you want to protest the actions of a developer, then you don't buy their game. If enough people don't buy the game then that proves a point to the developer. But if a ton of people just pirate the game, all that says is that there needs to be stronger anti-piracy in video games.
They do notice and they would like to get rid of it, unfortunately the people who resell games are also gaming companies's biggest distributors--people like Game Stop and Gamecrazy. This hasn't stopped Studios from pressuring these distributors to limit resale, however.Eclectic Dreck said:
Fortunately though while many people see piracy a s a heinous crime resale is widely recognized as an inalienable right. People are so used to reselling all their old books, cars and clothes that they would be outraged to hear they couldn't sell video games too.
Honestly, I don't begrudge PC developers their stringent stance against resale because resale, unlike piracy, is actually lost revenue. Here is a paying customer who would have given you money who gave it to some 3rd party distributor instead and, as we are constantly being reminded, in the world of PC gaming there are fewer sales to go around these days.
People playing it online illegally tells IW nothing: they see it as an ordinary occurrence of cheap bastards not being willing to shell out the dough for their product.
The fact that they pirate it tells IW that the only thing wrong with their product is that the price is currently too high for some people. If people abstained from the game entirely, THEN IW would see that something was wrong. As is, people pirating the game is only going to persuade IW that they've done the right thing.
The fact that they pirate it tells IW that the only thing wrong with their product is that the price is currently too high for some people. If people abstained from the game entirely, THEN IW would see that something was wrong. As is, people pirating the game is only going to persuade IW that they've done the right thing.
