1988: The Golden Age of Game Piracy

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

1988: The Golden Age of Game Piracy

These days, videogame piracy is the industry's favorite villain, but once upon a time, copying games was an innocent pastime.

Read Full Article

It's true, when I was 11, I was a notorious C64 software pirate. I traded 5.25" floppies with other kids up and down my block.

But most of the pirated games I remember having were really bad ports of NES and arcade games. I had legit copies of Epyx Games' Summer Games and Winter Games, the SSI D&D games, some early MicroProse flight sims, and Electronic Arts' Firefox, one of my favourites. I did have pirated copies of Raid Over Moscow, Saboteur, GI Joe, Archon and Archon II at some point though.

And having had the opportunity to play Archon on the C64 again recently in a retro-gaming room at FanExpo, I would buy Paul Reiche a whole round of drinks. What a great game.

I know exactly what you mean about those old hand written floppies. My dad too was a unapologetic software pirate too. It was always a really exciting time when he'd go to his home office because that meant he'd be bringing home a big stack of new games he got from his co workers. Hell, we even had copied games in my early years in elementary school too. I'm not sure if they were pirated by our teacher(s) or the school had a thumbs up to make copies or not though.

Now here's a question. Does admitting to piracy over 20 years ago go against the escapist's over zealous anti piracy moderation?

I was always copying games for the Amiga and Atari ST.

11 year old me is a hardened criminal.

Horse Porn? Was this seriously a thing one of the companies did to discourage piracy?

My friends and I used to swap games, but not in the pirated sense. And a lot of them were game carts, not floppies. It's more like, "hey, can I borrow that?" "Sure." But most of us weren't really serious gamers in the 80s. I had like five titles on the NES and a couple of games on my computer by the end of the decade.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou, because I don't know I never would. In 1988, I was 8, and would probably be pretty tempted. Back then, books were my passion. Then RPGs. It wasn't until the PS2 era that I really started scarfing down games.

Copying games for the spectrum was even easier... I used a hifi stereo with two tape decks... One I used for playing the game while I was recording on the other... Fun times...

Later when I was using floppy disks I really hated when a game came in 3 disks and when I was uncompressing it the last disk was corrupted...

Once it happen in a game that was like... 15 disks... -_-'

I think the issue here is Developers and gamers don't see eye to eye on Value and Pricing.

We want it as cheap as possible, they want it as expensive as possible.

Take black ops, I value their dlc at most at 19.99 for 20 maps.... They value it at just over 75 bucks with tax.

If you have a full group to play with 6-8 people. It gets real annoying splitting the group up just because they want so much cash for a game everyone is going to abandon for the next cod game.

I wonder what would have been more of a punch in the gut...

"Hey I made a product so many people think is interesting that thousands are downloading it!"

or

"Wow, I made a shit product that only 12 people bought and no one bothered to upload..."

Perspective.

Erin Hoffman:
1988: The Golden Age of Game Piracy

These days, videogame piracy is the industry's favorite villain, but once upon a time, copying games was an innocent pastime.

Read Full Article

It's a tough call. While any business or industry is in its "infancy," there's something to be said for "free samples." That's where shareware came from, after all. It's why supermarkets set up a table with little sausage-corndog-ice-cream-bar whatevers and hand them out for free: you want to get folks familiar with enjoying this new product.

And we can say that this early piracy was a buzz-generating machine. We could also argue, if we wanted, that development costs were so much lower back then that it wasn't quite as essential to sell a bajillion copies to make ends meet. A lot of folks, early and unproven in the growing gaming biz, were willing to eat the losses for a bit more exposure.

But how low do the numbers have to be for piracy to be "okay?" At what point does it turn the corner from "generating buzz" to "siphoning money?" It's easy for any of us to say, "It's okay, enough people buy the game that the piracy isn't going to kill us." But if we give piracy the thumbs-up, how long will that hold out? (I'm reminded of "No one's gonna buy the cow when you're givin' the milk away for free.")

As a result, I'm unsure about thinking of this early piracy as a "good thing." It's one of those bad things that can have good side effects, but it's important to remember that they are just that--side effects. Moderate smoking can ease the symptoms of ulcerative colitis, but that's hardly an endorsement of smoking as beneficial. There are other ways to ease those symptoms, just like there are other ways to get "free samples" into the hands of folks who are unsure about a game.

We, as consumers, should push to engage the publishers/developers/etc. in a dialogue about how they can best do that. And they will have a responsibility to come to the table, when that time comes. But I doubt they're going to listen while we're still trying to justify stealing.

pff... Commodore

"Piracy" on Spectrum-based platforms was as easy as playing over a audio casette/tape (which a lot of people also did at that point and it wasn't considered "evil" till later) or adding bits of sound to the end of it and trading it at school or with friends. And you'd load that software by listening to screeching noises coming out of your tape deck.

Falseprophet:
It's true, when I was 11, I was a notorious C64 software pirate. I traded 5.25" floppies with other kids up and down my block.

Goodness yes, so did I. Even learned enough coding to crack the basic protection on a few games I owned (so they'd stop sodomizing the floppy drive with their head banging). Lived in the boonies, so meeting someone else with a C64 (happened... twice?) was like Christmas all over again.

Even fixed up a nonfunctional MSD-SD2 partly so I could use the dual drive options in Fast Hack'em. (But mostly because those SD2s were hard to find, working or not!)

Had to leave my disks in storage when I moved but I took the time to make an X1541 cable and convert all my disks to D64s. It's funny, four feet worth of disks (literally, I had four disk boxes of about a foot each) didn't even come close to filling a single CD-R.

Falseprophet:
And having had the opportunity to play Archon on the C64 again recently in a retro-gaming room at FanExpo, I would buy Paul Reiche a whole round of drinks. What a great game.

I loved Archon. (Glances at username.) Never got the hang of the sequel, though.

Games have always been funny in that regard. If you want to play cards, someone brings the cards and everyone gathers around. If you want to play an online game, everyone has to buy a version of that game to play it.

All in all I have to say I agree with Valve on the topic tho.

Dexter111:
pff... Commodore

"Piracy" on Spectrum-based platforms was as easy as playing over a audio casette/tape (which a lot of people also did at that point and it wasn't considered "evil" till later) or adding bits of sound to the end of it and trading it at school or with friends. And you'd load that software by listening to screeching noises coming out of your tape deck.

And oh the humanity! When you had waited 20 minutes for your copied game to load and it didn't work... I swear I ground down my milk teeth tortured so by machines.

And here is the line that is the crux of the issue:

The actual economic impact of piracy was so intangible, so impossible to calculate accurately, that my emotional response was untempered by anything practical.

The whole "piracy" bruhaha is a bunch of people "feeling bad" that they have less money coming in than in their made up fantasy world where they have more.

Copyright infringement is not and will never be a lost sale. And everyone needs to stop thinking about it that way. The people who play pirated games either don't have money or don't want to spend it on games, and if they don't have the option to pirate they will simply do without. They aren't customers so why bother worrying about them? Why spend one thought, one unity of energy on the people who aren't customers? Why not just spend that same effort satisfying existing customers?

Great article. Very well written. I remember the egghead software down the street used to have a white bin in the back of the store with white-label, hand-written floppys in it. You didn't have to pay for these games; you could trade for them too. There was always a group of people, (mostly guys), standing around a bank of PCs trading games and using what I guess was an early version of IRC. They used to grab games for us kids and let us play...sometimes. Good memories. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

rembrandtqeinstein:
And here is the line that is the crux of the issue:

The actual economic impact of piracy was so intangible, so impossible to calculate accurately, that my emotional response was untempered by anything practical.

The whole "piracy" bruhaha is a bunch of people "feeling bad" that they have less money coming in than in their made up fantasy world where they have more.

Copyright infringement is not and will never be a lost sale. And everyone needs to stop thinking about it that way. The people who play pirated games either don't have money or don't want to spend it on games, and if they don't have the option to pirate they will simply do without. They aren't customers so why bother worrying about them? Why spend one thought, one unity of energy on the people who aren't customers? Why not just spend that same effort satisfying existing customers?

Think about it this way:
Bill has enough money to buy a single game, and there is an identical version online that he can get for free. Bill has two choices: buy the game legitimately, or get the pirated version. Any person thinking completely rationally would take the latter option. Bill's going to get the game either way, so we'll assume he got the pirated game. Since he didn't pay for the game, but would have if the free version wasn't readily available to him, the company that sells the game lost a sale they would have had. People like Bill are what has developers worried, not the minority who won't or can't spend their money on games.

I hadn't thought about it, but I was in a similar situation, so many of the games I played on our 8088 came on blank disks with the name of the game written in pen on the label.

It's strange, I remember all of those games, but it never crossed my mind to pirate games. The only time I remember getting a pirated game was when my cousin sent me a copy of X-29 Retaliator in the mail to show us what our new 80286 could do, and I was unsure if it would be right to play it. Of course, I played it, but I felt bad and I never played a pirated game again.

Er, except ROMs of the NES/SNES Final Fantasy games (I was always a PC gamer), and I've bought legitimate copies of each of those games since.

XT inc:
I think the issue here is Developers and gamers don't see eye to eye on Value and Pricing.

We want it as cheap as possible, they want it as expensive as possible.

Take black ops, I value their dlc at most at 19.99 for 20 maps.... They value it at just over 75 bucks with tax.

If you have a full group to play with 6-8 people. It gets real annoying splitting the group up just because they want so much cash for a game everyone is going to abandon for the next cod game.

As per normal the escapist manges to bring the economically ignorant. There is this thing called inflation which means that by keeping the price of games the same for 25 years actually represents a price cut of 2-3% per year. In today's money the $60 dollar price tag from 1988 would be about $100 dollars. So the gaming companies margins are being eternally squeezed so keep the price tag the same. They do this because they know if the on the shelf cost of game drifts above the $60 dollar mark the the actual money they make gets less. The increased price is more than offset by the decrease in sales. So far companies have be able to fund the vastly increasing cost of development by massively increasing sales. However in the era of $50 million development costs that is no longer enough to generate even a 4% return on investment (last time I looked actvision only made a 2.5% profit), so companies have to look to other ways of making money just to stand still.

Nice article. I was picturing myself with a case of floppies with zipped games... but then again, now that I have my own small start-up game company, the main thing is to get noticed. If you want to pirate my game, fine. If you like it, please buy it. Naive? sure. Majority of them would not buy it even if they liked it... but still, instead of fighting to stop my game from being pirated, just concentrate on marketing the game so that at least the people who buy original games, will get curious and buy it.

If my game gets 300,000 downloads illegally the first 6 months, and word spreads its a good game, and then makes like $100,000 in the next 6 months, I still would consider it a success. Even the hardcore pirates have a heart, unless I price my game at something like $50.

Note: I dont live in the US, therefore the conversion rate of the dollar actually gets me more than what a US developer wud get. Outsourcing problems? Solve piracy first.

FelixG:
I wonder what would have been more of a punch in the gut...

"Hey I made a product so many people think is interesting that thousands are downloading it!"

or

"Wow, I made a shit product that only 12 people bought and no one bothered to upload..."

Perspective.

I like how both options involve people playing the developer's hard work without paying for it...

Good article, that brought back a lot of memories.

It wasn't on the Commadore, but when I was like 6 my dad used to get copied games for an Apple eII that we had. He used to get them from a friend of his and I used to play them all the time. I remember my dad talking about how he got them a couple years ago and I called my dad a dirty pirate and all he did was laugh and told me it "was the thing you did with the eII and the Commadore."

There were a lot of floppies with labels where he wrote what the game was or program that was copied on it.

Best article on the escapist sofar this year.

For every customer there used to be alot more pirates than nowadays.

Augh, I'm so young. I've never even seen a C64, let alone played one; the Sega Genesis was the first console I played consistently back when I was 4 (1997), soon followed by the Playstation 1.

As for piracy, I never lived in this "golden age" and have never pirated games. Stealing is stealing as far as I'm concerned, as games are a luxury and are ultimately unnecessary in daily life. You want to play games? Pay for them. Otherwise, deal without the luxury.

Dexter111:
pff... Commodore

"Piracy" on Spectrum-based platforms was as easy as playing over a audio casette/tape (which a lot of people also did at that point and it wasn't considered "evil" till later) or adding bits of sound to the end of it and trading it at school or with friends. And you'd load that software by listening to screeching noises coming out of your tape deck.

The Commodore had good games though ;)

Ah, the first console wars....I remember them well.

Very nice and interesting article.

I thought about what is the difference (percentage wise) between pirated amount of software today and 10/15/20 years ago compared to the amount of computers (and maybe even people).

Piracy will be a hot topic for a long time, and both sides has their points, witch makes it a really interesting debate. And a fun one to dip my dirty fingers in to.

I remember those days quite clearly . . . hell, I even remeber there were shops where you could go to rent early C64/PC games (i.e. Software Hogs) . . . there was a lot of software copying, then . . .

But, then there was the shareware - devs trying to release "demos" of their titles, in the hopes that users would play them, like them, and buy the full version. Shareware was still around as late as '98 (quake, Duke3D, Quake2 just to name a few had shareware versions), and demos continued through into the mid 2000s . . .

Now, we have almost no shareware, and no demos . . .

Dastardly:
We, as consumers, should push to engage the publishers/developers/etc. in a dialogue about how they can best do that. And they will have a responsibility to come to the table, when that time comes. But I doubt they're going to listen while we're still trying to justify stealing.

And why is this the responsibility of the consumer rather than the publishers/developers?

You have several major publishers. Heck, let's just take EA and ActiVision, the two of them alone are giants enough to move that mountain. You seriously expect and even think it a reasonable idea that the millions of consumers, who have no real contact across them as a whole, be the ones to make the effort to work together and establish that dialogue? On the flipside, the companies have active communication both within themselves, with the studios and even with other studios and are not just aware, but often even have people put in place that can tell them these things as professionals.

Are you starting to see what a monumental and utterly impossible effort you're tasking the consumers with, when giving that same task to the publishers/developers is comparatively nearly insignificant?

imperialreign:
I remember those days quite clearly . . . hell, I even remeber there were shops where you could go to rent early C64/PC games (i.e. Software Hogs) . . . there was a lot of software copying, then . . .

But, then there was the shareware - devs trying to release "demos" of their titles, in the hopes that users would play them, like them, and buy the full version. Shareware was still around as late as '98 (quake, Duke3D, Quake2 just to name a few had shareware versions), and demos continued through into the mid 2000s . . .

Now, we have almost no shareware, and no demos . . .

I never understand why there's no demos anymore.

Are they afraid they'll lost all their "sucker" clients (you know, the guys who wouldn't have buy it if they knew for what they were paying for...) ?
Or are games nowadays so heavy and complex that you couldn't offer only a part of it without giving too much of the product ? (I doubt it...)

There's a lot of games I've bought after "testing" it (one way or another) and a lot I wouldn't have bought if I could have played it before (Master of Orion 3 or Might and Magic 9, for example).

A game "lemon law" should exist :D

Fawxy:
Stealing is stealing as far as I'm concerned, as games are a luxury and are ultimately unnecessary in daily life. You want to play games? Pay for them. Otherwise, deal without the luxury.

QFT. My sentiments exactly. "Because everyone's doing it" is not any kind of excuse.

nerd51075:

Think about it this way:
Bill has enough money to buy a single game, and there is an identical version online that he can get for free. Bill has two choices: buy the game legitimately, or get the pirated version. Any person thinking completely rationally would take the latter option. Bill's going to get the game either way, so we'll assume he got the pirated game. Since he didn't pay for the game, but would have if the free version wasn't readily available to him, the company that sells the game lost a sale they would have had. People like Bill are what has developers worried, not the minority who won't or can't spend their money on games.

Are you sure that the latter are the MINORITY?

If you think about it, most people in Bill's situation would already see THREE different choices, the third being not to play the game AT ALL. Or rather, there would be millions of choices to spend the money on, and millions of other things to be enjoyed for free, instead.

You were right that Bill would take the path of least resistence. But reality is not a closed microeconomical diagram, with only 2 copies of a game, one for $0, and one for $60, where the former is the path of least resistence, and locking it would force Bill to take the latter option.

In your scenario, Bill has no moral issues with piracy, yet apparently, there is a specific game that he desires to get right now, even if he has to pay money for it, if there is no other solution. That's a rather specific devoted, fannish behavior. Even among people who pay for games, very few are determined to get a specific game, most of them just want to get the best value for their money, wherever they hope to find it.

The pirates who already know that they can get free entertainment, and don't feel guilty about it, are into gaming exactly BECAUSE it's free. They are freeloaders. If a console would be uncrackable, pirates simply wouldn't buy that console, after all, there are others that are crackable, and from their point of view, those give much more entertainment for a smaller price.

Even if all of gaming would be piracy-protected, they would probably just stop gaming: after all, who wants to pay $60 for games, when there are loads of great films, books, anime, music, and comic books to be downloaded for completely free?

Vrach:
And why is this the responsibility of the consumer rather than the publishers/developers?

It's unfortunately the way capitalism works. Demand speaks louder than supply... but the "demand" side of the equation has long been intimidated by the amount of money (and thus media time) the "supply" side has. As consumers, we tend to behave as though we have no choices, rather than exercising those that we do.

If you want publishers to listen, you stop buying their products. If enough people do it, it makes them take notice. If not enough people do, it may just be that this publisher isn't the one for you... but someone else will come along and try to win your dollar, your way.

That is a dialogue-via-dollars, and that's what I mean when I say "dialogue." We are telling them we won't buy these products without certain conditions (more demos, lower prices, whatever). Then they'll ask why (surveys, market research, etc.) and we'll tell them through our buying behavior. Or they'll just try new stuff until they find what works, if they're the trial-and-error sort.

This dialogue gets interrupted, however, when we allow or attempt to justify piracy. That tells the publisher, "The reason we're not buying your product is because we want it for free, and we can get it for free through piracy." That's not a reasonable way to begin a dialogue, but that's what our behavior as consumers is saying. There's no way they can compete with free, so they simply try to shut the door harder on piracy. Piracy does not send publishers a message that in any way helps consumers.

Now, if you simply don't buy the product, and you also don't pirate it, you're sending a better message: "I'm not buying your product because there is something about the product I feel needs changing." When they stop seeing money, they're going to look for reasons why--and if "piracy" doesn't show up at the top of the list, they'll actually be forced to look at something else.

Are you starting to see what a monumental and utterly impossible effort you're tasking the consumers with, when giving that same task to the publishers/developers is comparatively nearly insignificant?

But it's not that monumental: "Don't buy it, but also don't steal it."

Good Article. But now Im off. I have a book to pirate ;)

Longest post ever.

Alterego-X:

nerd51075:

Think about it this way:
Bill has enough money to buy a single game, and there is an identical version online that he can get for free. Bill has two choices: buy the game legitimately, or get the pirated version. Any person thinking completely rationally would take the latter option. Bill's going to get the game either way, so we'll assume he got the pirated game. Since he didn't pay for the game, but would have if the free version wasn't readily available to him, the company that sells the game lost a sale they would have had. People like Bill are what has developers worried, not the minority who won't or can't spend their money on games.

Are you sure that the latter are the MINORITY?

If you think about it, most people in Bill's situation would already see THREE different choices, the third being not to play the game AT ALL. Or rather, there would be millions of choices to spend the money on, and millions of other things to be enjoyed for free, instead.

You were right that Bill would take the path of least resistence. But reality is not a closed microeconomical diagram, with only 2 copies of a game, one for $0, and one for $60, where the former is the path of least resistence, and locking it would force Bill to take the latter option.

In your scenario, Bill has no moral issues with piracy, yet apparently, there is a specific game that he desires to get right now, even if he has to pay money for it, if there is no other solution. That's a rather specific devoted, fannish behavior. Even among people who pay for games, very few are determined to get a specific game, most of them just want to get the best value for their money, wherever they hope to find it.

The pirates who already know that they can get free entertainment, and don't feel guilty about it, are into gaming exactly BECAUSE it's free. They are freeloaders. If a console would be uncrackable, pirates simply wouldn't buy that console, after all, there are others that are crackable, and from their point of view, those give much more entertainment for a smaller price.

Even if all of gaming would be piracy-protected, they would probably just stop gaming: after all, who wants to pay $60 for games, when there are loads of great films, books, anime, music, and comic books to be downloaded for completely free?

Point-by-point:
I'm as sure they're a minority as you are sure that they aren't.

The third option has no effect on the decision made by Bill: it is less desirable than either of the two options I presented, and thus is irrelevant.

Reality isn't a microeconomical diagram, but many decisions with what people do with their money can be reduced to one without sacrificing much accuracy, this is not an exception.

While the moral implications of pirating exist with most people, but it clearly isn't too important to someone willing to pirate. Those who are morally opposed to pirating simply don't do it, and thus are irrelevant to the conversation.

The game doesn't need to be a particular game. Bill thinks a game might be good enough to buy, but he doesn't feel like paying his money on his guess.

The best value for Bill's money is in the pirated game anyway, so that argument is invalid.

A key principle of economics is that people think at the margin. Most anti-piracy developments aren't designed to outright eliminate pirates, but they exist to try to get people considering piracy, like Bill, to side with the publishers rather than the pirates.

I simply don't agree you about pirates being into gaming because it is free for them. That's a matter of personal opinion, and we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Piracy can't be eliminated. There will always be holes in the coding of games that allow people to bypass any security measures, but if we assumed that all games were absolutely un-pirate-able, people who are pirates will probably start buying games. This goes back to my belief that more pirates are like Bill, and only pirate because it is easier for them to do so.

Dastardly:

Vrach:
And why is this the responsibility of the consumer rather than the publishers/developers?

It's unfortunately the way capitalism works. Demand speaks louder than supply... but the "demand" side of the equation has long been intimidated by the amount of money (and thus media time) the "supply" side has. As consumers, we tend to behave as though we have no choices, rather than exercising those that we do.

If you want publishers to listen, you stop buying their products. If enough people do it, it makes them take notice. If not enough people do, it may just be that this publisher isn't the one for you... but someone else will come along and try to win your dollar, your way.

That is a dialogue-via-dollars, and that's what I mean when I say "dialogue." We are telling them we won't buy these products without certain conditions (more demos, lower prices, whatever). Then they'll ask why (surveys, market research, etc.) and we'll tell them through our buying behavior. Or they'll just try new stuff until they find what works, if they're the trial-and-error sort.

This dialogue gets interrupted, however, when we allow or attempt to justify piracy. That tells the publisher, "The reason we're not buying your product is because we want it for free, and we can get it for free through piracy." That's not a reasonable way to begin a dialogue, but that's what our behavior as consumers is saying. There's no way they can compete with free, so they simply try to shut the door harder on piracy. Piracy does not send publishers a message that in any way helps consumers.

Now, if you simply don't buy the product, and you also don't pirate it, you're sending a better message: "I'm not buying your product because there is something about the product I feel needs changing." When they stop seeing money, they're going to look for reasons why--and if "piracy" doesn't show up at the top of the list, they'll actually be forced to look at something else.

Are you starting to see what a monumental and utterly impossible effort you're tasking the consumers with, when giving that same task to the publishers/developers is comparatively nearly insignificant?

But it's not that monumental: "Don't buy it, but also don't steal it."

I agree, Dastardly.

Dastardly:

Are you starting to see what a monumental and utterly impossible effort you're tasking the consumers with, when giving that same task to the publishers/developers is comparatively nearly insignificant?

But it's not that monumental: "Don't buy it, but also don't steal it."

Calling it stealing aside, are you under the impression that if a single person were to listen to you, that something would change? Or are you one of those people who think people magically follow one another's actions and a single person listening to you can turn into something actually significant or worse yet one of those clamouring "every person matters, even when the picture is over a million times bigger than him"?

This is what I'm talking about. What you're asking of the consumer is for tens, if not hundreds of million or more of them to act hive mind and listen to your advice. In what imaginary universe do you see this working?

To give you an analogy, have you watched V for Vendetta? Well, you're basically asking for the ending scene. Except without V existing in the entire movie and without actually being able to speak to all the people at once. What you're asking, is indeed, less possible than an achievement in a hero movie, if that movie didn't have the hero.

Again, starting to see how ludicrous that is?

Now once more, the consumers have no real connection. Yeah, you have forums, pirating sites comment sections etc. but this is not the connection one requires to pull off something that you're suggesting. It's quite literally impossible to achieve the communication necessary for this to happen.

Publishers/developers however, have a full on connection. First off, they're huge bodies consisting of thousands of people to begin with, but also, they have the communication to just about everyone involved. In fact, they're so well connected that you can see a representative from pretty much every single one of them at one (E3) or possibly more conventions every single year. These conventions even have panels where such an issue could easily be raised.

Where the consumers would need to find some magical way to make an attempt to address this issue, the developers can just get up on the podium and start a discussion whenever they like. They have far more influence as it is and they have the means, the knowledge and the right people, properly educated, who could easily counsel them on such issues.

edit: Oh and another thing. You say you understand a conversation needs to start between the two, aye? Tell me then, do you think yourself above and beyond the entire game industry? Do you think that between all the people working there, including people who have the university level education on the subject, not a single one of them realises this fact?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here