Jimquisition: SimShitty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Strazdas:

Treblaine:

Novuake:
What everyone seems to be missing(and yes I am aware this is a far off concern), is that in lets say 5 years time when EA goes bankrupt or just decides to end support for the game, what happens then? Our 60$ goes down the drain?

That doesn't even have to happen, they could simply decide to not spend any more money on it.

Microsoft still exist, yet they pull server support for Halo 2. And that's a huge game. Slightly lesser games rarely have server support longer than 4 years.

Cod hasn't exactly had server support pulled, but they have given up any kind of maintenance. COD WaW is utterly inundated with hackers and devs are doing nothing to seal security breaches that allow these hackers in.

4 years is long, a long of RTSes i play dropped server support after 2-3 years and community had to mod the game to allow user-created lobby to exist, and some poor folk is paying for it. problem is, some of thse games are dfesigned in such a way that you can play via direct IP without these server services, which is bull, but is not a new thing. gaming is moving very fast and dropping server support is nothing new and is to be expected. you do not buy a game for 60 years. you buy a 5 years license to play it (or whatever years they decide to let it run).

F#>k that hogwash, I play games YEARS after they are release. I am a nostalgic one, I have a dedicated Win98 machine for some older games that just will not work on later systems. Anyway... DRM has to go, but it won't and that makes me sad.

Thank Him for Jim!
Next elections I am voting Jim for God.

Novuake:

F#>k that hogwash, I play games YEARS after they are release. I am a nostalgic one, I have a dedicated Win98 machine for some older games that just will not work on later systems. Anyway... DRM has to go, but it won't and that makes me sad.

Oh, i do play games long after, and thats how i discovered those peoblems. want to play empire earth? sorry, we clsoed servers down in 2008.

the only game i was not able to make run on my win7 system was Scarface, and that was because my graphic card somehow magically didnt support the old pixel shader technique the game used. appears to be a windowns issue though as forums claim it woud work on XP, but i didnt want to play the game enough to emulate xp at that time.

Nice episode, but I disagree with the "wait a week or two"... sorry, but what's the point? You're giving EA $50 either way. At least wait until the game hits the bargain bin.

I, for one, just noticed I had a huge itch to play some city builder game and reinstalled Sim City 4. To be honest, I don't see a reason to play the new Sim City anymore. Yes, the graphics are better and I'm sure the new simulation engine is neat, but smaller cities forcing you to develop an entire region just to get something going and other stupid design ideas (like the street size determining how densely a zone can be populated) make me actually prefer Sim City 4 without even playing the new one.

matches81:
Nice episode, but I disagree with the "wait a week or two"... sorry, but what's the point? You're giving EA $50 either way. At least wait until the game hits the bargain bin.

Actually, hitting the initial sales number makes a huge difference. It will actually scare them and could potentially be more successful than our attempts at boycotts have been. Someone telling you not to buy your favorite series is an ass. Someone telling you to wait a couple weeks in protest is being savy. Those first couple of weeks are their most important weeks and you stand to benefit a lot from waiting. You avoid the early bugs and frustrations, you send a message, and you get to know more fully if the game is a bomb or not.

To get your message across to big producers like this, you have to think like them. The stuff that scares them is bad PR and bad sales.

Aircross:

I'm glad I didn't get it.

*installs Sim City 3000 Unlimited and Sim City 4*

I'm glad I did. It's a good game.

That doesn't exonerate EA from the deserved blame for the disaster, but once that's over with, it's actually an enjoyable experience.

Costia:
Sure they will be valued and praised and given great jobs, but unfortunately they wont get paid.
Please describe me how an artist is going to get paid if his creations are available for everyone for free. Where is the money to pay them will be coming from? Do you expect them to live on donations?
And why restrict this only to copyrights? Being an artist is a job like any other. Everyone should be doing their jobs for free and relying on the praise and social value they get from a job well done.

We don't need to resort to hypotheticals here. There are numerous examples of companies making mad money in the face (Often because of) their creation being copied frequently.

Also, nobody said anything about "free". Copyright prevents people from copying things. It doesn't facilitate the ability to charge money for software.

Plus, even if it did ensure more money for artists (which it doesn't) and even if it wasn't something that destroyed artists's ability to innovate (which it is), then is still would not be justified. Just because you want artists to be richer doesn't mean it's okay to extract that money from peaceful people at the gun-point of the court system.

RicoADF:
Copyright and IP/trademarks are 2 different things. Copyright as its supose to be used is a good thing. its ment to ensure the creator gets paid for their work. US corporate system screws that over though.

Not to nitpick, but copyrights and trademarks are both subsets of 'intellectual property', or IP.

How does the US corporate system screw over the intentions of copyright? Are you referring to how they're extending the term of the copyrights nigh indefinitely?

shadow skill:
1. Jobs of any kind are not actually connected to survival. That we humans have a fetish for this kind of thing, is our own problem a purely mental one at that.

2. The artist is in possession of a skill, the skill is valuable because not everyone has it. The productions requiring said skill were never the thing of value as far as the artist was concerned, his or her skill was.
An artist who thinks that his or her productions are the thing to monetize is simply doing it wrong. It is not the job of consumers of his or her productions (Commodities that are subject to mass production.) to shield him or her from this by kneecapping themselves.

1. Here's one episode in a short web series explaining why jobs aid in prosperity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yOHjRThM_o The same principles show how humans are able to survive in such great numbers thanks to jobs, or more accurately, the specialized division of labor.

2. Definitely. If you're talented at making games, and you want to make a living with it, then you should be coming up with a strategy that doesn't involve victimizing peaceful people whose 'crime' was making copies of things.

Strazdas:

Novuake:

F#>k that hogwash, I play games YEARS after they are release. I am a nostalgic one, I have a dedicated Win98 machine for some older games that just will not work on later systems. Anyway... DRM has to go, but it won't and that makes me sad.

Oh, i do play games long after, and thats how i discovered those peoblems. want to play empire earth? sorry, we clsoed servers down in 2008.

the only game i was not able to make run on my win7 system was Scarface, and that was because my graphic card somehow magically didnt support the old pixel shader technique the game used. appears to be a windowns issue though as forums claim it woud work on XP, but i didnt want to play the game enough to emulate xp at that time.

Yeah I found the same. Windows ends up being the issue. Dungeon Keeper 2 was one of the worst for me. JUST REFUSED to work with an AMD card and Win 7 64 bit. That is when I decided its time for a dedicated machine.

Lord_Jaroh:

dbenoy:
This sort of DRM is the solution to "piracy". It's the only truly effective scheme. They take a significant chunk of the game (in this case, the actual town simulation algorithms), and don't actually give it to you in the box. They keep that part on their own servers where they can control it.

No way to 'crack' that. Perfect protection from copying.

1 - The calculations aren't done server side, they are all actually on your computer.
2 - Pirates are not your customers, so don't design your game around them.
3 - If I buy the game, Do not saddle me with DRM designed to keep pirates at bay. I am not a pirate by the simple fact that I bought your game!
4 - Piracy is not a problem. It is a scapegoat.

1 - I stand corrected. I looked into it and that seems to be the case.

2 & 3 - I can understand EA's reasoning though. Theoretically, they might make more sales if their DRM is good enough. It's false to claim that 0% of people who 'pirate' the game would otherwise have purchased the game, just like it's false to claim 100%. The question becomes whether the customers gained from the DRM being effective exceeds the customers lost from the DRM being obtrusive.

Although, there's something to be said for sacrificing sales in the short term, in order to build good will from your customers in the long term. Plus it's nice to not be an asshole. So I would recommend against intrusive DRM in all circumstances.

I, for one, will either "pirate" this game if the DRM fails, or not play it at all if the DRM succeeds, because EA are being assholes, and not just about this, so I'm one case example of the DRM doing more harm than good.

4 - Copyright needs to be abolished entirely, so that scapegoat no longer exists.

Costia:

Ashoten:
Yes they should rely on donations......what did you expect me to back down? People can broker resources when they realize the value of their product. There are plenty of people on crowd funding, you-tube, blip, and the internet in general that make a decent living off of donations. Because the reward motivation system for human creativity is at its peek when a person is working for the sake of being creative. Rewards actually diminish the overall product when profit becomes the objective. Capitalism works up to a point but it also needs to be reigned in or only the wealthy will have creative freedom.

Did you ever live off donations? It's really nice of you to suggest other's should live like that. I suggest you try it yourself and see how it goes.
Not only corporations are greedy. People are greedy too. If you can get something for free, most people won't donate. Just look at Wikipedia. Everyone appreciates him, everybody likes Wikipedia and values the effort. Still, 99.9% don't donate a cent. The guy needs to beg for money to keep that service up and running.
I think artists should get paid. They shouldn't need to beg for money to buy food and pay their rent.
Another thing is reliability. When artists are getting paid for a job, they get paid even if the product fails. Remember that making a game is not a one man opertaion. An artist might invest 3-5 years of his life to make assets for a game, and then get nothing from donations because the programmer or story writer screwed up or people simply didn't like the game.
And it seems you ignored the second part. why only artists?

Donations are one option, but there are others.

Crowd funding was mentioned as well, but those aren't really donations. That's just a job like any other where money is exchanged for labor. And it gets around the perceived problem of the free rider, because even a greedy person will contribute if it's the difference between a product existing or not.

Also, you don't have to rely on donations at all when you offer services (or other products). For example, creative people frequently sell t-shirts and doodads thanks exclusively to the popularity of their artistic creations.

As for services, many creators and distributors operate on a service model. For example Valve with their source engine games, and Blizzard with World of Warcraft, and RedHat Linux, etc (numerous examples) offering a constant stream of updates and new content in exchange for a subscription fee, which doesn't rely on copyright at all.

These aren't hypothetical examples. Copyright is not necessary and may even be worse for trying to make money (Unless you want to release high budget shovelware or just lean back while royalty cheques roll in, without continuing to create and innovate. You need copyright in those cases.)

So that's how copyright doesn't help anyone.. let's look at how it hurts! I can't score a game I create with popular music, not even 'Happy Birthday', because there's an apparatus of lawyers looking to extract money from me if I try. I can't sample imagery from other elements of pop culture, I can't even create an entirely unique original work that happens to be a sequel to some copyrighted game.

Take a look at all the public domain stories that got turned into classics, constantly getting reimagined, like Alice in Wonderland, and Snow White, and such. Copyright prevents that activity. Just imagine how many amazing re-imaginings that have been lost forever thanks to copyright. Chances are you have a game that you loved that got cancelled, and now thanks to the legal force of copyright, that will never be remedied.

And let's say you accidentally include something that's been copyrighted. How am I supposed to know that the 'I Have a Dream' speech is still copyrighted and I will be sued if you include portions of it in my game? Not to mention copyright's even nastier cousin, the software patent. This creates a 'chilling effect' where people are terrified to make their art. The first time they get a cease and desist letter that will be it, and humanity loses one more talented creator thanks to intellectual property.

So, let's say theoretically that copyright was some sort of benefit to creators, and that somehow it managed to not be a destructive force against creativity. (Hypothetically of course, because that's exactly what happens). It STILL isn't right to use them.

Just because you feel that money should be put into the hands of creative people doesn't justify the use of a system that extracts that money from peaceful people whose only "crime" is making copies. Your desire to favor game makers with riches doesn't entitle you to use the force of the court system to extract those riches from others. If you want them to have money, then give them YOUR money.

Think about what happens to people who refuse to pay when the copyright system tries to extract money from them. They may be thrown out of their house, or even locked away, and if they refuse to go when they're locked away, they could even get shot in the process. Are you willing to say that it's justifiable to use the threat of death on people just to fund your favorite game franchise?

It's easy to say that kind of reaction is justified if someone is a murderer or a rapist, but for copying games? Really?

dbenoy:
1 - The calculations aren't done server side, they are all actually on your computer.
2 - Pirates are not your customers, so don't design your game around them.
3 - If I buy the game, Do not saddle me with DRM designed to keep pirates at bay. I am not a pirate by the simple fact that I bought your game!
4 - Piracy is not a problem. It is a scapegoat.

1. The calculations aren't done server side for solo games. I'll point out though that if you count software verification and checking for cheater as calculations then it technically does do "calculations". I wouldn't be suprised if Maxis worded it this way on purpose.

2. Not true. Pirates are lost revenue opportunities and the vast majority of pirates aren't the ones who actually rip the games and make them available. If you prevent the ones who rip them to make them available then the other pirates who just use them to get games are now only able to get it legally. That ipso facto makes non-customers into customers. Don't forget that some people download games illegally for no other reason other than they can.

3. The DRM verifies that you did buy the game. There's no other way to verify that other than by looking. In the old days this wasn't done at all until piracy became rampant and it was only done once until key codes were easily findable online. Developers do deserve to make their money and to protect their goods from being stolen, but I think we all agree that always on is the mallet swatting the fly (once a week checkins, for example, should suffice). So your comment doesn't make sense. They cannot determine that you bought the game without DRM and they don't know if they shouldn't saddle you with DRM unless they use DRM. So... yeah.

4. Piracy is both a problem and a scapegoat. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Surely I can't be the only one that imagines Jim watching this news unfold over a glass of wine and classical music playing in the background.

dbenoy:


We don't need to resort to hypotheticals here. There are numerous examples of companies making mad money in the face (Often because of) their creation being copied frequently.

Also, nobody said anything about "free". Copyright prevents people from copying things. It doesn't facilitate the ability to charge money for software.

Plus, even if it did ensure more money for artists (which it doesn't) and even if it wasn't something that destroyed artists's ability to innovate (which it is), then is still would not be justified. Just because you want artists to be richer doesn't mean it's okay to extract that money from peaceful people at the gun-point of the court system.

First paragraph:
First, give me those examples. Second "there are companies" doesn't mean that most of the industry can do it. It can work well with certain type of games and media. But it will kill most of it.
For games it will make micro-transaction based, online only games the norm. And while i like TF2 , I don't want games like Skyrim to use this model. But without copyright protection this will be the only reliable model to pay the artist's rent.
Second paragraph:
It does imply free because if you can copy it without having to pay the creator. If you can get it for free without breaking the law or doing something for it - it's free even you can choose to pay for it.
Third paragraph:
So basically you just don't want to pay. It's okay for artist to beg for money and live on donations as long as you get your paycheck elsewhere and get all the games you want (which required a lot of hard work) for free.
And again, you ignore my question.
Why are artists special? why should you be payed with a paycheck and they shouldn't?

dbenoy:


Donations are one option, but there are others.

Crowd funding was mentioned as well, but those aren't really donations. That's just a job like any other where money is exchanged for labor. And it gets around the perceived problem of the free rider, because even a greedy person will contribute if it's the difference between a product existing or not.

Also, you don't have to rely on donations at all when you offer services (or other products). For example, creative people frequently sell t-shirts and doodads thanks exclusively to the popularity of their artistic creations.

As for services, many creators and distributors operate on a service model. For example Valve with their source engine games, and Blizzard with World of Warcraft, and RedHat Linux, etc (numerous examples) offering a constant stream of updates and new content in exchange for a subscription fee, which doesn't rely on copyright at all.

These aren't hypothetical examples. Copyright is not necessary and may even be worse for trying to make money (Unless you want to release high budget shovelware or just lean back while royalty cheques roll in, without continuing to create and innovate. You need copyright in those cases.)

So that's how copyright doesn't help anyone.. let's look at how it hurts! I can't score a game I create with popular music, not even 'Happy Birthday', because there's an apparatus of lawyers looking to extract money from me if I try. I can't sample imagery from other elements of pop culture, I can't even create an entirely unique original work that happens to be a sequel to some copyrighted game.

Take a look at all the public domain stories that got turned into classics, constantly getting reimagined, like Alice in Wonderland, and Snow White, and such. Copyright prevents that activity. Just imagine how many amazing re-imaginings that have been lost forever thanks to copyright. Chances are you have a game that you loved that got cancelled, and now thanks to the legal force of copyright, that will never be remedied.

And let's say you accidentally include something that's been copyrighted. How am I supposed to know that the 'I Have a Dream' speech is still copyrighted and I will be sued if you include portions of it in my game? Not to mention copyright's even nastier cousin, the software patent. This creates a 'chilling effect' where people are terrified to make their art. The first time they get a cease and desist letter that will be it, and humanity loses one more talented creator thanks to intellectual property.

So, let's say theoretically that copyright was some sort of benefit to creators, and that somehow it managed to not be a destructive force against creativity. (Hypothetically of course, because that's exactly what happens). It STILL isn't right to use them.

Just because you feel that money should be put into the hands of creative people doesn't justify the use of a system that extracts that money from peaceful people whose only "crime" is making copies. Your desire to favor game makers with riches doesn't entitle you to use the force of the court system to extract those riches from others. If you want them to have money, then give them YOUR money.

Think about what happens to people who refuse to pay when the copyright system tries to extract money from them. They may be thrown out of their house, or even locked away, and if they refuse to go when they're locked away, they could even get shot in the process. Are you willing to say that it's justifiable to use the threat of death on people just to fund your favorite game franchise?

It's easy to say that kind of reaction is justified if someone is a murderer or a rapist, but for copying games? Really?

Crowd funding is just like a pre-order: you are paying for an unknown. While this model is getting a lot of media attention - if you look at the numbers - it doesn't produce much income, and it is still as unreliable as donations. Do try to crowd fund your own project before you suggest the whole world should do it. Like living on donations - its a lot harder than you think it is.
The reason they can sell T-shirts is that copyrights exist. Lets say i make a popular game, now anyone can print t-shirts whith my characters logo's etc. So what will happen is that the guy who runs the t-shirt factory will sell them directly to stores. why should he sell me, and then let me sell to the stores? By selling directly to the stores he will get my cut of the profit. The reason merchandise is profitable now is copyrights. If i made a game - only i am allowed to sell game-related merchandise , or sell the rights.
Sure, subscription games will work. Free to play will work. So whatever already works now will continue to work. It's just that everything else will collapse.
How does copyright help sell junk? If it's junk why would anyone pay for it in the first place? If the royalty checks roll in - it means whatever was copyrighted is useful. (Don't confuse it with patents. That system totally is broken, at least for non medical stuff)
Please don't confuse patent law with copyright. They protect different things in different ways.
How would you go about accidentally including copyrighted stuff? It's like accidentally building a house in an area that isn't yours.
When you create some thing - you know how it was created - because you did it. Did you put there something that wasn't done by you? If yes - you need to make sure it isn't copyrighted. You can't verify? don't use it.Very simple.

The last paragraph is just silly. I could say this as well:
Think about what happens to people who refuse to pay when the local supermarket tries to extract money from them. They may be thrown out of their house, or even locked away, and if they refuse to go when they're locked away, they could even get shot in the process. Are you willing to say that it's justifiable to use the threat of death on people just to fund your favorite food franchise?

Can you explain how copyright kills creativity? Like a concrete example? The way I see it, it actually encourages creativity. When you aren't allowed to copy someone else's solution\idea the law forces you to innovate - to make something new of your own. Without copyright, most people would just use whatever somebody else already done. So I thinkk that it slows progress down, but encourages innovation.

What's the point of having two links that lead to the same video anyway?

No seriously, why?

Costia:

First paragraph:
First, give me those examples. Second "there are companies" doesn't mean that most of the industry can do it. It can work well with certain type of games and media. But it will kill most of it.
For games it will make micro-transaction based, online only games the norm. And while i like TF2 , I don't want games like Skyrim to use this model. But without copyright protection this will be the only reliable model to pay the artist's rent.
Second paragraph:
It does imply free because if you can copy it without having to pay the creator. If you can get it for free without breaking the law or doing something for it - it's free even you can choose to pay for it.
Third paragraph:
So basically you just don't want to pay. It's okay for artist to beg for money and live on donations as long as you get your paycheck elsewhere and get all the games you want (which required a lot of hard work) for free.
And again, you ignore my question.
Why are artists special? why should you be payed with a paycheck and they shouldn't?

"Some businesses would have trouble in my opinion" is not a justification for copyright. People who make games are much better at figuring out how to make it profitable than you or I, and they'll find a way. I've given a multitude of examples of it happening already. Microtransactions are only one model that already exists, and who knows how many don't exist yet.

Thankfully for me this is a winning battle :) People already act like copyright doesn't exist, so businesses will either need to adapt to that or die, so the survival of business in the face of copyright abolition is a moot point. It's going down that road no matter what the law says. Now it's time to abolish copyright entirely and stop the harm it's doing.

As for not wanting to pay, what's with the ad hominem? My position is correct whether I'm a greedy prick who never pays a cent to artists or I'm the most generous person in the world. And, if you want to evoke sympathy for artists, why not the ones whose careers are destroyed by intellectual property?

waj9876:
Think about what happens to people who refuse to pay when the local supermarket tries to extract money from them. They may be thrown out of their house, or even locked away, and if they refuse to go when they're locked away, they could even get shot in the process. Are you willing to say that it's justifiable to use the threat of death on people just to fund your favorite food franchise?

Well there would be a symmetry there :) If someone takes money from you by force, they can't complain when you take money from them by force. There's already force involved. It's not being introduced by the anti-theft laws.

Likewise, if someone copies your art, they can't complain when you copy their art.

But, copyright has nothing to do with that symmetry. It's pure corporate welfare, extracting money from peaceful people and putting it in the hands of a favored industry.

Novuake:

Strazdas:

Novuake:

F#>k that hogwash, I play games YEARS after they are release. I am a nostalgic one, I have a dedicated Win98 machine for some older games that just will not work on later systems. Anyway... DRM has to go, but it won't and that makes me sad.

Oh, i do play games long after, and thats how i discovered those peoblems. want to play empire earth? sorry, we clsoed servers down in 2008.

the only game i was not able to make run on my win7 system was Scarface, and that was because my graphic card somehow magically didnt support the old pixel shader technique the game used. appears to be a windowns issue though as forums claim it woud work on XP, but i didnt want to play the game enough to emulate xp at that time.

Yeah I found the same. Windows ends up being the issue. Dungeon Keeper 2 was one of the worst for me. JUST REFUSED to work with an AMD card and Win 7 64 bit. That is when I decided its time for a dedicated machine.

AMDs, especially older models, were known for some compatibility issues in gaming. they claim they fixed that but its still up for debate. However lately i been using a stragey of "does not run? ok, ill just go grab another game of the list of games i want to play when i have time, which is over 100 games long".

dbenoy:

"Some businesses would have trouble in my opinion" is not a justification for copyright. People who make games are much better at figuring out how to make it profitable than you or I, and they'll find a way. I've given a multitude of examples of it happening already. Microtransactions are only one model that already exists, and who knows how many don't exist yet.

Thankfully for me this is a winning battle :) People already act like copyright doesn't exist, so businesses will either need to adapt to that or die, so the survival of business in the face of copyright abolition is a moot point. It's going down that road no matter what the law says. Now it's time to abolish copyright entirely and stop the harm it's doing.

As for not wanting to pay, what's with the ad hominem? My position is correct whether I'm a greedy prick who never pays a cent to artists or I'm the most generous person in the world. And, if you want to evoke sympathy for artists, why not the ones whose careers are destroyed by intellectual property?

It was a counter argument to your post. Not my justification for copyright. So far you said that artists will have no trouble and even thrive if copyright is abolished. Now you acknowledge that people will get hurt. The industry will have to adapt - and it's going to be a hard process for everyone. Artists aren't just going to be fine - it will take a lot of effort.That's all I wanted to say with that paragraph.
The ad hominem was because it looks like not wanting to pay is your only argument.
The question wasn't meant to evoke sympathy. i want a serious answer to this: Why are artists special? why should you be payed with a paycheck and they shouldn't?
My justification to copyright is simple: If I made it - it's mine. since it's mine it's my decision what to do with it and not anyone else's. Doesn't matter if it is tangible or not.
The ad hominem was because so far everything you said leads to "i don't want to pay" and "people are getting hurt by copyright"
Could you summarize your reasons in a sentence or 2?
Shouldn't I be able to own the things I create? Why all the stuff I make should be free for all?

canadamus_prime:
EA's logic is kind of backwards. If they were really afraid of us, you'd think they'd be doing everything they could to appease us.

Or they would be setting up a system that gave them so much control that they felt they could get away with anything.

not sure if anyone saw this but Sim City made Fox News, www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/03/13/simcity-pr-nightmare-escalates/?intcmp=features

dbenoy:

waj9876:
Think about what happens to people who refuse to pay when the local supermarket tries to extract money from them. They may be thrown out of their house, or even locked away, and if they refuse to go when they're locked away, they could even get shot in the process. Are you willing to say that it's justifiable to use the threat of death on people just to fund your favorite food franchise?

Well there would be a symmetry there :) If someone takes money from you by force, they can't complain when you take money from them by force. There's already force involved. It's not being introduced by the anti-theft laws.

Likewise, if someone copies your art, they can't complain when you copy their art.

But, copyright has nothing to do with that symmetry. It's pure corporate welfare, extracting money from peaceful people and putting it in the hands of a favored industry.

You responded to the wrong person. I didn't write that.

You had to have PUT that text into a quote from me...

I've wanted Sim City for a while but I knew that this would happen.

Because of how badly this was managed I'm waiting for it to wind up in the bargain bin. EA doesn't deserve full price for this one.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122702-Modder-Proves-That-SimCity-Works-Offline

So yeah...apparently, all that stuff about the DRM and always online thing being essential for the game isn't entirely true.

DRM and forced multiplayer aside, Simcity looks to be a legitimate successor, and that's what really sucks. I want this game, and so does my brother, but we're not ones to play with other people, not even each other. It's just not how we play; we prefer it on our own terms in our own hands.

I can accept using Origin, and I can accept DRM if it only applied to an *optional* multiplayer experience. This however is inexcusable, especially with all of the server issues. If you're going to force us to use your severs to simply play alone, at least have the decency to have them work when we, the customer, want to use them.

Strazdas:

Novuake:

Strazdas:

Oh, i do play games long after, and thats how i discovered those peoblems. want to play empire earth? sorry, we clsoed servers down in 2008.

the only game i was not able to make run on my win7 system was Scarface, and that was because my graphic card somehow magically didnt support the old pixel shader technique the game used. appears to be a windowns issue though as forums claim it woud work on XP, but i didnt want to play the game enough to emulate xp at that time.

Yeah I found the same. Windows ends up being the issue. Dungeon Keeper 2 was one of the worst for me. JUST REFUSED to work with an AMD card and Win 7 64 bit. That is when I decided its time for a dedicated machine.

AMDs, especially older models, were known for some compatibility issues in gaming. they claim they fixed that but its still up for debate. However lately i been using a stragey of "does not run? ok, ill just go grab another game of the list of games i want to play when i have time, which is over 100 games long".

Haha so many games, so little time.

Seems we do not have the technology to use always connected games. Silly EA.

Edit: I feel like a lot of games have been able to do a sort of "if you're connected" type deal, like if you're connected to interwebs in Sleeping Dogs or DA2, you link up to the social hub thingy, you can still play fine offline, but it's a little connection to other players.

Novuake:

Strazdas:

Novuake:

Yeah I found the same. Windows ends up being the issue. Dungeon Keeper 2 was one of the worst for me. JUST REFUSED to work with an AMD card and Win 7 64 bit. That is when I decided its time for a dedicated machine.

AMDs, especially older models, were known for some compatibility issues in gaming. they claim they fixed that but its still up for debate. However lately i been using a stragey of "does not run? ok, ill just go grab another game of the list of games i want to play when i have time, which is over 100 games long".

Haha so many games, so little time.

Indeed. especially when the so little time is really very little nowadays (curse work+studies).
Still, it could be just that i want too much which for my hoarder personality may very well be.

I see the odd person here and on reddit is still trying to drive the "Not enough servers was a plan to hide the game errors" conspiracy.

If they had stopped to think for a minute they would have realized that having fence sitters put off from buying by server issues (mentioned in major news outlets) for a full two weeks and Amazon halting sales actually gave the early adopters (ie rabid fans) chance to test and highlight the broken system while everyone waited. So now they have lost sales in the first two weeks, and on the fat-tail of 3 weeks and beyond. This is before we even discuss the number of people saying that they are boycotting any EA game from now on.

So yes, it is "possible" that EA decided to try that tactic, but if they did then it was phenomenally stupid and guaranteed to backfire...

Or they did what most online-only game publishers have in fact done at large launches, which is to fail to have enough servers. Some thing that has happened about 5 or 6 times in the recent past.

Costia:

It was a counter argument to your post. Not my justification for copyright. So far you said that artists will have no trouble and even thrive if copyright is abolished. Now you acknowledge that people will get hurt. The industry will have to adapt - and it's going to be a hard process for everyone. Artists aren't just going to be fine - it will take a lot of effort.That's all I wanted to say with that paragraph.
The ad hominem was because it looks like not wanting to pay is your only argument.
The question wasn't meant to evoke sympathy. i want a serious answer to this: Why are artists special? why should you be payed with a paycheck and they shouldn't?
My justification to copyright is simple: If I made it - it's mine. since it's mine it's my decision what to do with it and not anyone else's. Doesn't matter if it is tangible or not.
The ad hominem was because so far everything you said leads to "i don't want to pay" and "people are getting hurt by copyright"
Could you summarize your reasons in a sentence or 2?
Shouldn't I be able to own the things I create? Why all the stuff I make should be free for all?

What do you mean when you say artists wouldn't get a paycheque without copyright? I may be confusing my threads, but I thought I gave you numerous examples of how copyright both isn't necessary for artists to make money, and actually prevents them from making as much money as they otherwise would. (That's the hurt I was referring to. That harm needs to end.)

Also, saying that making something means its yours can't be applied universally. For example, if I smash the house you made, and make a shack out of it, does that make the shack mine? I made it, therefore I own it right?

There are already rules for what belongs to someone or doesn't belong to someone else, and when I own something, such as a CD burner, it is mine, and I have a right to use it for any purpose except to prevent others from using what's theirs. People understand this already, so I have no need to justify the abolition of copyright. It's people who support copyright to justify why their system is worthy of violating the rights of peaceful people.

Waffle_Man:

Well, I don't think we're going to make any more progress in this situation because we seem to be a fundamental disagreement about how good the industry is at learning from mistakes. So I guess we'll have to continue disagreeing and wait to see what happens. In the mean time, it's been fun.

Look, you can deny the evolving business model all you want, but it is evolving. the problem appears to be that it's not evolving to your tastes, which does not in any way indicate future failure. They're clearly shifting the market towards people who are okay with the products as service model. Combined with people who seem to be unwilling to give up their vice despite all their protests, we have a model they can grow into and still thrive. Now, you can protest all you want, but it's a working model.

And while we're on it, I've always found the "wait and see" deal to be little more than a cop-out used when a point has become so weak as to be untenable to defend. I'm curious, though, assuming this is in good faith. Since my argument is simply absence of failure and yours is that it's unsusatainable, at what point does it become ostensibly true? A year? Five? If they go down in 200 years, will you feel vindicated based on your current estimation of the market?

I think EA will likely remain solvent in the foreseeable future, but I fully understand that the market could change at any given time. While I could see EA alive in 5 years, nobody would have predicted that THQ was going to go down even 3 years ago. All it really took was a heavy investment in uDraw, not the proto-EA tactics they were employing.

So....

Zachary Amaranth:

Look, you can deny the evolving business model all you want, but it is evolving. the problem appears to be that it's not evolving to your tastes, which does not in any way indicate future failure. They're clearly shifting the market towards people who are okay with the products as service model. Combined with people who seem to be unwilling to give up their vice despite all their protests, we have a model they can grow into and still thrive. Now, you can protest all you want, but it's a working model.

I'm curious, though, assuming this is in good faith. Since my argument is simply absence of failure and yours is that it's unsustainable, at what point does it become ostensibly true? A year? Five? If they go down in 200 years, will you feel vindicated based on your current estimation of the market?

A man drives home drunk every weekend. If they never get into a crash and never get pulled over, does that make their actions wise? What is the criteria for determining that such an action is unwise? It's because doing so has brought calamity to other individuals. Placing too much investment into a small focus is demonstrably risky from an economics perspective both theoretically and historically. Saying that a constantly changing base of consumers will just buy into something is not.

I actually like more games that were produced in the past six years than were produced in the previous ten, so my tastes also have nothing to do with it. The point is that the industry is engaging in really risky behavior. Much can be said about the pay off of the new markets they are investing in, but none of these are longitudinally known and a disproportionate amount of the industries resources are being geared towards such markets. In fact, the video games industry as a whole is incredibly infantile, but the major industry has massive trends towards homogeneity, which is a terrifying prospect. Worse yet, I'm worried that market saturation is starting to catch up with the industry, but the industry still seems to have no idea how to handle it.

I think EA will likely remain solvent in the foreseeable future, but I fully understand that the market could change at any given time. While I could see EA alive in 5 years, nobody would have predicted that THQ was going to go down even 3 years ago. All it really took was a heavy investment in uDraw, not the proto-EA tactics they were employing.

So....

I'm not demanding that companies be somehow punished for their injustices. This isn't even the first time that it's occurred to me that the industry is heading into uncharted waters. Rather, I'm trying to articulate that I've finally become terrified that the industry might not know how to tread those waters safely. Video games as a medium would survive, but much of the cultural relevance that they've worked so hard to achieve would be damaged for years.

And while we're on it, I've always found the "wait and see" deal to be little more than a cop-out used when a point has become so weak as to be untenable to defend.

I had originally intended to make the last post my last response in this thread. Yet, here I am responding to you again. Outwardly, I'd say that this is because I don't want to ignore the conversation between us as it would just end up closing communication and I'd rather that neither of us go away from this conversation feeling dismissed or bitter. Upon self examination, I realize that this is probably just because my ego isn't as small as I'd like to think. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if it's a bit of both.

Neither of us have been speaking from a position of authority or using statistics, so unless you actually intend to bring up something new, the only thing that either of us can do at this point is just reiterating our opinions and conjectures. The reason I made a post saying that I was done with the conversation was out of respect for closure, not dismissal. While I could spend the next decade rebutting replies with more supposition, I don't have anything to gain from doing so. I obviously haven't convinced you of anything and you haven't convinced me of anything. We're not in a court of law, and there is nothing at stake.

If you absolutely must have a major concession, I'll give it to you. The part I wrote in bold about it being inevitable isn't true. It was hyperbole, but you can claim it as having defeated me rhetorically on some level. If you must feel like you've won, go ahead and consider yourself winner.

dbenoy:

What do you mean when you say artists wouldn't get a paycheque without copyright? I may be confusing my threads, but I thought I gave you numerous examples of how copyright both isn't necessary for artists to make money, and actually prevents them from making as much money as they otherwise would. (That's the hurt I was referring to. That harm needs to end.)

Also, saying that making something means its yours can't be applied universally. For example, if I smash the house you made, and make a shack out of it, does that make the shack mine? I made it, therefore I own it right?

There are already rules for what belongs to someone or doesn't belong to someone else, and when I own something, such as a CD burner, it is mine, and I have a right to use it for any purpose except to prevent others from using what's theirs. People understand this already, so I have no need to justify the abolition of copyright. It's people who support copyright to justify why their system is worthy of violating the rights of peaceful people.

So far in you examples the artists won't get a paycheck - they would have to ask for donations, or find their own new way to make money. I think the main problem is that you want every game to be pay to win, subscription based or with always online DRM. Then the artists will get a paycheck. I want games to be playable offline. I want people sharing their art and code without being afraid that someone will use it to make money for himself, without their permission. The only thing removing copyrights will cause is more secrecy. If anything that's can be copied is free for all, I will never show my creations to others if i want to make money out of it myself. I will have to use/invent technology just to prevent others using it so i could make money from something that is mine.
Yes, the new shack itself is yours. But you committed a crime by destroying my home - this is an unrelated crime to the shack itself. And according to copyright laws if you creation uses something of mine - you need my permission. And the land you built on is mine. So i think that a court would decide to destroy your (it is 100% yours) shack (but the land it is on is 100% mine), and make you pay for the destruction of my property.
I disagree with the 3rd paragraph. You aren't allowed to bash someones head to death with that burner either, although technically you could. Not stealing is not the only law limiting you, as you seem to state. The law is allowed prevent you using an object (the burner)in any way that will hurt other people's rights. So you aren't allowed to use it to steal my creations either. (Also, being able to do something easily, doesn't mean it's OK to do)

The way i see it copyright makes sure that the artist who created something - will get paid for it. And without copyright there will be nothing to protect him. If you think artists aren't getting paid enough now, it will only get worse. I don't see how it will improve their ability to make money. All of your examples were of things the artist can do right now, with copyrights still in place.
You keep repeating that the artists would make more money. Could you explain why? What can they do without copyrights that they can't do right now?
So far you only said that copyright hurts artists "because i said so" and never explained how or why. (I don't count "it is obvious to everyone" as an explanation)

Right on - I fully agree with you. Publishers need to realise that they need us more than we need them and start treating us better. I hate needing an internet connection to play a single player game. I always have.

I have found myself being completley put off buying new games that pull this kind of dick-move.

Lump into this the so called "pay to win" "free" games, that deny the most desirable content unless you pay, regardless of customer satisfaction, and games that demand you continue paying long after you have already forked out for the game - case in point, world of warcraft.

Does anyone remember a bright past where you just payed for a game once and it would work when and how you wanted it to? Remember when games were made with love? Remember when communities could be built around mods and user-created content? This seems to be being stamped out, as you rightly put it Jim, for mere consumer control.

When we buy a game, we don't want to feel like we're getting a bank account or opening an insurance policy. We shouldn't pay to play games, we should just be buying the game.

If you buy a guitar, you expect all the strings on purchase, you don't expect, or want, to pay to "unlock" strings that should already be there. Also, if you bought a guitar you would get to test it out and see if you could play it. Not so with games today. Steam, for example, is quite happy to let you fork out for a game that cannot run on your machine. They won't let you have a downloadable demo despite sitting firmly on a "no refund" policy. In any other industry a product that was defective would be promptly returned for a refund, and now even this simple and intrinsic function of consumerisim is being robbed from us for no good reason. It sickens me.

Games are more widely available and cheaper than ever and yet customer support and care has never been worse. What about the complete lack of support for older games? The information was there once, why remove it? Because, and only because, they want you to spend money, they're bullying us into spending more money. Well they're not going to have my money any more and if there is a game that i really, really want; and it's trying this kind of shit - you can bet your ass that I'm waiting a month before I buy it. Of course, it would have to be a monumental game to justify the financial speed hump of getting a computer that could actually run it. Thank science for Jim (i'm an aetheist so who should i thank, huh?)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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