Pirating Game Dev Tycoon Dooms Players to be Ruined By Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

J Tyran:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.

That's my biggest beef with the pirating culture. I don't care about the actual pirating, because I buy some of the moralistic arguments about fighting against the absolutely ridiculous and ineffective measures publishers use to hassle consumers and sometimes wonder if publishers aren't actually trying to push people to piracy for some reason. Then something like this or the Humble Indie Bundle incident happens. They had a chance to justify their platitudes and failed miserably. I hope the ethical pirates are absolutely fuming at this.

LetalisK:

J Tyran:
I hope there is a special circle of hell for people that pirate an indie game that has no DRM and has a demo. All of the excuses for piracy fall to pieces, its cheap, you do not need to crack it because of broken DRM and you can try the demo.

Plus its not a protest against big publishers and their practices its just the little guys trying to earn a living, no excuses whatsoever.

That's my biggest beef with the pirating culture. I don't care about the actual pirating, because I buy some of the moralistic arguments about fighting against the absolutely ridiculous and ineffective measures publishers use to hassle consumers and sometimes wonder if publishers aren't actually trying to push people to piracy for some reason. Then something like this or the Humble Indie Bundle incident happens. They had a chance to justify their platitudes and failed miserably. I hope the ethical pirates are absolutely fuming at this.

Incidents like this smash all the pitiful excuses, only 6% of the people playing their game bought it. Thats horrible, spending all that time to create something only to see self entitled gamers refusing to give their fair due must be awful.

J Tyran:

Sorry but this is nothing but self entitlement, you are claiming anyone should have the right to use software simply because its there and you do not agree with how people try to protect their IP?

Well, of course it is, I mean, just look at my username. The real question is, why is it less important than the artists' self entitlement to get profits through the outdated business model that they need to control communication, file-sharing, and copying in the world, to uphold?

J Tyran:

Programmers and artists spend hundreds of hours creating something they intend to sell, the consumers are basically entering an unwritten contract along the lines of "you spend time creating entertainment for me, in return I will pay you for providing it for me".

Consumers are entering a contract. But what makes me, browsing the Internet, already having spent my monthly money on games weeks ago, enter into a contract when I also happen to find something new interesting to check out?

Why is it NEEDED for the publisher to have the right to stop me from that, if it already has been proven that access to free media doesn't take away money from the industry as a whole?

J Tyran:

Its that simple, they do it as a type of service. Your concept of free entertainment is missing an important part, sure some websites and games and other types of content are free at the point of use but ultimately we are still paying for it.

The ads and other marketing efforts just pass the cost on elsewhere, if you buy a product from a company that places internet ads the marketing budgets are passed on the consumer. The money doesn't come out of thin air.

I know very well how the industry functions, I even noted the business models in my posts. I could have also listed the models of selling printed books with the ebook being under creative commons, or the anime industry selling DVDs after airing shows for free (with zero ad revenue).

Bu the overall point was, that there are so many possibilities of service providers getting payed after letting information flow free, and getting paid either by a few voluntary donators (like wikipedia, or really, basically anything that could be pirated but some people didn't choose that), by advertisements like TV, and most websites), or by selling physical objects (like novels, anime, and also music merch). Some of these assume that a few people being more generous than others, and leaves a room for freeloaders.

If there so many ways of digital works making a living, then why is it ecessary that publishers still ALSO get an authority over exactly how we are allowed o use the Internet, and our computer usage? It's not about "having a right to make a living", but about maximalizing control and maybe profits.

J Tyran:

Anyone that believes the things in your post is morally bankrupt at worst or some kind of digital socialist at best.

See my above discussions with others, starting with "Yeah, because monopolistic market regulations as defined by governments are just so freakin' laissez-faire!".

There is nothing socialistic about not wanting the government to give creative artists subsidy in the form of letting them control all data traffic.

Letting artists and pubishers figure out how to make a living now that data is easily distributed, would be the free market thing to do. But deciding that the old publishing format simply needs to be protected even at the cost of limiting our personal rights, is probably the most extreme example of the government picking winners and losers on this side of communism.

Good for them. A nice bit of satire.

I may have to buy a copy just out of solidarity.

Piracy can hurt independent smaller developers, but I WISH it would hurt the big publishers

I like helping out the independents. Plopped down a little cash for Kerbal Space Program to try it while still in development because there needs to be more games like it

This is hilarious. Good on the dev team for thinking of this. Sadly, I doubt many pirates will take the lesson to heart, but at least they get a big ol' 'fuck you' in the illegally downloaded version.

Wish more people would just pay for their damn products.

I love sneaky DRM like this. Designed purely to annoy and inconvenience the pirates, no trouble for paying customers at all. And pure entertainment when they go into a forum trying to figure out what's wrong. Priceless.

I guess I am a pirate, or I was in my lazy/broke small-town years. But I don't pretend that I had some right to be, and I can't believe how many people in this thread are DEFENDING it as some sort of Moral Crusade. Get out you cheap idiots, we do not care what you think, if you won't even pay for the games we love, what good is your stupid opinion? Get a clue, those are free.

Piracy does hurt games. Do not kid yourself. Sure not every game I pirated was something I was going to buy, and maybe I eventually DID buy quite a few when I changed my ways and started to find sales and re-releases but whatever good you think piracy is doing for the industry is insignificant compared to the money it has cost it.

Just think about it, some horrible program or genie or whatever ends piracy forever overnight, no pirated games on any hard drive anywhere, all torrent sites down forever. Zany and impossible I know, but what do you think pirates would start doing? Maybe a few would break out the old basketball, or watch some TV. But game sales would SKYROCKET. Sure poor students would find some cheaper games to play, anybody who pretends to be taking a "Moral Stand" by not buying 60 dollar games would instantly turn into a massive hypocrite and buy those games because they want to play them, fake morals be damned.

Most of you would probably start breaking car windows, because if you think your piracy is justified, becoming an actual thief wouldn't be much of a stretch.

SecondPrize:
...Buy Game Dev Story to show support for the above, as well as support for devs who see their products cloned by douches like these.

Little problem when you don't own an iOS or Android devise and want a similar game for your at home PC.
(That's not even addressing the obvious "Inspiration vs Replication" problems.)

I do not want to argue the rest,our opinions our too polarized and the discussion is starting to go in circles. I cannot ignore this though,

Entitled:
But deciding that the old publishing format simply needs to be protected even at the cost of limiting our personal rights,

No-one has the right to decide what entertainment you can take without returning fair due. Entertainment isnt really a right anyway, if we where discussing basic foodstuffs or water in this context I would generally agree with this position. Basic Human needs should be shared, those that can pay should pay and those in need should be provided for.

Noone has the right to simply take digital content, people spend hundreds of hours and heaps of cash. Denying them fair due is just wrong, noone has the right to do that.

If they simply admit they are taking it fine, just stop attempts to moralize it. I cannot condemn someone for simply taking something, its hypocritical of me to do so in all honesty. I have done worse in my life than download some movies and games, I own up to it and admit it. Pirates should step up and be honest too and admit "I want it so I will take it".

This game reminds me a lot of Game Dev Story for Android. I must check it out.

I love these subtle non consumer damaging means to prevent piracy. Everyone should refer to Serious Sam 3's immortal pink scorpion.

This is easily the best way to combat piracy. It only hurts the pirates.

SecondPrize:

The funny thing is, while I won't call for it in these forums, I won't be upset when a crack of the 'real' game dev tycoon comes out because this stinks of a PR stunt which, while brilliant, is more than a little hypocritical to me because as far as I can tell these two guys are straight ripping off kairosoft and their Game Dev Story.

Thing is, Game Dev Story is very basic, Game Dev Tycoon from what I have seen is a LOT more complicated. With publishers, having to meet a standard, having to make an engine and having to study into various things like 2D, 3D, etc...

It maybe a clone but it added a lot more depth then the original did...

I just tried the demo and fell in love with it.

Now the site appears to be down, so I can't buy it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

EDIT: And now it's working. YAAAAAAAY.

This is also good example of where the 'wouldn't have bought it anyways" argument used to diminish the impact of piracy comes into play.

The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately.

.

Now, that sounds pretty damn severe, because it is. But honestly, who has an interest in playing this game? Let alone buying it. Hell, I'm a fan of 'tycoon' type games, but I wouldn't even consider paying money for this, there's simply no appeal. But for free? Fuck, I don't know, maybe, but I've got better things to do even then.

Point being, sure, piracy is bad. But the percentage of your user base that is pirates might not mean a damn thing if nobody wants to buy the game in the first place. Now, if those same pirates are still playing a week or two from now, that might be a different story.

Entitled:
>Every argument you made so far goes here <

You are an author. You spend countless nights over the course of years perfecting your masterwork novel, all while working full time at an assembly line to earn enough to live off of. One day, after these long grueling years, you finish your novel and everyone loves it. You receive $30 in compensation, because you sold a single copy online which was then "shared" to anyone who wanted to read it for free. You never write again, and the world loses any new works you may have created.

Too much hypothetical? Without copyright protection there would be a grinding halt to creativity.

First of all:

J Tyran:

Pirates should step up and be honest too and admit "I want it so I will take it".

That's an inherently loaded analogy, running on the same false comparison as "piracy is theft".
Copying is not "taking". The only thing that writing a copy of a game on your HDD takes away, is the IP holder's privilege to be the one who can tell you that you are not allowed to write that copy.

J Tyran:

No-one has the right to decide what entertainment you can take without returning fair due.

We are going back to the basic question. How do you know that this exact amount of control truly *is* what is artists' fair due?

Let me put it this way:

Do you think that copyright should end after a limited term? (say, 90 years, as it does now?)
Do you think that the public should have Fair Use rights regarding others' IP?
Do you think that consumers should have used sales rights?

Let's say, that back when the first IP laws were still young, and they were mostly just about books, the US constitution was written in a slightly different way:

"...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing to Authors and Inventors an absolute Right to Control of their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

It's all logical, after all, property doesn't just magically disappear after a few decades either, and it's ownership is absolute, you can't just claim "fair use" on your neighbor's car, so the same should apply to IP.

Now, in this world, centuries later, as music recoding is invented, it is obvious from the first day that covers, remixes, medleys, and other reusings of someone else's work. The Betamax case was won by Sony, and all video recording is illegal, even for time-shifting, as you can't just copy someone else's whole work, it's "their fair due" that if you miss the movie, you have to buy the casette. Used game sales are illegal everywhere, after all, creators continue to control their Property even after you paid for your own private license.

The Internet still exists, though more file-sharing and video-streaming sites are banned, including this one, but piracy is still possible. I you know where to look, you can also find some seedy sites with illegal media on it, like Kamakawiwoʻole's "What a wonderful world", or parody videos like "How the Lord of the Rings should have ended", along with entirely pirated content.

And let's say, that in this world, you suddenly get the idea that copyright shouldn't be that restrictive after all, that a certain amount of public rights should also be protected, rather than just glorifying creator rights at every chance.

How would you communicate that? Anything that you say, about your right to time-shift movies, would be first seen as "going against the creators wishes". If Sony asked you to buy the casette instead, then why are you denying them?

Any complaint about having to pay for 200 year old novels to the writer's descendants, would be seen as "just wanting free stuff". Any suggestion that artists should have some open access to some Fair Use, would be criticised as "promoting unoriginality" instead of creativity.

How would you make people think outside of hundreds of years of TRADITION of what ended up being criminalized for historical reason, and instead, at least CONSIDER the possibility that the world that they grew up in is already stacked against them, that it pointlessly harms them, and the Earth would keep on spinning if publishers wouldn't get quite THAT MUCH authority over our lives, and we could more freely use media without having to worry about every frame, and every bit?

Judas_Iscariot:

You are an author. You spend countless nights over the course of years perfecting your masterwork novel, all while working full time at an assembly line to earn enough to live off of. One day, after these long grueling years, you finish your novel and everyone loves it. You receive $30 in compensation, because you sold a single copy online which was then "shared" to anyone who wanted to read it for free. You never write again, and the world loses any new works you may have created.

Too much hypothetical? Without copyright protection there would be a grinding halt to creativity.

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened to Paulo Coelho, Eric Flint, Cory Doctorow, and several other writers who put up their e-books on the Internet for free downloading.

Oh wait, no! They went on to sell a bunch of dead tree editions, and optional buyable e-books, and made a living from it.

Though to be fair, there are quite a few writers who didn't make money from writing.
For example those hundreds of fanfiction novel writers who spent years on long, entertaining, creative, and popular sagas, (that happen to take place in an universe invented by someone else earlier, just like most modern pop-culture works), and then no one bought them. BECAUSE COPYRIGHT LEGALLY STOPPED THEM FROM SELLING THEM!

So eventually, they were forced to quit their work. That is, the ones who got a C&D letter legally obliging them to STOP WRITING. The rest kept doing it for more years.

Probably one of the cleverest ways of teaching gamers a lesson, especially when you see their forum posts echoing what the devs themselves are thinking. I think if I was the developer I would have probably just made all the characters massive penises in the cracked version or something. I hadn't realised they could mess up the cracked versions.

Entitled:
WORDS

But if it's "property", than every move against it means "taking away from artists what is their due", what obviously belongs to them just because, regardless of whether they need it or not, taking it away would still be like Robin Hood robbing the rich.

Man you go to alot of trouble to say its ok to steal because I can plus its not stealing because of reasons.

So you pirate games because you hate the industry, or just capitalism in general? Is that oversimplifying? I suppose it's true that these laws wouldn't exist if old rich people didn't benefit from having them implemented, but there are plenty of IP's that wouldn't exist today that I happen to enjoy(music, books, games) that wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit the individuals who made them, so in response to your pseudo-legal justification I have to say "SO WHAT?", because I happen to like some of those things and I want more of them. If there's no profit in them why should anybody make them? Are you saying we should have some sort of voluntary donation system? Do you not enjoy these things or do you think you should get them for free because you are so awesome? Or maybe you think its up to the rest of us to pay for your games because you are smart enough to click on links to torrents? Make some sense dude.

You talk about the term "Intellectual Property" like it was this evil thing rich people made up so that they could get even richer, but I can't think of any IP that wasn't initially made by an individual or a small group of individuals, and they probably expected compensation for their creativity. These laws kept others from taking their ideas and selling them, why are these laws "the enemy" to you?

I assume you're not planning on creating anything yourself, because I'm pretty sure you'd have to copyright it or protect it somehow if you ever planned on making money off of it. What DO you do besides steal from hard working people anyway? (Don't answer that I don't actually care.)

OMG you think you are Robin Hood. Except the only poor person you give to is yourself.

For example those hundreds of fanfiction novel writers who spent years on long, entertaining, creative, and popular sagas, (that happen to take place in an universe invented by someone else earlier, just like most modern pop-culture works), and then no one bought them. BECAUSE COPYRIGHT LEGALLY STOPPED THEM FROM SELLING THEM!

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T BELONG TO THEM. If their ideas were so great they could've easily changed a few names and sold their work as its own product.

What idiot expects to make money from fanfiction?

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened to Paulo Coelho, Eric Flint, Cory Doctorow, and several other writers who put up their e-books on the Internet for free downloading.

Oh wait, no! They went on to sell a bunch of dead tree editions, and optional buyable e-books, and made a living from it.

They own it they CHOSE TO DO THAT WITH THEIR OWN IP. Good thing there are laws that keep me from downloading, printing, and selling it myself!

Jadak:
This is also good example of where the 'wouldn't have bought it anyways" argument used to diminish the impact of piracy comes into play.

The depressing results of its own game's day one piracy rates show that only 6.4% of people playing the game bought it legitimately.

.

Now, that sounds pretty damn severe, because it is. But honestly, who has an interest in playing this game? Let alone buying it. Hell, I'm a fan of 'tycoon' type games, but I wouldn't even consider paying money for this, there's simply no appeal. But for free? Fuck, I don't know, maybe, but I've got better things to do even then.

Point being, sure, piracy is bad. But the percentage of your user base that is pirates might not mean a damn thing if nobody wants to buy the game in the first place. Now, if those same pirates are still playing a week or two from now, that might be a different story.

If they cared about it enough to invest their time finding it and playing it (bearing in mind that if they just wanted to try it out, there was a free demo) then the simple fact is that if the free version just didn't exist, they would have paid something for it. It's been years since I've paid full retail price for a game, because it's rare that I think it's worth it but I still buy tons of games because I pay a lower price eventually. Similarly, a lot of gamers might go "bah, not paying 8 bucks for this, I'll just pirate it because if I wasn't going to buy it, they aren't losing anything" even though if, in a year, they saw it for half that in a Steam sale, a lot of them would have forked out.

JazzJack2:
But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.

Did you not even read the post? You seem to be all for advocating piracy even in the face of the developer saying "yo dude, we're losing money here".

Holythirteen:

Entitled:
WORDS

But if it's "property", than every move against it means "taking away from artists what is their due", what obviously belongs to them just because, regardless of whether they need it or not, taking it away would still be like Robin Hood robbing the rich.

Man you go to alot of trouble to say its ok to steal because I can plus its not stealing because of reasons.

OMG you think you are Robin Hood.

Ok. Now go back, and read the rest of those WORDS, where I'm explaining why IP is *NOT* property, but the content industry is trying to portray it as if it would be.

And then read again that paragraph starting with a hypothetical "if it's property...", and ending with Robin Hood.

What I'm saying is that "robbing the rich" is OBVIOUSLY wrong, therefore if copyright would be property, then not just every copyright infringement would be theft, but even copyright reform based on the fact that publishers already hoard too much IP right, should be treated as inappropriately Robin Hood-ish.

That's why we have to treat IP like what it is, a practical market regulation that was useful at a time for rewarding creativity, but it might need to be readjusted now as it is doing more harm than good, and we can totally do that without bringing up the content industry's whole theft/robbing/unalienable moral right to ownership issue.

That's why we have to treat IP like what it is, a practical market regulation that was useful at a time for rewarding creativity, but it might need to be readjusted now as it is doing more harm than good, and we can totally do that without bringing up the content industry's whole theft/robbing/unalienable moral right to ownership issue.

Funny how that readjustment means you get stuff for free while the rest of us have to pay.

Yeah, intellectual property and physical property are NOT THE SAME THINGS I get that part. I figure if something takes time, effort, and resources to create then SOMEBODY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT INVESTMENT.

If it costs too much I won't pay. If its badly made or has punishing DRM I won't pay. If enough people WILL pay and they earn a profit I shrug my shoulders and say "Oh well, idiots." Then I find something worth my money. THAT is the path to this wonderful system where creativity is rewarded, and pirates don't care, they just want free stuff.

SecondPrize:
[quote="phoenix352" post="7.406858.16952102"][quote="SecondPrize" post="7.406858.16951969"][quote="phoenix352" post="7.406858.16951805"][quote="SecondPrize" post="7.406858.16951752"][quote="phoenix352" post="7.406858.16951648"]

But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"

Totally, it should be totally ok to walk into movie theaters, concerts, museums, and any other sort of service which presents art without paying for it. It's just art, all I'm doing is looking and touching, why should I have to pay for stuff like that? Stupid entitled artists wanting money for their contribution to society.

Entitled:
the Earth would keep on spinning if publishers wouldn't get quite THAT MUCH authority over our lives,

The publishers have zero authority over our lives, why do you believe you have some inherent right to consume digital content? The publishers offer entertainment for a fee, consumers have the choice to ignore it and go elsewhere. Thats as far as the "authority" goes, they control their content thats all.

I really do not understand why you believe in this digital socialism, no joke or slight intended but can you explain exactly why you hold this belief? Digital content is simply a modern storefront, just because its digital it doesn't become a huge free for all.

Sure a world like Star Trek would be great, a post need society where everyone does something because they enjoy doing it and want to get better at it. Artists can be great artists and would not have to worry about paying the rent and keep their utilities running.

Sadly the world doesn't work like that, because society cannot be trusted to pay someone for their efforts or creations we need regulation. No arguments about how hard regurgitation suck and how unworkable and unfair they become, thats the nature of legislation unfortunately. There will be winners and losers.

Ultimately though content creators need protection from the people that believe they do not have to give fair due in return for the entertainment they consume. Actors need to be paid, programmers want some recompense for the crunch where they neglected their family for weeks on end and the artists will have bills to pay.

Think of those guys, screw the higher laws that favor the big corporations and think of the little guys working for them. Those guys work the hardest, they are also the first to get pay cuts or get fired when sales do not meet expectations. Then they check stats and find millions of people decided to consume the content and not pay. If even half of those people actually paid for the content they still might have a job.

Piracy hurts the publishers sure but its the content creators on the front line who feel it the hardest. How can anyone morally justify putting people out of work or lowering their quality of life through pay cuts?

Holythirteen:
Funny how that readjustment means you get stuff for free while the rest of us have to pay.

If I would just want free stuff, I alone could get it all right now illegally, while you tools keep obeyin' the law and paying for it.

Legal readjustment needs because I want free culure (free as in speech), where people in general can openly distribute and experience and create and modify all kinds of media, while creators keep getting rewarded at least reasonably (if not necessarily as well as now), without everyone having to bother with this ridiculously old-fashioned idea of publishers patrolling the Internet and making sure that we don't do the wrong kind of downloading. Which is both ridiculously unenforceable, and harmful (just look at all the Fair Use Youtube videos they have taken down on exaggerated claims).

There are multiple models to reach that, from the naively honor-based donation model to the cynical and harmful-to-artistic-integrity advertisement model, but all of them are more realistic than the current one.

MrDumpkins:
Totally, it should be totally ok to walk into movie theaters, concerts, museums, and any other sort of service which presents art without paying for it. It's just art, all I'm doing is looking and touching, why should I have to pay for stuff like that? Stupid entitled artists wanting money for their contribution to society.

I don't protest the notion of paying artists for their contributions to society.

I protest the AMOUNT of money they think they're owed for those contributions to society.

I can count on one hand the number of movies I've gone to see in theaters in the last five years, because as wonderful and artistic and creative as the films may be, very few of them manage to ever justify their $10+ ticket prices in my mind.

Ditto with AAA gaming, where I'm gambling six times as much money on games that, at times, have a campaign only twice as long as a movie and a much more lazily put together story than comparable films.

So trying to slap me with a guilt trip for keeping my wallet to myself, crying about how you're going to starve because I refuse to pay ridiculous amounts of money for your average content....sorry, it's not going to work. Basic capitalism, here. Adapt your business model to something more appropriate, or just produce better games. Otherwise, your business will die, and I won't feel sorry for you when you do.

That's not to say that I approve of people pirating just because, but I'm not exactly gonna cry big crocodile tears over a mediocre game getting poor sales due to piracy. Oh well. Guess you should've made a cheaper/better game....whichever you prefer. One whose price tag matched its quality. *shrug*

Legion:
I like this guy, not just for getting the message out in a clever way, but because he talks as a person to other people rather than a PR executive trying to reassure share holders.

That's because he doesn't have shareholders. That's the luxury of being an indie or small-venture studio that big publishers simply don't have. :/

And the war wages on, and on, and on.

So let's look at it from another slant: Some publishers have become so wretched, taking their IPs and consumer loyalty to same so for-granted that it's become clear they don't care. We are their money cows. Moooo!

What's the worst thing we can do to them?

Pirate their game? No. Because, you see, we're then still playing the game. Sim City 5 sucks, but you forgive the suckiness if you got it for free. You're still being influenced by their culture. You'll still be looking forward to Sim City 6 or 7 or 8 which may or may not be better. You are still invested. You're still involved.

Rather, you can not pirate their game. Don't play it at all. Give them neither your money, nor your time. After all, even if it's the latest in a favorite series, it's a bad game and it soils the memories of former glory. It becomes easier with time and with iterations. Sim City 6? Whatever. Five had that game-killing DRM. Forget the series. Even Elvis died. Even Happy Days jumped the shark. Even Twilight: Breaking Dawn ...well... the less said the better.

Most artists, by a strong majority want you to enjoy their content. Most artists would rather you buy it, but if you can't (or won't for whatever reason) they'd rather you experience it for free than not at all. Gene Simmons is in the gross minority, and frankly, for his preference, I don't listen to KISS at all anymore.

Most of the IP maximalists have forgotten the point behind secondary sales, and libraries, and rentals. They don't understand abundance economics because their sense of property is so strong (not to be confused with a sense of propriety) that they'd rather have control of their stuff than make a profit. The sad thing is, the (most) artists who actually make the stuff don't agree. And I think we had a failing when we allowed copyright and patent ownership to be transferred from the creative source to bankers and lawyers.

And this poor game-creator shlub bought the line. I probably won't play his game at all, pirated or otherwise. I'm not that desperate for new titles. I already have bought No Time To Explain, and hope to enjoy both the primary release and the pirate one. That's how you do it.

238U

racrevel:
Figured i would waste the $8 and buy it if anything i can see how much they copied from Game Dev Story

Do you have any idea when the first version of a "game development sim" came out? Long before Kairosoft who made it in 1997, that's for sure.

J Tyran:

The publishers have zero authority over our lives, why do you believe you have some inherent right to consume digital content?

Why do you think that I don't? :P

But no, seriously. That's what I tried to demonstrate with the previous Alternate Universe scenario. This issue is not about "inherent rights", but about historical happenstance.

If time-shifting video recording would be illegal, you might not feel that "you have an inherent right to record TV shows", but you could deduce the fact that the industry's claims about how that would destroy them are BS, and you could still protest in favor of it, or do it illegally, or just hope that that law goes away, (depending on your temperament).

Because while YOU don't have an inherent right to record TV shows, neither do publishers have an inherent right to stop you from doing it, not even if they would happen to have a legal justification. So why bother with keeping the system?

It's the same deal with file-sharing. Just because it's not my inherent right, I can still tell that as long as enough people pay for enough things, the industry could be all right.

J Tyran:

I really do not understand why you believe in this digital socialism, no joke or slight intended but can you explain exactly why you hold this belief? Digital content is simply a modern storefront, just because its digital it doesn't become a huge free for all.

First of all, you should read my posts to other people in this thread. This is already the third time I'm called a socialist, for suggesting that the government shouldn't grant monopolies for future distribution of data to publishers, instead just let them figure out how to make a profit without that particular regulation giving them an advantage.

Beyond the obvious problem, that piracy is ridiculously easy, it is likely only getting easier as the Internet gets more complex (unless we slip into a police state where all data is ridiculously accurately tracked).

The current business model simply doesn't work. Right now, it effectively is a donation system relying on people who are willing to "support the art". And of course, on digital illiterates.

There are several business models that WOULD work, and having a more free culture (As in free speech) without every digital copy of everything being locked behind paywalls, would only be one of their benefits.

J Tyran:

Sadly the world doesn't work like that, because society cannot be trusted to pay someone for their efforts or creations we need regulation. No arguments about how hard regurgitation suck and how unworkable and unfair they become, thats the nature of legislation unfortunately. There will be winners and losers.

I agree, to some extent.

For example, I think that there is no reason to let every publisher sell the same physical products. Giving creators a monopoly on commercial selling of materials, is one part of IP that still works in this century, and doesn't particularly bother the common man's Internet usage either.

J Tyran:

Ultimately though content creators need protection from the people that believe they do not have to give fair due in return for the entertainment they consume. Actors need to be paid, programmers want some recompense for the crunch where they neglected their family for weeks on end and the artists will have bills to pay.

Think of those guys, screw the higher laws that favor the big corporations and think of the little guys working for them. Those guys work the hardest, they are also the first to get pay cuts or get fired when sales do not meet expectations. Then they check stats and find millions of people decided to consume the content and not pay. If even half of those people actually paid for the content they still might have a job.

That's part of the reason why I'm spending a large part of my income on entertainment.

Entitled:

If I would just want free stuff, I alone could get it all right now illegally, while you tools keep obeyin' the law and paying for it.

Oh good direct insults. I see, you do it because you can. If I do a search will I find you complaining about always-online DRM somewhere? That is the direct consequence of your way of thinking. WE ARE PAYING FOR YOU. And then you turn around and use it as justification for your theft. Awesome.

Legal readjustment needs because I want free culure (free as in speech), where people in general can openly distribute and experience and create and modify all kinds of media,

Did you know LittleBigPlanet had an included level editor for players to contribute their own levels? Not one of those levels was as fun as the ones included on the game disc itself. Why would I want to pay for the white-noise contributions of thousands of random, unaccountable people when I could pay professionals for top-tier work, withholding my money if I start to dislike their efforts? Why would I want these random unaccountable people taking my hero character from my book and possibly turning him into a pedophile? Like I said before, if people want to contribute their own media why do they need to take characters and worlds that others have already created?

while creators keep getting rewarded at least reasonably (if not necessarily as well as now)
There are multiple models to reach that, from the naively honor-based donation model to the cynical and harmful-to-artistic-integrity advertisement model, but all of them are more realistic than the current one.

What does reasonably mean? They own their ip, if its not worth the asking price, don't buy it. All these vague socialist justifications are getting old. You keep going back to it, but you don't have the first clue how that system would work and you don't care, so you just keep stealing stuff.

First of all, you should read my posts to other people in this thread. This is already the third time I'm called a socialist, for suggesting that the government shouldn't grant monopolies for future distribution of data to publishers, instead just let them figure out how to make a profit without that particular regulation giving them an advantage.

Fourth. That's the label you get when you start saying that my stuff should belong to the state. Why do you think my stuff should belong to everyone? If I make my own video game without copyright protection, a big company WILL take my works and make their own version because they can. You keep telling yourself that piracy is some sort of foundation of a new system where everybody owns everything and everything is more awesome because of it when in truth you have no idea how this magical system is supposed to ACTUALLY WORK. I can tell you that it won't, the humble indie bundle was 1 cent and people STILL pirated it. Justify that to me.

That's part of the reason why I'm spending a large part of my income on entertainment.

Like hell you do. Quit acting like you're fighting for the common man, you spend as little as possible while you steal the stuff you want and then say it's because it wasn't worth the money. It's called hypocrisy.

marurder:
Though I totally agree with the method and consequence of his actions by announcing it he screws it up. Wait a few days, the 'bugged' crack would have been analysed fixed and a new torrent will be available for download. The Dev should have kept his mouth shut on this one..

No. If he remained silent, there would be no fixed torrent, but that wouldn't generate any extra sales since the pirates would just assume the legit version was also bugged. Plus they would tell their friends it was broken, friends who might have paid for it.

CriticKitten:
[quote="MrDumpkins" post="7.406858.16953859"]
So trying to slap me with a guilt trip for keeping my wallet to myself, crying about how you're going to starve because I refuse to pay ridiculous amounts of money for your average content....sorry, it's not going to work. Basic capitalism, here. Adapt your business model to something more appropriate, or just produce better games. Otherwise, your business will die, and I won't feel sorry for you when you do.

I agree that they charge over the ass for this kind of content, but where I don't agree is just playing it anyways. That's like saying I want a good fancy meal, but I don't think it's worth the money, so instead of just going somewhere else I'm just going to dine and dash. Regardless of whether it's good or bad food, It's their fault they weren't charging less. If they were, I would have totally paid for it.

If they have a bad pricing model then just don't buy their content. But don't go and download it anyways. All that does is create the illusion for these big companies that people would totally buy their game if they couldn't get it for free.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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