On Spore Piracy

Spore's Piracy Problem on Forbes is one of those forays into trying to evaluate the extent of game piracy, in this case for Spore, by looking at peer-to-peer statistics. This is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over Spore's digital rights management, which is upsetting many gamers in order to theoretically curb piracy, but in spite of anti-piracy measures described by some as draconian, the game is apparently getting even more action on bit torrent than one might expect according to Big Champagne, a firm that analyzes such activity. The article indicates a popular sentiment among those pirating the game is that they are protesting the DRM in the game, and it also quotes Brad Wardell on how Stardock has managed to protect its intellectual property without pissing off its user-base. Thanks nin.
View : : :
79.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
79.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
 
I know this thread is on its last leg, but it finally started to get to the point.

There is no solution.

Developers are being bombarded from every side that Pirating will prevent their program from making them money. The lawyers are telling them to protect their IP or they will lose it. DRM slingers telling them that their DRM will make them X # of dollars by curbing piracy for the critical first few days. The numbers on Bit Torrent and other P2P sharing show staggering numbers for pirated copies. Add all this together and only a complete idiot wouldn't allow a distributer to put DRM into their product.

Distributers don't care about the product. That is not their job, their job is strictly to squeeze every last drop of income out of a product for both the developer and themselves. It costs money to distribute. Stardock has released multiple quotes of how much it costs to get retail shelf space, let alone cost of developing/printing/shipping hard copy boxes and books. The Distributer's job is to market the product and build the sales.

DRM Companies obviously only care about keeping themselves in business and puffing up piracy numbers or making piracy look worse than it is, is only in their best interest.

Consumers are screwed anyway they look at it. They buy a DRM infested app, the DDD (DRM company, Distributer and Developer) all feel justified the DRM worked. They Buy it and pirate it (Probably the morale approach) twice the affect, the DDD all feel justified, and the pirated numbers go up showing piracy is out of control. They Pirate it only, the DDD see huge piracy numbers and are even stregthened in their stance that Piracy is out of control. They do the most noblest thing and don't purchase or pirate the game, and the DDD still see that Piracy is out of control because the game was pirated by so many others. There is NO way for a consumer to get their message across to the DDD in any way that they detest DRM.

No DRM is un-crackable and only presents mild amusement to the hackers that strip it out. Thus all PC applications will be pirated, and I will go so far as to say all digital IP of any sort will be pirated in some fashion. If that is the case then all shortfalls of expected sales can be blamed on Piracy, thus every application developer out there is being told they could have made more money. Thus proliferating the lies of the DRM and Distributers that DRM is neccissary. So in essence every one of us including the developers and distributers are contributing equally to "the death of PC Gaming"

In the end take consolation in the fact that no matter what any developer says or anyone else in the industry bitches about, PC gaming will never die, unless the PC platform dies as well. If EA goes bankrupt from rampant piracy, someone will step-up in their place and design games for the PC. If Piracy gets so bad, although it has been "So Bad" since the PC was invented, we may see a dip in the number of multi-million dollar games being developed for the platform, but that is far from the death of PC Gaming.

PC Gaming was huge and fun in the mid 90s, and how many Million $ games were released before 2000?
/*New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, ``Why then are you not taking part in them?'' -H.G. Wells*/
Avatar 12716
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
2.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
3.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
4.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
5.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
8.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
9.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
17.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
34.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
     Re: No subject
35.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
      Re: No subject
36.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
      Re: No subject
18.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
19.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
14.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
15.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
6.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
10.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
13.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
7.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
11.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
12.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
16.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
20.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
21.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
22.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
24.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
33.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
23.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
25.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
32.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
26.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
28.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
29.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
30.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
31.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
37.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
39.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
40.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
52.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
53.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
55.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
56.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
     Re: No subject
54.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
57.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
59.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
60.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
69.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
27.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
38.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
41.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
42.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
43.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
44.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
45.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
47.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
46.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
48.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
49.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
50.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
51.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
58.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
61.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
62.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
64.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
63.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
75.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
65.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
66.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
67.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
68.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
70.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
71.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
72.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
73.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
74.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
76.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
78.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
77.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
 79.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
 Re: No subject
80.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
81.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
82.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
84.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
     Re: No subject
86.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
     Re: No subject
87.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
      amen to that
83.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
88.
Sep 16, 2008Sep 16 2008
85.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
89.
Sep 16, 2008Sep 16 2008
90.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008
91.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008
92.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008
93.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008
94.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008
95.
Sep 20, 2008Sep 20 2008