We are giving away most of the content for free because there’s no barrier to entry. To the users that are traditionally playing the game by getting it through Pirate Bay, we said, ‘Okay, go ahead guys. This is what you’re asking for. We’ve listened to you – we’re giving you this experience. It’s easy to download, there’s no DRM that will pollute your experience.’
We’re adapting the offer to the PC market. I don’t like to compare PC and Xbox boxed products because they have a model on that platform that is clearly meant to be €60’s worth of super-Hollywood content. On PC, we’re adapting our model to the demand.
“When we started Ghost Recon Online we were thinking about Ghost Recon: Future Solider; having something ported in the classical way without any deep development, because we know that 95% of our consumers will pirate the game. So we said okay, we have to change our mind.
We have to adapt, we have to embrace this instead of pushing it away. That’s the main reflection behind Ghost Recon Online and the choice we’ve made to go in this direction.
Dmitri_M wrote on Nov 26, 2011, 12:12:
This pirating to "decide whether you like it or not" is a pile of utter BS. Back when I was a teen I pirated the living shit out of every goddamn game I could get my hands on. If my parents weren't buying it, I pirated it and didn't look back.
What are you wussies shopping for, make-up? Games these days are average to shit, and once in a while great. We've all been playing long enough to know whether a game is decent from videos or aggravating reviews and user reviews. Buy it or fuck off.
I have the money to purchase games now. I have a simple delivery system like steam that delivers without needing to go to a store. I don't have the time to fuck with annoying cracks and nfo files. Don't tell me people who have the time to mess with ISO's and finding legitimate pirated copies are then somehow also putting money down and purchasing the titles.
I don't care if there is some exception at play here, that 5% of you actually do purchase after "demo'ing" the game - you're way in the minority.
It's a completely BS, and frankly idiotic, argument to make.
Teddy wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 07:59:
And as a gamer, you should know full well that what an attorney 'thinks' is completely irrelevant to the law. Ask Jack Thompson about that one. He was grandstanding and spouting the exact words his clients wanted him to, nothing more and not even close to a comment that in any way shape or form defines the law. Hell, Jack Thompson called video games 'Murder Simulators', he was an attorney at the time, I guess it must be true right?
Teddy wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 07:59:
The LAW says that Piracy, be it music, video or software IS NOT THEFT.
Teddy wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 07:59:
You're welcome to ignore the personal attacks, I throw them in because you've earned them. Particularly by being such a complete and utter hypocrite. You accuse me of not bothering to read everything when you conveniently skip over the parts of everyone's posts where they explain IN DETAIL that they're well aware that piracy is wrong and illegal, yet you still accuse them of trying to rationalize or justify because they don't agree with your idiotic, incorrect (and completely proven so) definition of piracy.
StingingVelvet wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 11:12:Teddy wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 07:59:
The LAW says that Piracy, be it music, video or software IS NOT THEFT. They have plenty of categories of theft, from petty theft, grand theft, larceny, robbery, and note that NOT ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES is piracy related. Not one.
You're welcome to ignore the personal attacks, I throw them in because you've earned them. Particularly by being such a complete and utter hypocrite. You accuse me of not bothering to read everything when you conveniently skip over the parts of everyone's posts where they explain IN DETAIL that they're well aware that piracy is wrong and illegal, yet you still accuse them of trying to rationalize or justify because they don't agree with your idiotic, incorrect (and completely proven so) definition of piracy.
You are 100% correct, legally it is not theft. That said, I don't begrudge people calling it that, because it's a colloquialism. "He stole my girlfriend" or "she took my idea" and other such things are good examples. Whether actual property or ownership is involved or not we often use "theft" and "took" and "stole" as slang terms.
Teddy wrote on Nov 27, 2011, 07:59:
The LAW says that Piracy, be it music, video or software IS NOT THEFT. They have plenty of categories of theft, from petty theft, grand theft, larceny, robbery, and note that NOT ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES is piracy related. Not one.
You're welcome to ignore the personal attacks, I throw them in because you've earned them. Particularly by being such a complete and utter hypocrite. You accuse me of not bothering to read everything when you conveniently skip over the parts of everyone's posts where they explain IN DETAIL that they're well aware that piracy is wrong and illegal, yet you still accuse them of trying to rationalize or justify because they don't agree with your idiotic, incorrect (and completely proven so) definition of piracy.
^Drag0n^ wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:38:Teddy wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 14:05:
No one is arguing whether it's illegal or immoral, so there's no justifying of anything going on, you utter fucking retard, They're arguing the fact that for some reason you (and apparently some other idiot on here) seem incapable of understanding the difference.
And perhaps you should not just read one of my posts and go off half cocked, but rather read the conversation before throwing the verbal filth around. Had you done so, you would have seen I actually acknowledged that, but pointed out my reason for posting that link was more to what the US Attorney said to the media, and the ramifications it has going forward; so if you're going to quote the article, be sure you quote the relevant part:"'Music piracy is stealing and, unless you want to end up in a federal prison, don’t do it,' said U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg in a statement trumpeting the verdict."
I've pretty much come to expect comments at that level from you, which is why I really don't care about the personal attacks you throw in as well.
QED.
^D^
Prez wrote on Nov 26, 2011, 18:37:
** I still refuse to be treated like a thief by Ubisoft, so after I buy games with their always-on crap, I play the superior warez version. This is the only case where piracy still applies for me.
Prez wrote on Nov 26, 2011, 17:25:
Again, all your emphatic statements and passionate dissertations don't change the fact that you have no idea if what you say is even close to true. You are projecting your personal image of the modern day software pirate as if it were somehow irrefutable reality. Sorry, but because there's no way of knowing each and every pirate's habits, it's not.
Prez wrote on Nov 26, 2011, 15:53:
It's ironic that you are saying it's an "idiotic argument to make" when you are using the smallest slice of anecdotal evidence (yourself) to extrapolate that everyone else must do things exactly the same. Unless you follow every single pirate's habits and spy on everything each one does, the only BS argument here is yours, since you are just pulling shit out of your ass. Sorry.
I don't care if there is some exception at play here, that 5% of you actually do purchase after "demo'ing" the game - you're way in the minority.
It's a completely BS, and frankly idiotic, argument to make.
Dev wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 20:05:
He kinda did, I linked it in my reply.
Here:
http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
Dev wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 20:05:ASeven wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 18:22:I don't know how much its like 78, but I'll point out that NPD doesn't track much digital (for instance they have no steam numbers at all), which means they are increasingly irrelevant for PC game numbers.
Uuuh, it's exactly like 78. Publishers are pushing a lot of games per month (Just look at the past two months) and you only have to see the forums and the NPD numbers, amongst others, to see people are indeed buying less games. From the past 3 years, only about 8 or 9 months of the whole 36 showed an increase in sales, the rest was a decrease. And I mean software only, if we take hardware into account, namely consoles, the picture's more dire. The forums are also a good indication, console and PC alike, that people are getting fed up with the quality of games. Also, there's a major, vast migration going into other platforms, like mobile, and publishers are not adapting into it.
My wild guess is that the current state of PC gaming is something around 50% retail, 50% digital, and of the digital, valve has at least 25% of it. 25% of the entire PC gaming market is not chump change.
WarpCrow wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:59:
You do realize that a US attorney is simply a high-ranking lawyer, right? A lawyer who, in this case, was prosecuting in a case of commercial piracy? Which is, incidentally, legally completely separate from small-scale piracy for personal, non-commercial use.
Prez wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 11:04:He kinda did, I linked it in my reply.
It may be a point worth mentioning that the World of Goo designer never provided any hard data or either, but just expected us to take the 90% number on faith. I am just not going believe that these ridiculously high numbers have anything to do with reality just because some dude says they do.
More likely they are using grossly inflated numbers to play the sympathy card so more people may be convinced to pay for the game. Which is fine, but the numbers are still ridiculous.
ASeven wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 18:22:I don't know how much its like 78, but I'll point out that NPD doesn't track much digital (for instance they have no steam numbers at all), which means they are increasingly irrelevant for PC game numbers.
Uuuh, it's exactly like 78. Publishers are pushing a lot of games per month (Just look at the past two months) and you only have to see the forums and the NPD numbers, amongst others, to see people are indeed buying less games. From the past 3 years, only about 8 or 9 months of the whole 36 showed an increase in sales, the rest was a decrease. And I mean software only, if we take hardware into account, namely consoles, the picture's more dire. The forums are also a good indication, console and PC alike, that people are getting fed up with the quality of games. Also, there's a major, vast migration going into other platforms, like mobile, and publishers are not adapting into it.
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:39:
a) Prices are generall lower than in the past and in some cases vastly lower;
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:39:
b) Quality gaming exists in abundance; while there is a ton of crap shovelware out there, it's not at all comparable to the 1978 situation;
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:39:
c) New technology continues to allow for new avenues for gaming (like cell phones;
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:39:
d) Digital distribution eliminates the need for manufacturing/inventory costs, thus eliminating a huge chunk of costs and associate risks.
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 16:39:
So no, this is not the same as the lead-up to the prior crash. Not by a long shot.
And perhaps you should not just read one of my posts and go off half cocked, but rather read the conversation before throwing the verbal filth around. Had you done so, you would have seen I actually acknowledged that, but pointed out my reason for posting that link was more to what the US Attorney said to the media, and the ramifications it has going forward; so if you're going to quote the article, be sure you quote the relevant part: