* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 28, 2010, 10:58.

Pirates will simply find the content on one of the numerous torrent sites. Meanwhile genuine users will have to visit dozens of sites to download patches instead of being able to check out just one (like Fileplanet, etc). It also increases the cost to the publishers, which generally like to jettison support for games at the earliest possible opportunity. Not to mention you now need have usernames and passwords to worry about, which is problematic if someone takes your username or they have a limit on the characters (I come across that quite often). It's a pain in the arse.

Just handle it all in game. And I don't think having user accounts is necessary. Just authenticate the unique id.

I just recently patched up several games after reinstalling and it's a huge pain to find the proper order patches need to be installed in. Stalker for example needed several patches to get to the most updated version and finding the right order is annoying.

By comparison Supreme commander patched everything right from it's online interface, I just sat back and clicked apply when it needed me to.

I think companies already spend time and energy putting DRM stuff into their games and supporting those DRM tools and they would be better results by setting up an online system that patches and tracks who is genuine at the same time. Scrap the DRM crap altogether and give players additional content as a reward for authenticating online. Even if all they do is fix bugs, if they make those patches harder to get and release them frequently enough to make the pirates lives miserable things will likely be fine.

I don't know why all the companies do not run their own patch servers and stop distributing public patches. How fun would it be to have software that has a ton of additions for paying users and a pirate is sitting there with a version that doesn't have them and won't work online because of different version numbers.

Pirates will simply find the content on one of the numerous torrent sites. Meanwhile genuine users will have to visit dozens of sites to download patches instead of being able to check out just one (like Fileplanet, etc). It also increases the cost to the publishers, which generally like to jettison support for games at the earliest possible opportunity. Not to mention you now need have usernames and passwords to worry about, which is problematic if someone takes your username or they have a limit on the characters (I come across that quite often). It's a pain in the arse.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

On the one hand, I personally take a strong stance against piracy and get pretty steamed when I hear people talk about doing it so flippantly. I mean, doesn't it make you mad that half of the people playing CoD4, a game you professed to have liked a lot, are using cracked/warez versions? It sure bothers me.

It doesn't really bother me. I think about Windows Xp, I've purchased 2 copies of that so far and that has got to be the most pirated software on the market but as long as my software runs fine I'm happy. What annoys me is when I have to call an 800 number to verify why I'm reinstalling a legit copy of the software.

I think MS has done a good job with the genuine authentication thing. I think the best way developers can deal with piracy is to offer additional content that is available to paying customers. The new IE and new Media player both require validation before the will install in windows.

Stardock does something like this as well, I think you can only download the patches after you've registered with them. I think this is the best way to handle all of this. Adding content that people want to your software and requiring people prove they are legit in order to use it seems like a great way to get people to stop pirating software.

If companies would be aggressive in releasing additional content that was only available to legit users I think piracy would go WAY down.

Pirates might find a way to make the content work but the key is to keep releasing small things that are worth owning the software for.

I don't know why all the companies do not run their own patch servers and stop distributing public patches. How fun would it be to have software that has a ton of additions for paying users and a pirate is sitting there with a version that doesn't have them and won't work online because of different version numbers.

It feels good to know I'm a legit user and I would like companies to spend more time rewarding legit users instead of trying to hunt down pirates. Because we end up caught in the middle and I don't see why we should be dealing with these issues when we are the ones who keep them in business.

Tumbler - let it be stated that I never called you a pirate. I don't know you and don't have a clue what you do in your personal affairs. What I was responding to is what seemed to me a justification of piracy in your message.

I think why people choose not to spend money is more important than why piracy exists. A lot of my displeasure with PC products today stem from anti piracy measures. I don't like all the BS they (PC GAMES COMPANIES) make me put up with. (Buggy software doesn't help either) And that is why I'm not spending money on PC games in general.


I don't at all disagree with your stance that piracy isn't the biggest problem facing PC gaming, and if the truth were known, it's probably not even in the top 5. We're really talking separate issues. On the one hand, I personally take a strong stance against piracy and get pretty steamed when I hear people talk about doing it so flippantly. I mean, doesn't it make you mad that half of the people playing CoD4, a game you professed to have liked a lot, are using cracked/warez versions? It sure bothers me.

On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit that there would be a great deal fewer pirates if developers didn't encourage it through stupid copy protection and ridiculous pricing schemes. I also agree with you that fighting piracy is a losing battle and ends up treating your legitimate users like criminals. We agree on most everything; I think our problem is speaking about 2 separate issues.


This comment was edited on Apr 24, 21:42.

That implies that because YOUR perceived value of a product isn't worth the asking price, piracy is justified. If I am reading your point wrong, I apologize, but isn't that what you were saying?

I'm not a pirate. I'm not trying to justify piracy, I'm explaining why I don't spend my money on games that are on the store shelves.

I think why people choose not to spend money is more important than why piracy exists. A lot of my displeasure with PC products today stem from anti piracy measures. I don't like all the BS they (PC GAMES COMPANIES) make me put up with. (Buggy software doesn't help either) And that is why I'm not spending money on PC games in general.

I don't see why I, as a paying customer, need to be treated like I'm doing something wrong all the time. I understand the companies need to protect their products but there does not seem to be any concern about how it affects the paying customers. It feels like the PC game companies expect me to buy whatever they put on the shelf just because they worked hard on it.

So all this talk about how awful piracy is seems irrelevant when paying customers aren't interested in buying your games. (And I do not turn around and pirate the game)

I am sick to death of copy protection issues. But I see many games allowing players to play online without the discs which is a welcome change but we're still so far from a satisfactory experience for the paying customer that it boggles the mind why anyone is talking about piracy.

Get the games working first or they won't sell. That is what is causing all these problems for PC games. It's not piracy, it's the quality of the product.

I have money and I refuse to spend it on PC stuff. And I don't turn to piracy, I go buy a console and enjoy the time I spend gaming over there.

The PC Gaming industry can continue it's crusade to thwart piracy but I think it's a losing battle. You're pushing away paying customers in droves and I don't think you're making positive progress.

If you finish the single player of COD4 is four hours, then you're playing it on pussy difficulty and should rightfully have your balls revoked.

The multiplayer in COD4 was probably the best of last year, but the single player game certainly can't be ignored. But I don't see how anyone could enjoy it if they breeze through it in four fucking hours.

Maybe people would enjoy games more if they were harder, or if they actually had the testicular fortitude to play it on a higher difficulty level than "Pussy".

I enjoyed the hell out of Stalker myself. Great SP and a decent MP too. The living world can be hampered by virtue of being a bit stilted at times, but hopefully Clear Sky will fix that!

But 60 bucks for 4 hours of single player in Call of Duty 4? No thanks.

I'm in the same camp. I'll wait until I can pick it up for 5-10 bucks. I understand that it's the next best thing, but I'm not spending anything for four-eight hours of gameplay. I'm in no rush, the game can wait.

The supermassive download isn't worth my time, the CD isn't worth my money. A year from now I'll find out for myself what all the hubbub is about. Until then there's much more out there...

edit: I do, however plan on buying STALKER as it sounds like my cup of tea. It sounds like it's patched up now.

This comment was edited on Apr 24, 17:44.

I'm not trying to sound like a raving lunatic. But look a few posts back, and here is what you wrote:

...They are probably worth the time and effort needed to download the software for pirates but $50 for a paying customer? No. Not in 90% of the games I see on the store shelves...

That implies that because YOUR perceived value of a product isn't worth the asking price, piracy is justified. If I am reading your point wrong, I apologize, but isn't that what you were saying?

Kinda crazy, no?

Crazy seems to apply to most of what you just said. You sound like a raving lunatic.

Both he and I seem unhappy with the current state of things, the prices for software in general is too high for the quality, and we both buy after market stuff at a discount. And I'm surprised that CoD4 is the first title he thinks is overpriced...

And somehow you see piracy...

Arrrr.

This comment was edited on Apr 24, 17:17.

That's a perfect illustration that what someone considers worth $60, someone else values less. By a pirates reasoning, he should be allowed to pirate CoD4 simply because it isn't worth 50 or 60 bucks to him. Kinda crazy, no?

But 60 bucks for 4 hours of single player in Call of Duty 4? No thanks.

...what? CoD4 is your example of a game not worth $60? Are you fucking kidding me? Of all the trash that came out last year that is the game you want to complain about? Game of the Year for almost every platform and that is the one that isn't worth the price?!

There is a rather robust multi player game you get for that $60 as well... I'd say that the multi player side of this game is the real star of the show. It's such an awesome experience. And even though the SP campaign was short, it was friggin awesome. I'd pay for 4 hours like that if more games offered it.

I typically buy games used off gamefly if I still want to play them when they come up. Same concept as you I suppose, paying less for a used game, so far it's worked out great but I end up never playing the games so I've stopped doing that as well.
This comment was edited on Apr 24, 15:25.

When consoles games went from 50 bucks to 60 bucks 2 years ago and the amount of content in major-release games noticeably dropped, I realized (as a consumer) I needed to re-think what a game is worth to me. The result is that I buy virtually all of my console games used for no more than 25 bucks max. I'm more than willing to wait 4 months for the price to drop. Buying used games also means game developers arent seeing a penny of these purchases which is fine with me. I'd be happy to buy a console game for 30-50 bucks depending on content. But 60 bucks for 4 hours of single player in Call of Duty 4? No thanks.

What I don't get is, if the products companies are putting out are as poor as the pirates say, then why are they even worth pirating?

Good question and the answer is, their not. The fact of the matter for me, is that a few hundred to two gigs worth of crap isn't worth the download or install time. For me.

I'd rather buy it in a bargain bin for 10 bucks or at a pawn shop like old movies. There are advantages to not keeping up with popular culture.

I downloaded an almost two gig demo of Bioshock and it looked and worked great but randomly crashed to desktop. Has the demo been patched? The game? I don't know.

I'd like to play the Orange Box but will it work? I don't know. I don't care.

I'll wait until they they end up being twenty dollar buys, that way I wont be pissed off and maybe my computer will have caught up.

Until then I have a more than enough old games that I'm still catching up on that I'm enjoying.

So you wait until the price drops and then buy it. Just because you don't think something is worth $50, does not give pirates the right to steal it.

You are giving the same asinine arguments Jerykk gave. There is no excuse, or reason to steal, plain and simple.

Exactly. Thieves always try to rationalize their habit, but they are still only thieves. And as we all know, thieves suck.

So what's the problem? You, apparently, have come up with a system that works for you - you wait for the price to drop. Since you aren't paying the $50-$60 prices, why are you complaining about them?

Because the PC gaming industry has gotten progressively worse in recent years thanx to promoting piracy as the cause of all the troubles. Now we have intrusive copy protections, online activations, each box sold has a unique code that is being linked to a user accounts instead of just used to authenticate a legit copy/non legit.

We're heading for a place where game companies will have too much control over consumers and be able to gouge them for even more dollars than they already do.

I don't want that to happen. I don't want to be forced to buy a game at full price because each copy sold is licensed to an individual and resale/sharing is not allowed.

I'm certain that game companies want this and the changes we're seeing aren't aimed at combating piracy, they are aimed at exploiting more money from paying customers.

Just let us try the full product and decide if we like it. If we don't we can return it, no harm no foul, and if we like it then everyone is happy. No?

No. I can't think of a single example in the entertainment industry that allows you to have the full experience and then decide if you liked it enough to pay for it. There are plenty of ways to decide if you are going to like a game without having personal access to the full game. Go to a game cafe and try it out. Watch some videos on YouTube. Grab the demo, if they made one. Read the forums to see how actual customers are responding.

I'd try and buy A LOT more games if these companies were not such a bunch of dicks about all this stuff.

You might believe that. You might even mean it. But the reality is that when people have access to something for free, it makes them much less likely to pay for it (as a general rule). There have, in fact, been studies done that demonstrate that rather conclusively. So while doing so might make you happy, it would be financially devastating for the companies, and hence an incredibly stupid idea on their part.

And I refuse to buy most PC games at full price because they just aren't worth it. I wait for them to go on clearance and then all the BS is finally worth it because I'm only paying $10-$20 and if I don't like the game I'm fine with considering that cost a trial fee.

So what's the problem? You, apparently, have come up with a system that works for you - you wait for the price to drop. Since you aren't paying the $50-$60 prices, why are you complaining about them?


This comment was edited on Apr 23, 21:43.

They are probably worth the time and effort needed to download the software for pirates but $50 for a paying customer?

So you wait until the price drops and then buy it. Just because you don't think something is worth $50, does not give pirates the right to steal it.

You are giving the same asinine arguments Jerykk gave. There is no excuse, or reason to steal, plain and simple.

----------------------------------------------------
Burnout Paradise, Bioshock, Ratchet & Clank ToD

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

What I don't get is, if the products companies are putting out are as poor as the pirates say, then why are they even worth pirating?

Because they have value, just not value that is not equal to the sticker prices.

They are probably worth the time and effort needed to download the software for pirates but $50 for a paying customer? No. Not in 90% of the games I see on the store shelves.

So something needs to change, if your paying customers don't see the product you sell as being worth the price you've got a problem.

And fixing that does not involve cracking down on pirates. As someone said earlier, great copy protection won't sell games. (i think they said this in the fallout 3 thread)

This comment was edited on Apr 23, 21:09.