HDCP works right now because most people aren't aware of it but when they actually turn on the content protection flags you can bet your ass people will be upset.

Hardly. By that time most computers will have graphics, sound and monitors that support it and a lot of people won't even notice. It will also still be higher quality than DVD, so it's not going to be the end of the world anyway.

Remember how LAN gaming used to work? If I had a copy of Age of Empires 2, I could install the game on every PC on my LAN, and with just one physical disc, play the game with 3 or 4 other people.

If memory serves it had a CD-check on startup, meaning you had to load up the game on a computer, take the disc out, and repeat with each - it was quite a bit of hassle, though it worked.

So I install the game on all the PC's on my LAN, run a cracked .exe for all copies, and use pirated serials to play my legally purchased game over my personal home network. While this is, in the strictest sense, in violation of the EULA, in my view it is in no way whatsoever in violation of "fair use", my own (much more practical) guiding light.

Well, other people are getting enjoyment out of the experience when it hasn't been paid for. I can understand why publishers would insist upon each person having their own copy. It's like owning a single copy of Windows and thinking it's fair to run it on all the computers in the house... it's not fair, even if you did buy the original at full price. Do I think it's immoral, though? No. I did the exact same thing back in the day, though I do things differently now.

But in the narrow view of the developer, if I log in with my legal serial and my kids and/or firends with the pirated serial, then what they see is one legal version and 2 or 3 pirated version. And then they claim a pirated to legal copy ratio of 3 to 1. See how numbers can lie?

They don't lying. In that scenario two-to-three people are using copies of the game they have no right to use. Just because one person in the house owns a copy does not excuse the others.

I maintain that a majority of these people, and perhaps even a vast majority, are not what you could consider "customers" in the real sense of the word; that is, they would not have bought the game had piracy not been an option. They would have more likely just not played it.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong. It's also possible many of those pirated copies could generate legitimate sales or be from people that have lost/damaged their disc. However, there is definitely a large group of people that pirate games because it is convenient and that would have otherwise bought it. Also, even if those people wouldn't have otherwise bought the game that doesn't give them the right to get enjoyment from it. If you can't afford a Mercedes then you don't have any right to drive one - the only difference with the digital world is that you're not depriving someone of it, though that's not a justification to condone it.

At the end of the day I believe the statement in the article is accurate - the rampant piracy on PC will reduce the number of sales, whether on console or PC. It's about making money and if they can delay the PC release by a few months and make more money because of it then they'd be silly not to. If PC gamers, like ourselves, want to change that then we need to support a reduction in piracy. Clearly DRM is NOT the answer but we need to find what is. Personally I think the closest solution that is consumer friendly would be increased DRM with digital distribution, as long as it reduces piracy and doesn't limit legitimate use - the activation limits of present are unacceptable.

Sorry Prez, can't agree with you there. What's the safest assumption? That hundreds of thousands of DRM-aware and tech savvy people are pirating copies for their legitimately owned copies -OR- lots of people like free games? I'm going with the simplest explanation. I don't doubt that publishers overshoot on some piracy estimates but I dare say they aren't very far off.

That's fine; at least as you admit that it's only an assumption, which is all I really ask. In truth, I have no idea how far off they are in their estimates, nor do you, and neither do they. I do know that of all the people I know personally who download games (myself included), only one does so without buying it if they intend to play a significant portion of it (Not myself).

Again, my initial point in this was to debunk the "only pirates think publishers exaggerate piracy claims." myth. I have NEVER stolen a game, nor will I ever. I love and respect gaming too much to not support the developers who contribute to it.

Makes sense to me. I own a high end PC and some consoles. If I had no morals, wanted the game and it was available for free I'd get it for free instead of paying money for it. I don't get whats so hard to understand about that. People say "well consoles have piracy too!" and they're right but most people aren't smart enough or even know where to obtain a mod chip, plus theres the fear of the online account banning.

I think the part that doesn't make sense to me is why you'd want to pay for a game on the PC that is clearly designed for a console... I can't think of any game that was cross platform (designed for consoles) that would be preferable on the PC.

The purpose of fighting piracy is to get them to purchase a PC copy of the game i assume, but for these games I don't think they measure up enough to even consider a purchase for most PC gamers.

So the concept that PC gamers will want to pay for console games on the PC doesn't add up. the experience is better on the consoles in my opinion. And renting the game is cheap and worth the price in my opinion. Assuming they don't have a console why are pc gamers going to pay for any of this shit?

And they are shit. (console-PC games) Console games are years behind PC games, I'd say the games are 1-2 years behind the PC on gameplay. I think the RTS games are an excellent example of how a PC game gets gutted and doesn't work the same on the consoles. Reversing that process taking a console game and putting it onto a pc doesn't change it that much but the quality of the game by PC standards is laughable.

So how do you convince PC gamers to pay for substandard products? Assuming piracy is completely crushed why are pc gamers going to accept taking a leap back in time and play games that will never measure up to software created specifically for their platform?

I don't think there is a way. I think EA, and other companies decision to use online activations is to force people into paying. I think they believe that faced with the idea of not playing games or paying full retail price, pc gamers will pay full price.

I think that is tragically naive. Value is value and if your software isn't worth the price, people won't pay. This could have worked when they was less competition but all they will do is drive consumers away into other games. they may miss a few big titles (like Spore, or Mass Effect, or any other title using this stuff) but eventually these companies will stop trying to market games on the PC because sales are so weak.

I believe this will help PC gaming because the shelves won't be flooded with console-pc games and companies that make true PC games will soak up more market share and meet the demand that pc gamers offer.

So I say go ahead and keep up the bad work devs. Hopefully your company leaders will stop thinking they can rip off PC gamers and stop trying to sell PC versions of their console games and we can all quit listening to you whine about piracy.

Sorry Prez, can't agree with you there. What's the safest assumption? That hundreds of thousands of DRM-aware and tech savvy people are pirating copies for their legitimately owned copies -OR- lots of people like free games? I'm going with the simplest explanation. I don't doubt that publishers overshoot on some piracy estimates but I dare say they aren't very far off.

I don't accept the usual piracy excuses personally and frankly don't really care to hear them rehashed a million times in the press or in forums. What I'd like hear to from publishers is a realistic plan to combat it instead of the negative press or platform abandonment. Publishers please, I plan to buy my games, now make sure other people do or just give up altogether so I can stop reading about it constantly.

What I can see with my own eyes is thousands of torrent sites, files on usenet and so on. It's not really hard to understand where publishers come up with the idea.

The only thing that torrent sites prove definitively is THAT a game is being pirated. It does not prove how much. To whit, can you say for sure that half of the downloaded torrents of Spore were not downloaded by owners of the game who wanted a DRM free version or more flexibility in the form of multiple accounts? Of course, it is an obvious fact that many people feel no shame in helping themselves to others' hard work for nothing. But I maintain that a majority of these people, and perhaps even a vast majority, are not what you could consider "customers" in the real sense of the word; that is, they would not have bought the game had piracy not been an option. They would have more likely just not played it. I'll admit that this is equally speculative on my part, but I always wonder how wise it is to saddle your legal, paying customers with such restrictive, obtrusive crap as DRM based only on an assumption. The fact that DRM by and large pisses off paying customers is NOT speculative; it is known fact.

Some of them monitor their master servers and can see pirated copies attempting to login. Guess those people just hated the game so much they wanted to hop online too!

Again, did you consider alternatives to that assumption? Here's a personal scenario.

Remember how LAN gaming used to work? If I had a copy of Age of Empires 2, I could install the game on every PC on my LAN, and with just one physical disc, play the game with 3 or 4 other people. Nowadays, it is not that way at all. If I buy a game, say for example Company of Heroes, and want to play it on my LAN at home with 2 or 3 other people, Relic expects me to buy 2 or 3 more copies of the same game to do so. Not being a rich guy, but someone who loves to game with friends and family, this is simply not a practical solution. So I install the game on all the PC's on my LAN, run a cracked .exe for all copies, and use pirated serials to play my legally purchased game over my personal home network. While this is, in the strictest sense, in violation of the EULA, in my view it is in no way whatsoever in violation of "fair use", my own (much more practical) guiding light. The developers have been justly compensated; the game stays in my house and does not get used outside of my own personal network.

But in the narrow view of the developer, if I log in with my legal serial and my kids and/or firends with the pirated serial, then what they see is one legal version and 2 or 3 pirated version. And then they claim a pirated to legal copy ratio of 3 to 1. See how numbers can lie?

There are benefits to owning a real copy aren't there? No? There are really. Patches and cheat-free multiplayer (haha! just kidding!) to name just two. You also get a disc and a neat box!

But isn't it funny that this has all come down to the exact opposite? There are arguably more benefits to owning a pirated version. Especially single player games If not dealing with DRM is worth more than the trouble associted with only being able to play on cracked servers, having to wait for cracks to come out for new patches, then there really is no benefit to buying it, other than moral or legal obligations.

As for pirating the PC version instead of buying the console version, the console is a totally different experience than the PC. But then again, some people are totally fine with crappy, camera recordings of IMAX movies. Go figure.

Makes sense to me. I own a high end PC and some consoles. If I had no morals, wanted the game and it was available for free I'd get it for free instead of paying money for it. I don't get whats so hard to understand about that. People say "well consoles have piracy too!" and they're right but most people aren't smart enough or even know where to obtain a mod chip, plus theres the fear of the online account banning.

I wish I could say people would do the right thing and should be given the benefit of the doubt but I'm not 10 years old, I know how the world works.

I honestly don't understand the analogy you posted at all. Hmmm.... I must be a dumbass.

The analogy was supposed mean that if some people can get a cheap meal, they will. It doesn't mean they would have eaten an expensive one just because it was their only other choice.

No??? I just don't know how to shoot that one down. PC piracy causes lost console game sales? I mean, wow. just wow. That's the reason they don't want to port a game like Force Unleashed? (or at least deny it until they feel like they've gotten all the sales they ever will, because if they announce it, suddenly, it's a waiting game for people who want to play it, but would pirate it if it was on the PC)

Plus, they already do. Try playing a movie with PowerDVD using your computer's component output. But yes, it's going to cause quite a stir when they flip the HDCP switch (not having your pS3 will only work for so long since eventually a new disc will require an update)

I can't think of a single copy protection method for any intellectual property that inconveniences users lasting long. iTunes DRM works because its seamless and in the end it's actually not very effective at all, it just keeps the casual users in line. HDCP works right now because most people aren't aware of it but when they actually turn on the content protection flags you can bet your ass people will be upset. TPM in mainstream desktop boards was already attempted by Intel/Microsoft with the intent of protection for applications and games, the uproar was so crazy they backed off within days.

The only way to make it effective is unfortunately always an inconvenience to the user and people don't tolerate it in computers for the most part.

I believe the overall effect piracy has on whether or not a game is successful is limited at most, and negligible most of the time. Disagreement with that is fine, but I have never seen any concrete evidence to the contrary, and it is not, as a matter of fact, "common sense". It is a specious, speculative assumption, much like reported numbers of pirated games are.

To be fair to his position(however blunt and rude it is), I've never seen any statistical proof that piracy doesn't have a vast effect on the PC gamind industry. What I can see with my own eyes is thousands of torrent sites, files on usenet and so on. It's not really hard to understand where publishers come up with the idea. Some of them monitor their master servers and can see pirated copies attempting to login. Guess those people just hated the game so much they wanted to hop online too!


This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 22:11.

I will not up the intelligence level any. This is the internet buddy. People dont expect intelligence.

Just because this discussion is via internet and not face-to-face, it is to be devoid of intelligence? People may not expect intelligence, but surprise 'em once in a while. And in truth, I honestly don't understand the analogy you posted at all. Hmmm.... I must be a dumbass.

By "intelligence", I mean to say that one should avoid silly all-or-nothing statements like "If you don't think Piracy has an effect on gaming, then you are a pirate!" and the like.

I believe the overall effect piracy has on whether or not a game is successful is limited at most, and negligible most of the time. Disagreement with that is fine, but I have never seen any concrete evidence to the contrary, and it is not, as a matter of fact, "common sense". It is a specious, speculative assumption, much like reported numbers of pirated games are.

People will not tolerate having something tell them they can't watch a movie

Plus, they already do. Try playing a movie with PowerDVD using your computer's component output. But yes, it's going to cause quite a stir when they flip the HDCP switch (not having your pS3 connected to the net will only work for so long since eventually a new disc will require an update)

This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 22:06.

Which is exactly why it would never work on the PC. People will not tolerate having something tell them they can't watch a movie, piece of music or play a game.

HDCP. 'nuff said.

HDCP isn't even enabled for content yet. Wait for the shitstorm when it is. I have no clue what the hell the iLok is so I can't comment on it and I suspect that fact alone ensures that it's barely relevant.

The reason he is arguing, failure to admit he is a pirate and he wants to disenvow any involvement.

Why the hell do you think I would need to disavow any involvment with a scumbag pirate like you on an internet bulletin board?

Get a life, idiot...

"And VGReagle, your attempt at being all holier-than-now with your inexplicable statement really only makes you sound like an arrogant prick, which in reality I'm sure you're not. Try to up the intelligence level a tad."

I will not up the intelligence level any. This is the internet buddy. People dont expect intelligence.

And another thing I never said I wasnt a pirate.

"That's like saying people eating at McDonalds affects Red Lobster across the street (they're two ENTIRELY different products sold to ENTIRELY different people. please don't get technical, this is a fact.)"

I suppose you think the comment above is "intelligent". I think that the food analogy is far fetched, probably becuase he is arguing against a point that in reality is true. The reason he is arguing, failure to admit he is a pirate and he wants to disenvow any involvement.


This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 20:57.

"Any publisher these days, dumb enough to release a PC game day and date as the console version, is just begging to be ripped off. Its really that simple."

Console sales lost to PC Piracy? .001% - releasing a game is begging to be ripped off. PERIOD.

Scenario 1. Release a game at the same time on both consoles and PC -

Result: people pirate the PC version and don't buy the console version? PC = bad. This is new. I've never heard this one before actually. I hope you're not serious - this take PC persecution to a whole new level. That's like saying people eating at McDonalds affects Red Lobster across the street (they're two ENTIRELY different products sold to ENTIRELY different people. please don't get technical, this is a fact.)

How about instead we:

Scenario 2. Release a game on consoles a year or two before the PC version -
milk it for all its worth - it sold on consoles, it will be easy to port to pc and make a few extra bucks!

Result: the people who would have bought the PC version probably already got it for the console, PC version is a crappy port (from PS2 even?), PC version is overshadowed by much better titles released since original release. PC sales suck. PC = bad

Exhibit A: Gears of War - GfW:live + Copy protection issues + Bugs
Exhibit B: Halo 2 Required Vista, end of story
Exhibit C: Resident Evil 4 - PS2 Port, Console-itis (fixed with a patch?)
Exhibit D: Devil May Cry 4 - Console controls, 4th Game in a series never on PC before
Exhibit E: EA Sports Anything half assed port from PS2 version 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc...

or better yet:

Scenario 3. Release a game on the PC a year before console versions (or even at the same time, see Orange Box) Or,if the game sold well on the PC, make a console sequel of a popular PC game. We've totally got a hit on our hands!

Result: it needs to be dumbed down for the consoles, forcing a natural PC game to use console controls and played by primairly console gamers, doesn't sell well. PC = bad

Exhibit A: THE SIMS
Exhibit B: Any RTS - Command & Conquer 3, Supreme Commander, Warcraft 2,
Exhibit C: Orange Box
Exhibit D: Civilization Revolutions
Exhibit E: Deus Ex: Invisible War

This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 20:39.

But why? What is the difference between releasing concurrently versus releasing a year later? Not saying you're wrong, I just need an explanation because I don't see the connection.

I'll take a stab at this. With titles like Mass Effect, or Bioshock, or CoD4, each are major releases on all platforms and receive a ton of marketing surrounding their launch. In Bioshock's and CoD4's case both were pretty high profile piracy issues and surely caused a lot of headaches for the companies. (for the PC version)

I think a delayed launch for mass effect avoided most of that issue because when the game launches much later less people pay attention to it. So if it gets pirated it's not as big a deal.

I suppose the logic is by not having a PC version on the market they think more people will go out and buy or rent the console version. They view this version as more secure.

I think it's a glass half full / half empty situation. They can sell the game only on consoles and get higher sales on that platform and accept lower sales on the PC side. Or they can do a simultaneous release and take lower sales on console versions, higher sales on pc versions and have highly visible piracy to deal with.

I think it's a wash in the end, but one side doesn't involve having the higher ups freak out when their game shows up on the torrents.

And it's possible that despite all the fees that come with selling games on consoles that they make more money per copy sold on the consoles than they do on the PC. there is also very likely kickbacks from the console companies for only offering a game on consoles for a period. Sony and MS do not get their commission when a copy sells on the PC so both companies are likely to offer financial benefits to companies that give consoles first shot at a new game.

It's funny how some of you only hear what you want to. Please explain to me how you get "Piracy isn't at all a problem" from "Piracy is not the main reason the game failed". These are 2 completely different statements. To pretend to answer the first statement when in fact people are using the second is a strawman argument.

Spore got so many million downloads, blah blah blah. Last I heard, EA was bragging about ho much money they are making off of Spore. To me, that fact alone pretty much shoots the theory that piracy causes games to fail out of the water.

And VGReagle, your attempt at being all holier-than-now with your inexplicable statement really only makes you sound like an arrogant prick, which in reality I'm sure you're not. Try to up the intelligence level a tad.

Any publisher these days, dumb enough to release a PC game day and date as the console version, is just begging to be ripped off. Its really that simple.

But why? What is the difference between releasing concurrently versus releasing a year later? Not saying you're wrong, I just need an explanation because I don't see the connection.


This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 20:06.

If you pussys are arguing that piracy on the PC is not a problem then your must be a pirate (why dont you admit it).

I've never heard anybody (EVER) say that piracy isn't a problem on the PC but get something straight:

Piracy affects publishers.
DRM affects customers.

Piracy is a problem for publishers.
DRM is a problem for customers.

Piracy is a problem. But what is the solution to piracy? (or rather, what solution have publishers chosen?) DRM

And what's the solution to DRM? (Example problems: Ran out of activations after you upgraded your videocard? Securom detected DaemonTools or Nero and refuses to install your game? Your Direct2Drive game is asking for the CD? Lost the manual for your old game so you don't know what the 3rd letter in the 1st word on page 67 is? StarForce doesn't work in Vista x64?)

Ironic, isn't it?

If you pussys are arguing that piracy on the PC is not a problem then your must be a pirate (why dont you admit it).

Anyone of you below who think piracy isnt a problem on the PC I guarantee have stolen thosands of dollars of copyrigthed software.

Spore got downloaded 1 million times on just 1 torrent allready.

Dont even bother denying it.


This comment was edited on Oct 8, 2008, 19:11.

Any publisher these days, dumb enough to release a PC game day and date as the console version, is just begging to be ripped off. Its really that simple.

In fact, most publishers doing triple-A games these days just happen to release a PC version as a sort of 'residual' income to those few PC gamers who actually do buy games.

And anyone denying that piracy has no effect on PC game is one dumb sumbitch. Or a pirate. Or both.

As I have said before, in the very - VERY - near future, all PC games will rely exclusively on off-site authentication.

SecuROM et al all get cracked (Spore? Cracked in under 24hrs) routinely.