Piracy is good

Digital Distribution isn't necessarily Bittorent though.

I think the terms are indeed being confused though and the thread title is misleading(hence the arguments over off-topic stuff).

 

i know they aren't the same, but both are really really cheap.

it almost doesn't matter if you (the developer) take advantage of torrents or just normal server client downloading, it is really cheap.

 

lol I just wanted to clarify since we were on the topic of mixing terms

 

I'm quite sure a lot of us do that but we won't say so.. I applaud you for being sincire.

Well , in a way i have to say this gave me a laugh... its a little irrelevant but he totally right...
but here's my opinion.

Before you try to combat piracy , try solving the root of the problem. Games are expensive and some of us just can't afford them. Piracy allows us to get the games cheaply and easily... now by reducing prices , piracy will fall and more games will be sold. Now , this DRM fiasco from Ubisoft is just asking for more pirates... especially since it is so hard to play the games without internet connection etc...Thus these stupid capitalistic companies need to rethink their stratergy and use their brains more... or they're asking for more pirates...

 

This is an argument that pops up frequently in these piracy debate threads, so let me give the standard counterargument...

I can't afford a ferrari, or an airplane, or a house on the beach - yet if I steal any of these things, the "Well, I wanted it but couldn't afford it" defense probably will land me in jail.

So, if it's wrong to steal everything else just because you want it but can't afford it, why is it OK for computer games??

Yes, I know, the examples above are extremes. Let's make them not so much.

A used bike in the shop near where I live (one-speed and old) can be as cheap as $50 to $60 bucks.

If I can't afford it, but want it anyway, is it OK to steal it?

We KNOW the answer to this (of course it's not OK to steal it, and of course you'll go to jail if you are caught doing so) - so why is there a similar argument for games?

 

Want I think needs to be made is a distinction between saying "it's OK" and saying, "this is why it is done."

I sincerely believe most people know piracy is illegal. Stating the reason why they engage in piracy isn't necessarily justifying it in the moral sense. They are telling you WHY they or someone else does/did it.

Must everyone preface each post with "while I think piracy is wrong..." before discussing the probable causes of and solutions to piracy?

Though I haven't seen a post in this thread that says explicitly or implicitly that piracy is acceptable.

What I read is that piracy is inevitable. So here's what should be done since it's not going away...

 

A few thoughts:

-As has been mentioned previously by other members, software piracy has a different result than theft of physical property. If you steal a bike, you deprive the owner of a bike. If you steal a game, you don't deprive the owner of the game.

A better analogy is photocopying a book then redistributing it on the net. If you get caught doing this in the same not-for-profit manner software is distributed you're not likely going to jail.

-Some ambiguity is added since consumers faced extreme changes the past decade. When I was 14, (1999) Napster was king. People exchanged as much as their <56k modem allowed with no threat of being labeled a criminal. The CD-R market expanded, now selling blank discs explicitly labeled for 'audio' use. Every music store was selling them at $5 a pop. In that atmosphere a person developed the notion that Napster is as legitimate as recording songs off the radio. (Another thing the recording industry hated but had no ability to restrict.)

It has only been 10 years since then and we have a completely opposite understanding of it. Unless you've been under a rock, it's clear piracy is wrong. But it takes time for attitudes to change. Especially when the music/gaming/software market drastically changes from year to year.

 

At the end of the day this debate could go on and on and on and on and on, nothing will be resolved.

Piracy is here, and will never go away, just like it's been here for donkeys years.

You either hate it, or love it, you, i or anyone else will not solve the problem to piracy.

People will try to make it harder for pirates etc etc, but, if it can be made by man, it can be broken by man.

 

It isn't an argument. It's a rule of law. We are not here to argue whether it is there or not. I don't think anyone's denying that piracy is 'illegal'. They--pirates--wouldn't even argue otherwise, but they execute piracy because the internet is a medium which allows considerable degree of anonymity and ID security. It is easy, and dooable, with plenty of incentive. It takes much more physical dexterity and cunning to actually break into a store or someone's backyard to steal something that belongs to them or is under their ownership, which is why it is usually made a bigger deal out of on a normal basis. There is less accountability associated with the net medium at this point, and the proportions of that accountability reflect on every other aspect, from the consequences of 'theft' to the stark contrast in the willingness for a larger audience to consider 'theft' of software in comparison to a real-world offence.

Also, your example wasn't extreme. I found your first example (murder, plagarism, slavery) to be far more extreme than this one, since in that one, you were blatantly blurring the lines between morality and legality. Of course, your subsequent position was quite clear.

 

Perhaps something that no one on this thread has considered just yet, if BitTorrent or any other Digital Data Distribution network was used, the Game Developing Companies would still have to pay a monetary commission to the network operators to cover the sudden outrage of people using the trackers, from their servers all at once, plus, any upgrades, repairs, etc... that are a direct derivative from such, among other costs.

There is no set-value for the costs stated above, plus, the game developers would have to charge an extra on the Game Price (minus Publishers and Distributors) per sale to cover the commission, and the money to cover the costs above would have to come out from the money obtained from the sales of the game, which in turn may fatten the price.

Game Companies have their chosen publishing, distribution, etc... companies because of business partnerships and trust, plus, maintained prices for the services that they offer, and it may or may not be the case with BitTorrent service providers.

There is also an increased cost for the customers as well, say, you use an internet service provider's without an unlimited bandwidth plan, any extra bandwidth exceeded by the high Upload and Download rates on BitTorrent downloads will generate more costs, and that money will come right out from your pockets.

A provided fact, BitTorrent is not stable and not reliable, at least not constantly, members in this thread have pointed out the problem about the lack of Seeders, with the current distribution methods that are currently used by Game Companies, it is much less likely that you will run into problems such as not being able to download the game you purchased.

Customer Support Personnel would also have to be trained on BitTorrent, in order to be qualified to respond to any questions or issues the customers may run into, that too requires money which will come right out from the incomes received, as you cannot just depend on the community to solve it all.

Using BitTorrent and other Distribution Services to nullify Piracy is a good idea on paper, but once that you get the straight facts, it is hard to overlook the many Con's involved within the equation.

Perhaps, the closest that we will get to this is VALVe's Steam, and even a recognized system like Steam has its flaws.

My experience?, I am a Private Accountant.

 

Any good scener knows that BitTorrent is absolutely rubbish.

As you stated lack of seeders crappy speeds etc etc...

That's why people use Topsites (Fast back boned FTP servers which are private to release groups etc)

And Usenet, providers such as giganews etc, you pay a small monthly fee, to get unlimited speeds which always max out you're broadband connection speed, no worries about seeders etc, as the data is stored on the newsgroups.

 

We're not talking about private servers for a small group of sceners.
- Millions upon millions of copies of working games are being pirated via BitTorrent. Any argument to say BitTorrent is ineffective is completely null when faced with this fact. There is no way you can say it's horrible way to distribute digital data when it's the most effective way to do so right now. If any parts of the data is corrupted, BitTorrent is excellent for fixing that. You can't download all of it at one time, again very effective
- Number of users is not a problem. More you have the better it is.
- Torrent slowing down, renting a SeedBox is next to nothing cost for a developer
- Have to pay someone else for a tracker? You're kidding right? The whole point of BitTorrent is that ANYONE can setup their own torrent. This would be a laughable and complete joke problem for any publisher. In fact almost any Korean MMO right now has their own torrent software and their own tracker for distributing their game and the speeds are ALWAYS high.

This is about an effective way for publishers to make use of the tools gamers are using to get their games. And then upon that, thinking of a way to make a profit. If you have millions of copies of MW2 being pirated, then there are a million users you could have made a profit from. In game advertising, a coca-cola mascot notifying you when you killed someone, all it has to be is a small picture that is not annoying. But over time that method of advertising is very effective yet unotrusive to game play or degrade it. That's all it is, instead of just seeing Ziddy killed Foxygirl, you see (coca-cola bear face) ziddy killed Foxygirl. The mascot somehow drawn to match the font.

Whatever it's just an idea to make a profit instead of raging at the pirating.

The issue isn't about raging that pirating is illegal. That's dumb, if it was legal we wouldn't be calling it pirating. And we've seen all sorts of DRM from game content purposefully broken to online methods.
- Sony's method of game content degrading over time is so farking dumb it's mind blowing. If the morons actually paid attention to how games are pirated they would punch themselves in the face repeatedly until they hospitalized themselves.
- Problem is that pirated versions are almost always RETAIL/LEGAL versions that have been cracked. They are not the leaked versions etc. So the methods above are USELESS.

Find a way to take advantage of the fact that MILLIONS of people are playing your game. See those MILLIONS of people as opportunities to make money. And once you to take control, gamers don't NEED or WANT to pirate it as they will have a legal copy while supporting the developers/publishers.

It's farking win win for everyone and in most likely even more profitable for the publishers/developers.

Have any idea how profitable TV episodes are?!?!?!? Simple advertising leads to $1,600% PROFIT. SO MUCH MONEY! And people watch these shows FOR FREE! Use that same model!

This isn't a moral issue. For Publishers it's not. You think CEO says I need to implement DRM because piracy is wrong? Do you think he says it's my moral obligation because it's ILLEGAL? NO!! He thinks he's losing money. It's about the money.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PLAYING THE GAME = MILLIONS OF OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY.

 

Before pirated material even gets to torrents, it is first distrubuted through Topsites, then onto Newsgroups, as these get the material as soon as it's pre'd in the scene.

People who use torrents do not obviously know about newsgroups, and are not involved with any release group or private topsite, which is the first place where all the material goes to, then it gets FXP'd between other topsites, then spreads to newsgroups very quickly, then onto p2p.

Even sceners/rls groups thoughts towards p2p and bit torrent is hate.

You may only need a few seedboxed as you stated, but with things such as usenet, you don't even need that, as i stated, the speeds are always maxed out, and you're bound to get whatever you're looking for on usenet 99% of the time.

Pirated material is far to mainstream to how it used to be, it's far too easy now to get hold of it.

 

Who gives a pile of dog poop.

The end result is that the MILLIONS of people who pirate the game are through BitTorrent. The publishers/developers couldn't care less about your newsgroups and whatever other methods. Great some know about them, hope their elitist ego is satisfied.

The other MILLIONS of gamers get the same copy and play through use of BitTorrent. That's what the issue is. Usenet should not ever be considered for a publisher, waste of time and money. BitTorrent is accessible to EVERYONE FOR FREE.

Why are you even arguing about this? This has nothing to do with the thread or topic. This is not the point. If you want to talk about how stupid people are and how awesome newsgroups and usenet is, then do it somewhere else.

 

Some other suggestions

These are all ways to get gamers to watch your advertisement without delaying their game time. There are many instances in Single Player or Multi-Player where you have to wait anyways, regardless.

Just thinking about it briefly.

- Tripwire Interactive has a great method. All the online shooters have a waiting period. During that waiting period, you can have a box, that plays commercials. If players rage about it, who cares. They can rage. It has zero impact on the gameplay. Just make the ads pertinent to the game. Having an advertisement about green peace in a game where you hunt animals is not an awesome idea. Having a movie trailer for District 9 in a sci-fi game is an awesome idea. Having an advertisement about Apple MacBook Pro is not a great idea if it's the latest cutting edge visuals. Having an advertisement about the latest and greatest AMD Processor might be better. Just saying there are ways to not anger the gamers.

- Many games even single player will have a lobby. What a great place to make some money. Have mini TV screens. Heck give the players a choice. They can log into a radio room. Plays samples of music that some random label wants to introduce new artist to players.

- People love movie trailers. Give them a place to watch them while they wait for game to load.

- Majority of people sit at their computer and watch it install. During the installation, it's money time. Have an avatar for some company introduce the EULA, or whatever agreement. Have an avatar introduce where you want to install the game. Instead of having game scenes during install, having advertisement.
- This does not impact the gameplay. Players complaining, who cares, they got the game for FREE or next to nothing and they get to play with no advertisement in game.

I mean it's not rocket science here.

If MILLIONS of people are going to find a way to play your game, then take advantage of it.

That's billions of dollars publishers/developers could make on their own. And the gamers do the advertisement and marketing for them.

If the few gamers want to get their game through Steam or have a hardcopy then charge a high priced premium for it. Make the player pay for every bit of the costs.

 

-.-' I believe I suggested this on page one. Companies would pay big bucks to get that kind of viewing for their adds.

 

Yep. And Tripewire Interactive's idea with the lobby, is also great because that's a continuous source of income. You can have multiple advertisement at the same time and change over time. So you can continuously attract advertisement.

And all the while, players are unaffected in game. They go off in Bad Company 2 with no pepsi vending machines, no microsoft billboards. All they have to do is while the map is loading, watch a 10 second advertisement. Game is loading anyways, and few people get off their chair when they only have to wait 15-30 seconds for map to load.

 

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Murder is not bad because it's murder. Murder is bad because people DIE.
Slavery is not bad because it's slavery. Slavery is bad because people are abused and have their rights taken away.
Plagiarism is not bad because it's plagiarism. Plagiarism is bad because you are taking credit for work that is not representative of your abilities.

An action is never wrong "just because", it's wrong because of the resulting effects. Stating that "piracy is a crime so it's wrong" is just a ridiculous use of circular logic.

If producers who embrace "piracy" are still turning the same/better profits, then there is no problem. If there is no net harm created because of piracy, then there is no problem.

And no, saying that piracy causes harm "just because it's piracy" is not valid either. There are numerous anecdotal accounts of major groups, bands, companies, etc. that have embraced free distribution of their productions with clear and definite gains. There are a number of studies that have concluded that piracy has negligible effects on the overall markets. There have also been a good number of studies showing that the frequent piraters are also frequent purchasers.

 

The BBC and CBC (Canada) have openly admitted that pirating of shows before release have lead to the most successful shows in their history. Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who if you watch the video I linked.

This ties in with no need for marketing costs as word of mouth is far better and effective.

 

According to your logic, there's nothing wrong with plagiarism. The original author does not lose profit if you repeat what he has said. There's very little, if any affect to the author caused by you taking their work and representing it as your own.

Fact is, as a society, we have decided that a creator of intellectual property has certain rights to that property. Piracy violates this right, and that's why we consider it bad. Now you can go all day arguing over IP, but consensus is that an author or a creator should be given certain rights over what they have created.

If an author or creator decides that there is profit in releasing their work for free, then they may choose to do so. But you as a consumer do NOT get to make that choice for the author. That's the gap that most pirates don't seem to understand. IP is freedom to do with their work as they please. IP is granting a person control over what they invented. You can believe all you want that piracy increases profits. You can believe that piracy doesn't harm producers. And what you believe may or may not be true, but that's not the point. You do not have the RIGHT to tell author what to do with their work.

 

Arguing over this is not pertinent to piracy of games. Game developers/publishers I do not think care. What they care about is the money.

Let the people get the game for free. Just make sure they get the money through other ways than just taking money from customers. There are people with far larger money bags that want their advertisement etc. to be seen.

That's my point about this thread. People keep talking about the morality and legality. It's about the M O N E Y.

And since it is about M O N E Y, then take advantage that MILLIONS of people are playing the game whether you use DRM or other methods. Adapt to the situation, I'm convinced there is billions of dollars to be made without having to fight the inevitable. This isn't promoting piracy, because once you take control, you are just legalizing free distribution of the game, and making more money than before in other ways.

If some company is willing to pay millions for a few seconds of advertisement on one show... think of how much they would pay for 11 million players watching your ad every single day multiple times. Think of how many times players have to watch a loading screen in WoW?

 

I find it hilarious that you believe that creating a game, and then charging for the use of it is "taking advantage that MILLIONS of people are playing the game".

I mean really? Are these companies drug dealers that are selling crack? Is a person's lack of self control over what games they "MUST" play the game company's fault?

And yeah it's all about the MONEY. I mean what's with you people? In all three threads about piracy this point has been brought up. What the heck did you think they were in it for? It sure as heck isn't the philanthropy. Do you think WalMart sells things because ol' Sam Walton just loves being a salesman? Do you think NBR exists because out of the kindness of their hearts they decided to provide us with a place to yell at each other?* NO! It's all about the Benjamins.

*Now honestly, IDK why Andrew decided to start this site, and I don't think he expected it to get this big, but hey, here we are.

 

Part of piracy involves a sense of entitlement to help justify the use of pirated materials. Money is the key. The entire purpose of copyright/IP/patent rights is to encourage innovation by rewarding those developers with the profits that they generate. Receiving credit really does not matter for bragging rights. Piracy has killed a lot of developers because the time/money investment spend is higher than the profits reaped. I think part of the problem with piracy is that individuals tend to think that software development firms are all richer than God and that taking their profits can't hurt them. I noticed this trend with sports teams and fans thinking owners can spend freely without consequence.

 

I find it funny you read what isn't written. Where did I write anywhere that the consumers are being taken advantage of? What I wrote is that consumers have proven they will get what they want, when they want it no matter what roadblocks are in place. Before lecturing me and others, try reading what we wrote first.

 

From a personal and customer point-of-view, I would really love not to have to watch any commercials in my games, it is that simple, watching commercials on T.V is enough.

"People get what they want." is a famous phrase in this thread it seems, think for a second, if Piracy made it possible to break complicate DRM Solutions, that they won't be able to simply, remove or block the commercials in the games?

It is that simple, and once that people block the commercials, where will the money income flow from? The whole Game Industry (Game Companies, Game Developers, Advertisement Companies) in this utopic supposition would all fall like Bowling Pins.

Nice try, though.

--

If Game Companies really wanted to stop Piracy, then they would start to enforce "In-Real-Life DRM" in that you are required to show a Personal I.D (plus, to enforce Standards) and have your identity confirmed via Webcam and / or Telephone, have you register the CD-Key that comes with the game, plus personal information such as Address, Full Name, Telephone Number, etc...

And, integrate the DRM / Anti-Copy and Anti-Piracy solutions into the games' engines and the programs' coding, rather than working as separate solutions, that if removed, would compromise the whole game itself and render it unusable.

Is there anything more draconic than that? Would anyone really want that to truly happen? I do not think so, then stop Piracy and tell your friends, family and others not to participate into Piracy.

Piracy is the cancer that is killing PC Gaming, let's not step into a distorted age in that all of the games released follow the same quality-standard set by Microsoft BOB, poor Rocky would not want that.

 

The idea in itself is nice and I suppose it does have drive given the consumer ridden age we're in. As Ziggy stated, television is a vehicle and money making industry not because anyone charges you for it(they charge you for cable just as you're charged for internet) but because of the advertisements involved.

However, I think we can agree that while PC gamers are a large number, they're far lesser than the comparative number of people who watch television. Advertisement companies would have to calculate if it would be beneficial for them to really fund a couple of gaming and developing companies completely(as from what I garner this would be those gaming companies' sole revenue) simply in exchange for a few adds that less people would see than on TV.

And there's also the issue a Aeris pointed out of some people removing the adds. Considering the adds wouldn't be static I suppose(i.e. the adds would change over the course of time), then they'd be a separate module that needs to be updated via the internet or another transfer method and that would make it prone to being hackable or even removed, which would then crumble the system.

 

No different than time shifting (recording with DVR) and fast forwarding through commercials. Not everyone will do it. And sometimes they stop to see a commercial if it looks interesting. So I wouldn't look at the above idea that some might remove the ads via hacks as a stumbling block.

The ads could also come in the form of product placement. Much as is done in film and TV.

 

it's purely a logistics issue. this type of thing already exists. in the end, it's up to the developers / producers how to sell their products.

i am all for DRM if someone could just make it work without being intrusive.

 

True, but DVR requires a price premium(at least over here) so it really is something of a percentage.

If someone finds a hack to remove ads in a game, that most likely will go on a bittorrent somewhere and anyone can access it. If we do look at piracy as a representation of how easily and widespread people can have "mods" for their games, then what's stopping a "no-ad" mod from going widespread? I mean, the company is still getting money for including the ads, but if advertisement companies see that it's not yielding any benefits, they might call it off.

Product placement could work, but as I said, advertisement companies would need to calculate if it was worth it for them. The amount of people who play games is far lesser than those who watch TV or go to movies.

I think that advertisements shouldn't be the sole revenue of a gaming/developing company simply because of the fact that it's a bit more niched than the TV or movie industry. Also, having a company's revenue be entirely dependent on another's rather than on consumers might be a risk for them.

 

Ad has a single 'd'

 

First off there is NO SUCH THING as a crack-proof DRM.
As long as there is code, there is a way to code around it.
Crack groups have MORE PEOPLE, MORE TIME, and no budget constraints.

Regardless of how draconian the DRM gets, the more rediculous it gets the more likely people either don't buy it or people crack the DRM.

DRM cannot win and cannot ever succeed. No amount of DRM research will ever defeat the nearly infinite resources those trying to crack the DRM have.

PC gaming will never die, as there will ALWAYS be a margin for profit as there always HAS been. IF someone CAN make a buck, they will try.

Piracy isn't STOPPING profits, its not even really lowering them... most people who pirate software would never have bought it.

All of this is sensationalism... and none of it is needed.

One of the best security policies is already being used by some games.
-Make online and add-on support only available via login/passwords with legit keys/user info attached to them.
-Make online trophy cases that are unique to a user/key

What happens is that the software CAN be pirated... but the pirates don't bother as the game and the bragging rights involved are lessened when you do crack it. Note, these games are wise not to garner the ire of their customers OR potential customers by making stupidly insane DRM.

Legit CUSTOMERS should be the focus.
Game developers are the ones with a sense of entitlement... they somehow believe they are entitled to be paid for something which does more damage to their paying customer than to any pirate. I don't mind copy protection as long as it doesn't interfere with legit paying customers... but recent DRM hurts my computer, my gaming experience and my pride and does NOT stop piracy.

 

I already told you that you're wrong on this point. Quit spreading disinformation when you know you're incorrect.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=464679&page=10

 

Let's face the facts, unless that you had a group of developers that worked on writing (Insert Game Name Here)'s engine and development, even the most experienced of Crackers would run into a lot of worthless trouble just to bypass the protection.

Other than that, they would have to pay said people money, they do not work for free, and also, there is a high chance that they would be prosecuted by the law if caught involved with piracy, as contracts are bound by law, thus, rendering most efforts by Crackers useless.

Groups that crack DRM software do not have nearly infinite resources... not even anything close to infinite, they are people like anyone else that have some spare time in their hands that they choose to spend on cracking DRM software rather than on something productive that benefits everyone.

The reason why DRM is not succeeding is simply because no one puts enough effort or money into the research or development of better DRM solutions that do not cost a gazillion dollars, thus, Crackers find their way through because it is easy enough to crack it.

Perhaps, a solution that would work (but that would require international effort, and money) is enforcing the copyright laws on P2P, File Sharing, Usenet, etc... sites and networks, forcing them to take down any files that violate copyright and, monitoring the content uploaded to said sites, diminishing piracy's distribution brutally.

 

Because your word means anything...

Please stop insisting your opinion is fact.
You are just plain wrong and not capable of admitting it.

 

These types of solutions have unintended, big brother-ish, consequences. Enforcement is always a slippery slope and that's the reason why enforcement is nearly always a balanced, reasoned effort and not Draconian.

Zero-tolerance policies always end up hurting the innocent in worse ways than the guilty.

Fine points and I agree. Perhaps a supplemental offset would be a subscription model. We subscribe to other forms of entertainment, why not games? The logistics would have to be hammered out - such as user authentication, what the subscription actually purchases, tiers, that sort.

 

You simply do not understand...

A software development team has X number of people. (Say 50-100 total, with about 12 people really doing the work more than likely...)

Cracking squads are limited in their individual scope as well... but they have no reason not to communicate and help each other... and they often do.

Since the software development group makes money by keeping a secret, they do so.

The cracking groups are motivated by their own wants and needs... and if they want something bad enough, they WILL gather more resources...

They will gather friends, processing power (stolen if need be) and will use all the time they want to get through the limited defenses placed against them.

Sure that group of 100 developers is pretty good... but odds are in a 100,000 crackers we are bound to find someone with the method to break the defenses... and if they fail there are 99,999 others who will try...
Sooner or later defenses break down...

Much like ANY security game, you CANNOT keep everyone out. You can only limit the number and damage you receive. Oddly enough all the "impervious DRMs" HAVE failed and most of them quickly.

The best plans are to plan a system where real customers are rewarded, not "possible pirates" are punished.

 

You have made a good point, 2.0, I was acting in an authoritarian manner when I wrote my last post, and now, thinking on a broader scope, I stand corrected.

Such measures would indeed, alienate the customers and discourage them from buying the game, going as far as boycotting it (like the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott) if they feel that their rights and liberties are being violated.

One of the major problems with piracy is that a lot of people want to get what they want with little to no effort on their part, thus, this is a far more complex situation than can be solved in a short time span.

--

You and Forever_Melody have pretty good points in your posts, the suscription idea sounds just like that it would work, essentially making a big part of the game experience only enjoyable if you have a subscription to the game and have the right packages.

Also, cutting down the price in parts, and charging for each individual extra / package sounds like that it would just work, essentially giving customers a say on what they want and want not to experience on the game, and giving them a choice on just how much of their money they want to spend.

Like I stated above, I was being authoritarian rather than rational during the writing of my last post.

I do understand the mechanics on-going behind of the creation of cracks:

Teamwork.

People working together can do amazing things, for free also if that is their choice, we have *nix distributions for example.

Your suggestion on rewarding the rightful, real customers is a good idea, essentially dividing and conquering the pirates from the real customers with rewards, gifts, perks, etc... that only real customers are entitled to.

If said rewards, services, extra's, etc... are good enough, there is no chance that the promise for free games that pirates offer will ever hope to beat.

Like someone said above, World of Warcraft is an example, even though there are Private Servers that offer much of the content of the game for-free, they are missing out the most important aspects of the real game, such as the Community, Achievements, Updates, etc...

 

Wow, you just outright called me out for lying without ANY justification. At no point did I tell you to solely rely on my word. I have provided you with an absolute example of uncrackable DRM.

I have much better knowledge than you do on these topics, and I have provided a CONCRETE example of uncrackable DRM. Yet you dismiss it without even thinking about it, and CONTINUE to spread complete and utter misinformation even after I've told you that you're wrong.

We are not debating opinion here. We are debating FACT. And until you can tell me why I'm wrong, don't you dare say that I'm lying.

And for everyone else who hasn't read the Assassin's Creed thread, where we argued over the EXACT SAME THING a little while ago:

And for those of you who say that this is not feasible, or that it would take too much processing power server-side: OnLive is launching in a few months. OnLive streams the entire game to clients, whereas an effective DRM would require MUCH less data.

So tell me Kernel Panic, who's the one that's wrong and just not capable of admitting it?

 

Right, Lithus, but do we actually term that methodology, DRM?

It doesn't encumber the consumer in quite the limiting fashion as DRM does. In a way, it's far more akin to cloud computing than DRM. Not much different than, say, Google apps.

You can term it how you like, of course. Even if only to bolster your argument as it does. But by standard definition, what you outline most fits the cloud computing definition.

 

What you term DRM can be subjective, and in a way, DRM implies some intent. If the intent of the programmer in setting up a cloud service is to keep their programs safe from piracy, then yes, I do consider that DRM. But by no means do I consider all cloud computing DRM.

And it does encumber the customer. It's the whole Assassin's Creed fiasco all over again, since now a requirement to play a single player game is that you must have an internet connection at all times.

 

On the whole, you have a point there. Especially when it comes to intent. So I suppose the pioneers will be the ones with intent. Thereafter, it'll just become commonplace and no one will think about it in quite the same way.

Only difference I can see with cloud computing and what's going on with Ubisoft's latest scheme is that I don't see one as paying for a singular cloud app, but rather a subscription to their app catalog. Or one is paying for the convenience of not having to install software yet have access to it anywhere a connection is available, possibly along with their data. A side effect is that we can have cheaper, lighter, and less powerful computers that can run cloud apps that would require far more powerful computers if they were local apps.

With AC II, one is buying a product, installing it as a singular app, and being prevented from using it on their terms. Terms being meant in the "classical" sense that a single player game never required connectivity to the internet. It's a paradigm shift that doesn't actually shift, but sinisterly blurs and trips.

Cloud computing is a clear shift in computing paradigm. And I see the transition to it as being one of choice at first. A choice that provides an incentive and/or benefits over local app usage.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Ubisoft's decision to use this sort of DRM. But my entire point through these three or four threads over piracy in the past few weeks is that as a consumer, my choices are to either purchase or not purchase software that uses technology in ways I disagree with. Piracy is not an option.

 

No worries. No one in their right mind is for that sort of DRM. And you certainly have a good and right mind.

Thinking more on the cloud computing future of gaming, the possibilities are actually quite exciting. Especially considering that the processing power on the server end will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than anything on a desk or lap. The size, scope, or even intelligence of the the AI characters will be a radical departure from what we're used to.

DRM then, is the growing pains - the acne and awkwardness to suffer until we mature into that bright future.

 

I wouldn't give the companies that much credit. They will try and cram as many clients onto a single server as they possibly can.

 

I like real advertisements in games. LOL in burnout 3 revenge on ps3 theres a track that has billboards and on the billboards they are advertising a battlefield series game. good idea i thought.

what about GTA4 ? each game is getting more realistic right? think about real advertisements in the next one? like on the GTA4 tv lol It wouldnt bother me at all.

 

Very true. It does make sense, because it cost's them less money, but it is annoying on the users end, and we should be accommodated more for the amount of money we pay.

 

Advertising based revenue has been a viable model for half a century. Many TV shows that appear on local (free) networks have budgets in line with a modern game (not to mention, as many people have said, distribution costs could be massively reduced via torrent). Or, charge for subscriptions, not to 1 game, but a game provider - like people do for premium channels (HBO, etc).

The Pacific is a WW2 minisieries (spiritual sequel to Band of Brothers) airing on HBO sicne last sunday, it cost $150 million to make....nobody had to buy a copy, and the quality is there...all ad revenue plus a small subscrition fee. Totally viable buiness plan...all we need now is "HBOgames", or something similar.

By the way, a single platform game release costs about 10 million...not even 10% of that miniseries..and again, a large amount of that is not developement, but distribution.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213556/heres-how-much-it-cost-to-make-a-video-game-in-2009/

In regards to the philiosophical discussion, laws must adapt as society does. If a crime is commited by so many citizens (as piracy is), then something needs to change about the law. Homosexuality was illegal for years, so was working on Sunday...these laws have been dumped to accommodate change.

It comes down to this: you can either fight the mobility of information (which is exponentially increasing) or capitalize on it.

 

Well... we're missing a few criteria here that applies to TV shows but not video games...

1) by definition, TV shows are broadcast shows. This is point-to-multipoint communication, hence the price for them to deliver the show is constant. On the other hand, I don't think they've worked out a way to broadcast video games yet.
2) There is no arguing that a TV show has a far greater consumer base than a particular video game. It appears to me that they need more gain from each consumer for video games. For example, they might need $5 worth of advertising value from each viewer of a TV show, but 10 million people watching the show brings in $50 million. On the other hand, they might need $50 from each video game player so that selling 1 million copies brings in the $50 million.

 

Factor in the fact that videogames WITH the current distribution model cost only 10% as much as that show, for example. Heck I've seen mods that are almost as good as full fledged games, and who got payed anything there? I'm sure you can probably make a decent game for 2 million if you drop distribution.

 

You aren't lying, you simply have no knowledge or experience.

You presented a theory of a theoretically uncrackable DRM in an extremely vague manner. You proved nothing and you simply warped your theory into fact. Many MMO clients do exactly as you outlined and yet they are hacked, packet sniffed and manipulated...

Note that the only part that isn't actually crackable is the customer service the provider would provide. (/shudder at WoW's "community" /lol), Most of this is due to direct employee time as in-game GMs that cannot be as easily manipulated by crack teams. Oddly enough, I am pretty sure most cracker groups could operate a better "service" than Ubisoft has up until this point.
(most cracker groups are anything but social geniuses, but at least they could keep servers working.)

A crack team could steal/reverse engineer/take the server-side software and offer it as a private server as most cracked MMORPGs have already.
Note, this is what I am actually suggesting the game companies sell is SERVICE.

Note that even implying something is uncrackable is pretty much inviting someone or DARING someone to do just that.

You are living in a pipe dream of false hope.
Wake up and please go LOOK UP the difference between opinion and fact.