|
On June 23 2011 12:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 12:14 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 12:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 12:11 mannerplease wrote:On June 23 2011 12:09 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 12:07 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 11:58 mannerplease wrote:On June 23 2011 11:34 Fruscainte wrote:
The voice of "I PIRATE EVERYTHING SINCE I DONT PAY FOR EVERYTHING" is a very small part in the community but consequently the loudest -- giving the illusion they are the majority when in fact most of pirates hate their fucking guts if they like the game and don't buy it after.
These are potential customers that they are driving away as criminals. That's my issue with this crap. They take away something that is basically mandatory in a game like this and then when people flip a shit about it, they blame it on pirates. So you think self-reporting surveys are accurate. Do you really think that nobody lied about whether they buy the game? Furthermore, what about all the people who don't vote because they are ashamed. Or even better, the fact that MOST PEOPLE ARE APATHETIC means that the same people who don't give a shit about pirating and not buying are the same people who don't give a shit about your surveys examining the ethics of it. It's called a silent majority. You are in extreme rationalization mode if you really think most pirates buy games they like, and it's also a LOT easier to "not like" a game that you've played for 20 hours if it lets you talk yourself into keeping 60 bucks. So essentially, I got a legitimate poll of 12,000 people -- and you got yourself going LOL IT'S BIASED AND WRONG AND SINCE PIRATES ARE THE MOST IMMORAL PEOPLE ON EARTH IT'S OBVIOUSLY FAKE AND WRONG. Stay classy. Come back with something substantial please. I got a poll of thousands of people, people all throughout the thread backing me up saying they buy games they enjoy all the time and piracy has directly caused sales for them and so forth. Is Piracy morally wrong? Sure. I don't doubt that for a second. Is it legally or fiscally wrong? Not at all. In fact, everything is pointing that piracy directly helps the industry more than it hurts. Look a few pages back if you actually read the thread and you would see that government study, again, backing me up. You do know what response bias is, right? It's like going to colleges and asking students if they smoke marijuana. You see examples of this every day. If you spent any amount of time in Bitgamer and in the piracy community, as I said multiple times -- it would only reaffirm those statistics. How do you know people actually buy games when they claim to? So your argument is that people are lying (for no reason) that they are buying games? Both on a non-consequential poll, and thousands of people on forums and comment postings? There's a conspiracy out there to actually convince people we are buying games? There's a time to stop posting. This is about that time for you. I got actual people backing my points up and you got theoretical situations of a giant conspiracy against everyone. You probably should stop posting about statistics, actually. I support having LAN and agree that piracy is a stupid reason to keep it out, but this really is a disgrace to legitimate statistics >.> I wasn't using it as a legitimate statistic -- I was using it to reaffirm myself and everyone in this thread saying they buy games they pirate and the community being the majority in saying they buy games they pirate. Sure, it may not be 100% accurate -- I'm not saying it is. But come on, I make an entire post to make a point and you nit pick out one single part of it to simply re-enforce my point and explode it into something much bigger than it was meant to be.
The point is that the poll is nothing more than an exaggerated anecdote that doesn't serve as grounds to reaffirm anything at all :/
|
On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea?
Great, rather than actually discuss my point you resort to ad hominem attacks.
My idea is to let everyone have access to a LAN only, basic version of the game. Ideally you wouldn't even have to connect to any service to play the free version. If you wanted to play online on battle.net, then you would have to pay a subscription. IMO its quite reasonable to charge people each month for a service you provide them (matchmaking, ladder, access to custom maps). Then you could also throw in other micro transactions such as name change, stat reset, icons, chat channels, etc..
You've been living under a rock if you think the current model for selling video games is sustainable on the pc. Every game I've bought in the past 2 years besides sc2 has been either super cheap over steam (less than $10), free through a client/browser, or subscription based.
For all those people saying that its common to pirate a game and then buy it if its good. What you are saying is based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, which doesn't mean fuck. For every person who is willing to proudly say that they have pirated a game and then buy it, there's probably at least 100 who pirated without buying and don't go bragging about it on the internet.
Without the actual data about how many potential customers publishers and developers lose to piracy you can't make the decision about whether its worth it to take active measures to prevent piracy or not. The people who have access to those numbers, i.e. the people who actually know what the fuck is going on, have decided its worth more to take measures to protect their IP than to spread goodwill.
I hope there's an economically viable way to provide LAN support and DRM free gaming, and that's why I brainstormed these ideas and posted them.
|
On June 23 2011 07:10 mdma-_- wrote:
that still doesnt explain why they cant allow people to play each other in lan with the necessecity of being logged into bnet/whatever online client.
cheap excuse just to blame it on pirates tbh
How is it in any way a cheap excuse when it costs the company millions of dollars in lost sales?!?!
You make no sense, I guess you find millions lying on the sidewalk?
|
On June 23 2011 12:17 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 12:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 12:14 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 12:12 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 12:11 mannerplease wrote:On June 23 2011 12:09 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 12:07 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 11:58 mannerplease wrote:On June 23 2011 11:34 Fruscainte wrote:
The voice of "I PIRATE EVERYTHING SINCE I DONT PAY FOR EVERYTHING" is a very small part in the community but consequently the loudest -- giving the illusion they are the majority when in fact most of pirates hate their fucking guts if they like the game and don't buy it after.
These are potential customers that they are driving away as criminals. That's my issue with this crap. They take away something that is basically mandatory in a game like this and then when people flip a shit about it, they blame it on pirates. So you think self-reporting surveys are accurate. Do you really think that nobody lied about whether they buy the game? Furthermore, what about all the people who don't vote because they are ashamed. Or even better, the fact that MOST PEOPLE ARE APATHETIC means that the same people who don't give a shit about pirating and not buying are the same people who don't give a shit about your surveys examining the ethics of it. It's called a silent majority. You are in extreme rationalization mode if you really think most pirates buy games they like, and it's also a LOT easier to "not like" a game that you've played for 20 hours if it lets you talk yourself into keeping 60 bucks. So essentially, I got a legitimate poll of 12,000 people -- and you got yourself going LOL IT'S BIASED AND WRONG AND SINCE PIRATES ARE THE MOST IMMORAL PEOPLE ON EARTH IT'S OBVIOUSLY FAKE AND WRONG. Stay classy. Come back with something substantial please. I got a poll of thousands of people, people all throughout the thread backing me up saying they buy games they enjoy all the time and piracy has directly caused sales for them and so forth. Is Piracy morally wrong? Sure. I don't doubt that for a second. Is it legally or fiscally wrong? Not at all. In fact, everything is pointing that piracy directly helps the industry more than it hurts. Look a few pages back if you actually read the thread and you would see that government study, again, backing me up. You do know what response bias is, right? It's like going to colleges and asking students if they smoke marijuana. You see examples of this every day. If you spent any amount of time in Bitgamer and in the piracy community, as I said multiple times -- it would only reaffirm those statistics. How do you know people actually buy games when they claim to? So your argument is that people are lying (for no reason) that they are buying games? Both on a non-consequential poll, and thousands of people on forums and comment postings? There's a conspiracy out there to actually convince people we are buying games? There's a time to stop posting. This is about that time for you. I got actual people backing my points up and you got theoretical situations of a giant conspiracy against everyone. You probably should stop posting about statistics, actually. I support having LAN and agree that piracy is a stupid reason to keep it out, but this really is a disgrace to legitimate statistics >.> I wasn't using it as a legitimate statistic -- I was using it to reaffirm myself and everyone in this thread saying they buy games they pirate and the community being the majority in saying they buy games they pirate. Sure, it may not be 100% accurate -- I'm not saying it is. But come on, I make an entire post to make a point and you nit pick out one single part of it to simply re-enforce my point and explode it into something much bigger than it was meant to be. The point is that the poll is nothing more than an exaggerated anecdote that doesn't serve as grounds to reaffirm anything at all :/
The 'statistic' was there to make a point to people who are not active in the piracy community and bought into the stereotype that we all just pirate games since it's convenient and never buy games we enjoy. Not to be taken word for word.
On June 23 2011 12:17 gurrpp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea? Great, rather than actually discuss my point you resort to ad hominem attacks.
If you're going to use fancy words, at least use them right.
Well, in the sake of NOT turning this into a massive flamefest (which is what I saw from this thread from the get-go) and getting banned I'm going to back out.
|
why do they have to make multi million dollars in profit at the cost of making a better game... not to mention that they could have a sign in to battlenet and then just let you lan
|
The question should be more like this : "If there is no LAN-Modus, is any pirate interested in this fact?"
And the answer is NO!
Why?
- Because the big majority of the people, who are getting a cracked copy of a game are only interested in the single player modus.
I mean take WoW, this is a game what should be only played online. Still there are a lot of private servers for cracked versions of this game. Take Half-Life2 a couple of days after it was released a "friend" of mine was offering a cracked version of it to me, which didn't need any online bla...
On the other hand if SC1 didn't have a spawn version, you can be sure I wouldn't have bought this game.
The biggest problem in the modern game industry is , they underestimate the capabilities of the pirates on the one hand and at the other side we have bunch of people in the management, which don't have any clue, what the customers (fans) really want.
If you are a fan of game you will in 95% of the cases buy it. If you just need a lil bit entertainment for a weekend, who would really pay 40-50$ unless you have to much money?
By saying pirates are killing the LAN, you are only searching for an easy excuse. Sure with an already included LAN system, you take a lot of work from the pirates, but if you believe without LAN you could prevent them for cracking your game, you are just stupid.
|
On June 23 2011 12:18 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 12:17 gurrpp wrote:On June 23 2011 11:54 Fruscainte wrote:On June 23 2011 11:52 gurrpp wrote:
I think the solution is to just start developing games for free and rely on a microtransaction model. The whole idea of games as a service is definitely more lucrative than selling retail imo and its pointless for the consumer to pirate a game they can download for free anyway.
Having basic functionality be free, such as LAN, while requiring a monthly fee to play online would be ideal.
Obviously this only applies purely to multiplayer games, so I'm not sure how content such as sc2's campaign could be handled. ..Are you seriously saying you think the solution to this is to have a subscription fee + item shop? Are you fucking serious? Could you come up with an even more stupid idea? Great, rather than actually discuss my point you resort to ad hominem attacks. If you're going to use fancy words, at least use them right.
Stop sidestepping. You didn't respond to the fact that your post was garbage and didn't address any part of my idea.
|
On June 23 2011 12:17 vdek wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:10 mdma-_- wrote:
that still doesnt explain why they cant allow people to play each other in lan with the necessecity of being logged into bnet/whatever online client.
cheap excuse just to blame it on pirates tbh How is it in any way a cheap excuse when it costs the company millions of dollars in lost sales?!?! You make no sense, I guess you find millions lying on the sidewalk?
It'll cost them a lot more down the line if they keep treating their customers like criminals.
|
i think everybody who lives in the real world understood this, you can argue all you want that pirating is not wrong, that people buy the games they like after they downloaded them etc. Their is zero actual proof to this, a poll on a random website is not legitimate evidence.
Reality is people take shit and dont pay for it, developers dont want that to happen so they remove things to keep it from happening. Blizzard has shown no intent on budging on the issue despite the whining.
SC2 is doing fine without LAN, the fact that blizzard went so far out of their way to remove it and put battle.net 2.0 as a online replacement is a testament to how dedicated developers are to stopping pirating.
|
It is absolutely not "rational to pirate games." On the contrary it represents the view that one is entitled to the product of another person for less than what that person is willing to exchange it. That is extremely irrational view, although disturbingly prevalent in our increasingly irrational world.
|
I used to be one of the top crackers in Sweden like 20 years ago. The game companies are still here and posting million dollar profits. They are just stuck in the illusion that if nobody pirated games they would sell as many copies as the legit sales + the pirated versions. Which is so far from the truth I almost suffocate laughing. Their policy isn't made by the people who know how shit works it's made by the money men wearing suits and lying through their teeth.
The hard truth is that they spend a couple of millions making a game and expect to make billions. Once they sell XK games their profit margin is like 99%. If they weren't so greedy piracy would end...
Blizzard have more than 2 500 million dollars just in cash assets. I guess they be hurting for money reeel bad. I know I would with so little. I wonder how they can afford food and clothing when pirates have bleed them bone dry ;-)
http://investor.activision.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1104659-11-27381&CIK=718877
|
Funny how Valve doesn't have a huge piracy issue. Maybe Gabe was onto something when he said that gamers will buy a game if the content is worth its weight.
|
On June 23 2011 12:27 Ingenol wrote:
It is absolutely not "rational to pirate games." On the contrary it represents the view that one is entitled to the product of another person for less than what that person is willing to exchange it. That is extremely irrational view, although disturbingly prevalent in our increasingly irrational world.
that makes no sense. if two people offer you to trade the same thing, but one asks for less, the rational thing is to choose to trade with the one who asks for less in return. I'd find it very hard to come up with anything MORE rational. so in conclusion, you must be crazy or something.
|
just a point of view. I got another.
thanks piracy to introduce me to gaming 15 years ago
|
On June 23 2011 12:27 Ingenol wrote:
It is absolutely not "rational to pirate games." On the contrary it represents the view that one is entitled to the product of another person for less than what that person is willing to exchange it. That is extremely irrational view, although disturbingly prevalent in our increasingly irrational world.
You're right. But look into infinite goods / scarce goods.
|
On June 23 2011 12:32 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 12:27 Ingenol wrote:
It is absolutely not "rational to pirate games." On the contrary it represents the view that one is entitled to the product of another person for less than what that person is willing to exchange it. That is extremely irrational view, although disturbingly prevalent in our increasingly irrational world. that makes no sense. if two people offer you to trade the same thing, but one asks for less, the rational thing is to choose to trade with the one who asks for less in return. I'd find it very hard to come up with anything MORE rational. so in conclusion, you must be crazy or something.
What the chap asking for money should be providing is good service along with it. That's why Steam is so successful. Games are cheap, accessible, and Valve interact with their community. Hell, email Gabe Newell yourself now, he'll respond eventually. Russian pirate distributors provided cheap localised games when every publisher overcharged their unlocalised games in Russia. Valve provided cheap localised games and perceived piracy issues in Russia vanished.
|
On June 23 2011 12:27 Ingenol wrote:
It is absolutely not "rational to pirate games." On the contrary it represents the view that one is entitled to the product of another person for less than what that person is willing to exchange it. That is extremely irrational view, although disturbingly prevalent in our increasingly irrational world.
Your logic fails at "entitled". Whether or not someone is entitled to something has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone will do something. It takes an idiot to think that every "purchase" on this planet is optimal through "entitlement".
People are not entitled to other people's cars, but if other people leave their cars running and unlocked, cars will be stolen anyways.
On June 23 2011 12:28 shockaslim wrote:
Funny how Valve doesn't have a huge piracy issue. Maybe Gabe was onto something when he said that gamers will buy a game if the content is worth its weight.
Valve doesn't have huge piracy issues for many reasons.
|
i completely agree with the developers opinion. i've always felt this way though. piracy will ultimately kill LAN. there's no way about it. by not having LAN capabilities it allows companies to control their product. sounds liek smart business decision making if you ask me. its going to be the future. people better get used to it or get left by the wayside.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
As mentioned several times in this thread, this developer speaks the truth and makes valid points. I doubt there will ever be LAN is another Blizzard game. The fact of the matter is, people will pirate games and not pay for them. If the developer feels that removing LAN is important for protecting their product, so be it.
|
LAN is a liability for Blizzard. If it exists in their program code, there will eventually be someone that can bypass all safeguards and make it exploitable by all. I'm betting that Blizzard built SC2 without LAN consideration at all, so they're not going to go back now and develop it for future deployment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
