|
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this?
|
I find it hard to believe that having LAN would increase sales of SC2, or that it would bring a significantly larger amount of Esports fans. There is no way the amount of people who want to buy SC2 but don't because it lacks LAN is more than the amount of people who would download it illegally with LAN. You really think tons of people are about to buy SC2 until they discover it doesn't have LAN support? And i highly doubt that the reason my friends don't follow the starcraft2 scene don't do it because the one time they watched a game it lagged in a key moment. LAN would be awesome for the pro scene but there is just no way that from Blizzards perspective it is a profitable venture.
|
On June 24 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 03:08 latan wrote:On June 23 2011 15:15 karpo wrote:On June 23 2011 15:10 denzelz wrote:
It makes me so furious to read what the HoN developer wrote talking about "goodwill" and how PC users just don't have it. What about the Indie Game Pack that was offered for free and made money from donations only? How much money did that make?
Speaking of goodwill, what about goodwill from the companies? Games have gotten more and more expensive with more games shipped as incomplete, stripped down versions that the user must buy expansion packs or DLCs to fully enjoy. How about companies that actually care about if people are enjoying the game? Which company lets you refund your $60 after you decided that the game is not for you?
Fucking ridiculous for HoN developer to trash the users while somehow attempting to justify the money-sucking techniques that the industry has been using for the past 5 years. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.arsGames were not cheaper before. Especially when taking inflation in account. That doesn't mean they couldn't be even cheaper now. The industry has grown a lot there's is a lot, more competition now, technology costs are cheaper. It's not though alought making disks is much cheaper then making chips to go into games that only makes the mass producing of the games cheaper, but games used to be developed for much less, making the thing that physically holds the game has gotten much much cheaper, but the price of development as sky rocketed. Along with the price of hardware when sony and microsoft unveiled their new systems they sold it to you at a debt you only payed for part of the system they planned on making that up once you bought x amount of games probably around 5-8 games somewhere near the avg for people. Just because one thing has gotten cheaper to do doesn't meant the other parts have also, the only reason why the price has stayed pretty much the same is expectations and expansion becuase it became cheap to make the physical thing holding the game and the audience has grown very much so sense the 80's they made up for selling cheap games by selling in volume.
Not exactly sure what are you trying to say here or if you are even arguing against me but to clarify my main point was:
The market has grown tremendously.
It is an industry that is now bigger than the movie industry.
they spend millions on development (mostly on marketing) because they know they can make billions. (or they could spend close to zero and still make millions, look at notch).
So to get an actual idea to whether games are cheaper or more expensive to the consumers relative to the past one would have to adjust for other factors additional to inflation.
|
On June 24 2011 06:00 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:On June 24 2011 03:08 latan wrote:On June 23 2011 15:15 karpo wrote:On June 23 2011 15:10 denzelz wrote:
It makes me so furious to read what the HoN developer wrote talking about "goodwill" and how PC users just don't have it. What about the Indie Game Pack that was offered for free and made money from donations only? How much money did that make?
Speaking of goodwill, what about goodwill from the companies? Games have gotten more and more expensive with more games shipped as incomplete, stripped down versions that the user must buy expansion packs or DLCs to fully enjoy. How about companies that actually care about if people are enjoying the game? Which company lets you refund your $60 after you decided that the game is not for you?
Fucking ridiculous for HoN developer to trash the users while somehow attempting to justify the money-sucking techniques that the industry has been using for the past 5 years. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.arsGames were not cheaper before. Especially when taking inflation in account. That doesn't mean they couldn't be even cheaper now. The industry has grown a lot there's is a lot, more competition now, technology costs are cheaper. It's not though alought making disks is much cheaper then making chips to go into games that only makes the mass producing of the games cheaper, but games used to be developed for much less, making the thing that physically holds the game has gotten much much cheaper, but the price of development as sky rocketed. Along with the price of hardware when sony and microsoft unveiled their new systems they sold it to you at a debt you only payed for part of the system they planned on making that up once you bought x amount of games probably around 5-8 games somewhere near the avg for people. Just because one thing has gotten cheaper to do doesn't meant the other parts have also, the only reason why the price has stayed pretty much the same is expectations and expansion becuase it became cheap to make the physical thing holding the game and the audience has grown very much so sense the 80's they made up for selling cheap games by selling in volume. Not exactly sure what are you trying to say here or if you are even arguing against me but to clarify my main point was: The market has grown tremendously. It is an industry that is now bigger than the movie industry. they spend millions on development (mostly on marketing) because they know they can make billions. (or they could spend close to zero and still make millions, look at notch). So to get an actual idea to whether games are cheaper or more expensive to the consumers relative to the past one would have to adjust for other factors additional to inflation.
the video game is not bigger than the movie industry, unless you're using an absurd delimiter like "the quantity of games produced in 2010 is greater than movies," which it looks like you are.
|
On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this?
It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit.
|
On June 24 2011 06:00 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:On June 24 2011 03:08 latan wrote:On June 23 2011 15:15 karpo wrote:On June 23 2011 15:10 denzelz wrote:
It makes me so furious to read what the HoN developer wrote talking about "goodwill" and how PC users just don't have it. What about the Indie Game Pack that was offered for free and made money from donations only? How much money did that make?
Speaking of goodwill, what about goodwill from the companies? Games have gotten more and more expensive with more games shipped as incomplete, stripped down versions that the user must buy expansion packs or DLCs to fully enjoy. How about companies that actually care about if people are enjoying the game? Which company lets you refund your $60 after you decided that the game is not for you?
Fucking ridiculous for HoN developer to trash the users while somehow attempting to justify the money-sucking techniques that the industry has been using for the past 5 years. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.arsGames were not cheaper before. Especially when taking inflation in account. That doesn't mean they couldn't be even cheaper now. The industry has grown a lot there's is a lot, more competition now, technology costs are cheaper. It's not though alought making disks is much cheaper then making chips to go into games that only makes the mass producing of the games cheaper, but games used to be developed for much less, making the thing that physically holds the game has gotten much much cheaper, but the price of development as sky rocketed. Along with the price of hardware when sony and microsoft unveiled their new systems they sold it to you at a debt you only payed for part of the system they planned on making that up once you bought x amount of games probably around 5-8 games somewhere near the avg for people. Just because one thing has gotten cheaper to do doesn't meant the other parts have also, the only reason why the price has stayed pretty much the same is expectations and expansion becuase it became cheap to make the physical thing holding the game and the audience has grown very much so sense the 80's they made up for selling cheap games by selling in volume. Not exactly sure what are you trying to say here or if you are even arguing against me but to clarify my main point was: The market has grown tremendously. It is an industry that is now bigger than the movie industry. they spend millions on development (mostly on marketing) because they know they can make billions. (or they could spend close to zero and still make millions, look at notch). So to get an actual idea to whether games are cheaper or more expensive to the consumers relative to the past one would have to adjust for other factors additional to inflation.
I don't think you're making any point then. You're only point being made is that the gaming industry is bigger than the movie industry. Okay. and the movie industry has been suffering major losses every year to piracy, increased cost of production, and we've all griped about how much it costs for movie tickets nowadays. nothing in that comparison legitimizes anything you're arguing for.
production costs have gone up: yes
market costs have gone up: yes
hardware costs have gone down: yes
production costs + market costs > hardware costs? yes
therefore
end product costs more? yes.
where's the flawed logic here. pointing out ONE scenario of a gaming group who paid almost nothing to make millions is the EXCEPTION not the status quo. If it was so easy to make games at the cost of nothing and then make millions off of it, there'd be a LOT more millionaires out there. You think people who run these corporations are legitimately stupid? you think they're BILLIONAIRES because they're unintelligent? They do what they see is the best move for their business because it is the most intelligent move possible based on their advisory reports, and expert advice. The thought process of people in this thread is mindbogglingly stupefying.
/sarcasm
Yes yes, piracy is cool, obviously it doesn't hurt anyone! lol, blizzard is evil! /sarcasm off
|
Lulz at comparing Blizzard and HoN blaming pirates to governments blaming terrorists for increased infringements on our rights. ESPORTS, right?
Please, tell me when anyone here was granted the inalienable right via their constitution to fucking LAN access for a computer game. Where? Anyone. Show me where a country has given that right, like Freedom of Expression/Privacy/Gun Ownership/Vote etc. etc. and I'll accept the above comparison. Before then, you're all alarmist trolls. Blizzard refusing LAN support is nothing like the Bush administration pushing Congress into allowing the American people to be wiretapped for no reason at all. Or the Obama administration for pushing Congress to allow that policy to stay in place. If you think it is, you're being silly. And you take your videogames waaaaaayyyy too seriously.
Sorry guys, but LAN will never be implemented because of piracy, and we've known that for the past year and a half. You can make a claim for special "authenticators" and bullshit like that, but remember the WoW authenticators people bought for their account to stop hackers and bots? They were cracked in how long? I saw forum posts two months after the things came out about people losing their accounts despite the authenticator being on there. It's basically a miniature CD key generator, after all. And that's all any other LAN authenticator would be. And if you wanted Internet access before LAN access, (first of all, that completely misses the point of LAN), then you have to understand that that would be easily hacked as well. People aren't stupid, and neither are pirates. The only reason multiplayer hasn't been hacked and replicated yet is because you need so much communication with the Battle.net servers. Take that away, and you're done. Blizzard has lost control of their game.
And anyone else whining that Blizzard "just wants more money" is right. Blizzard only wants more money. They're a gaming COMPANY. It's what they do. They have to pay bills too, ya know. And to fault them for that is laughable. It's not like they're some evil, soulless organization out to suck us dry. You know, they're not charging us monthly for ladder access. They could easily do that, you can't play WoW without a subscription, so they have the infrastructure in place. They're not charging you anything beyond the 60 dollars to buy the game, and the reduced price (probably 40 dollars) to buy the two expansions.
For being such an evil company, Blizzard is actually pretty kick ass.
|
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play.
|
On June 24 2011 06:14 akomatic wrote:
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play.
This is almost all incorrect. The music industry as a whole is growing (1, 2). Only record sales are shrinking. The money is coming in from increased concert revenue and other scarce goods. The movie industry is also growing (source)
|
On June 24 2011 06:20 visual77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:14 akomatic wrote:
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play. This is almost all incorrect. The music industry as a whole is growing ( 1, 2). Only record sales are shrinking. The money is coming in from increased concert revenue and other scarce goods. The movie industry is also growing ( source)
You're rght, I'm sorry I mispoke. I was looking at charts for CD and DVD/VHS/BlueRay sales. As I said, concert and theatre sales have picked up the slack from other sources. The advent of 3D has bucked the flat-lining I was mentioning. That said, all of these trends (increased cost and emphasis on live experiences, DRM, no LAN, selling music licensing) are the result of trying to bypass piracy.
|
On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit.
I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode?
|
On June 24 2011 06:13 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:00 latan wrote:On June 24 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:On June 24 2011 03:08 latan wrote:On June 23 2011 15:15 karpo wrote:On June 23 2011 15:10 denzelz wrote:
It makes me so furious to read what the HoN developer wrote talking about "goodwill" and how PC users just don't have it. What about the Indie Game Pack that was offered for free and made money from donations only? How much money did that make?
Speaking of goodwill, what about goodwill from the companies? Games have gotten more and more expensive with more games shipped as incomplete, stripped down versions that the user must buy expansion packs or DLCs to fully enjoy. How about companies that actually care about if people are enjoying the game? Which company lets you refund your $60 after you decided that the game is not for you?
Fucking ridiculous for HoN developer to trash the users while somehow attempting to justify the money-sucking techniques that the industry has been using for the past 5 years. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.arsGames were not cheaper before. Especially when taking inflation in account. That doesn't mean they couldn't be even cheaper now. The industry has grown a lot there's is a lot, more competition now, technology costs are cheaper. It's not though alought making disks is much cheaper then making chips to go into games that only makes the mass producing of the games cheaper, but games used to be developed for much less, making the thing that physically holds the game has gotten much much cheaper, but the price of development as sky rocketed. Along with the price of hardware when sony and microsoft unveiled their new systems they sold it to you at a debt you only payed for part of the system they planned on making that up once you bought x amount of games probably around 5-8 games somewhere near the avg for people. Just because one thing has gotten cheaper to do doesn't meant the other parts have also, the only reason why the price has stayed pretty much the same is expectations and expansion becuase it became cheap to make the physical thing holding the game and the audience has grown very much so sense the 80's they made up for selling cheap games by selling in volume. Not exactly sure what are you trying to say here or if you are even arguing against me but to clarify my main point was: The market has grown tremendously. It is an industry that is now bigger than the movie industry. they spend millions on development (mostly on marketing) because they know they can make billions. (or they could spend close to zero and still make millions, look at notch). So to get an actual idea to whether games are cheaper or more expensive to the consumers relative to the past one would have to adjust for other factors additional to inflation. I don't think you're making any point then. You're only point being made is that the gaming industry is bigger than the movie industry. Okay. and the movie industry has been suffering major losses every year to piracy, increased cost of production, and we've all griped about how much it costs for movie tickets nowadays. nothing in that comparison legitimizes anything you're arguing for. production costs have gone up: yes market costs have gone up: yes hardware costs have gone down: yes production costs + market costs > hardware costs? yes therefore end product costs more? yes. where's the flawed logic here. pointing out ONE scenario of a gaming group who paid almost nothing to make millions is the EXCEPTION not the status quo. If it was so easy to make games at the cost of nothing and then make millions off of it, there'd be a LOT more millionaires out there. You think people who run these corporations are legitimately stupid? you think they're BILLIONAIRES because they're unintelligent? They do what they see is the best move for their business because it is the most intelligent move possible based on their advisory reports, and expert advice. The thought process of people in this thread is mindbogglingly stupefying. /sarcasm Yes yes, piracy is cool, obviously it doesn't hurt anyone! lol, blizzard is evil! /sarcasm off
READ. UNDERSTAND. Then respond. Ironic that you should talk about thought process.
Answer this easy questionnaire, the answers can be found in the quoted posts:
1 Did I make any conclusion at all as to whether the end product costs more?
2 What can you conclude about my position on piracy and blizzard based on the quoted posts? (this is a bit of a trick question).
Once you answer this correctly we can continue discussing.
On June 24 2011 06:04 brazenraven wrote:
the video game is not bigger than the movie industry, unless you're using an absurd delimiter like "the quantity of games produced in 2010 is greater than movies," which it looks like you are.
Is "sells more" a good enough absurd delimiter for you?
|
On June 24 2011 06:27 Solicer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:05 RoyalCheese wrote:On June 24 2011 05:55 Solicer wrote:
So I was thinking of a way to change the way the game worked so that you had to be registered online in order to play a offline in a LAN mode, so to speak.
What if, in order to plan on a LAN mode of sorts, you had to connect to battle.net at least once on the machine you play in order to get 'recognized,' or rather, so battle.net can give you the privilege of playing in the offline LAN mode. It would be like saying,"We just want to make sure you bought the game/activated your account (you know, the CD keys/codes). Now that you have made contact with Battle.net with a legitimate account that has access/bought the game, we will give you the privilege on this machine to run in the LAN mode."
I know that there are always downsides of something, and with this, if you wanted to play on a brand new machine, you would NEED access to the internet still, at least at first, to play on the LAN mode. Also, I am not that knowledgeable in regards to how easy it would be to bypass this, so I'm not sure how secure this would be.
And, this may have been suggested before. Nonetheless, could someone enlighten me a little bit more as to why Blizzard wouldn't have something set up at least similar to this? It's not as easy as that. It's not hard to find a "auth.blizzard.com/authenticate" (example of url upon which the authentication service would listen) and replace it with "auth.pirated.com" in binary file and thus bypassing the whole auth. Of course you could use some sort of public/private key encryption which would validate that the message token from blizz authentication service was really sent from blizzard but, as with the auth url, the public key can be found and replaced in order to make the fake tokens seem legit. I see. So, is there any way at all to have the LAN mode disabled until you can verify, through the internet, that you have bought the game (with the correct keys/codes, and a legitimate account)? Or is there no way to do this because of the nature of the files/data that is needed to activate the LAN mode?
The only truly bypassing way (and it still can be bypassed btw), is to force the client to check and check often with the bnet servers to reauthenticate enough times to make it difficult/annoying for piracy to break the code, but at that point, if you need to connect through to bnet so often, why not just do it ON bnet.
|
On June 24 2011 06:26 akomatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:20 visual77 wrote:On June 24 2011 06:14 akomatic wrote:
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play. This is almost all incorrect. The music industry as a whole is growing ( 1, 2). Only record sales are shrinking. The money is coming in from increased concert revenue and other scarce goods. The movie industry is also growing ( source) You're rght, I'm sorry I mispoke. I was looking at charts for CD and DVD/VHS/BlueRay sales. As I said, concert and theatre sales have picked up the slack from other sources. The advent of 3D has bucked the flat-lining I was mentioning. That said, all of these trends (increased cost and emphasis on live experiences, DRM, no LAN, selling music licensing) are the result of trying to bypass piracy.
I don't think it's so much the result of 'bypassing piracy' as it is a changing marketplace. The content itself has become an infinite good whose primary purpose is drawing attention to the scarce goods (live concerts, online experiences, etc.). As more people share the content freely, those scarce goods become more valuable and become the main source of revenue. Fighting 'piracy' is a losing battle not only because you won't stop people from sharing, but it's really in the best interests of everyone if content creators and consumers alike learned to embrace this new model.
|
I assumed your point of
That doesn't mean they couldn't be even cheaper now. The industry has grown a lot there's is a lot, more competition now, technology costs are cheaper.
was an argument that the games should be even cheaper, and my argument back is it's not that easy that just because technology costs are cheaper, that games can inevitably be cheaper.
get it? got it? k.
|
On June 23 2011 07:14 ThePurist wrote:
Microsoft operating systems and office software are two of the biggest pirated softwares and they still make money. This guy tries to act like a realist but he doesn't really have a clue about economics.
The opinions are too pessimistic and overgeneralizes the vast majority of people who purchase games with their hard-earned cash. Pirates don't stop revenue streams pirates were not a consumer in the first place. The assumption that a pirated copy was a sale is flawed imo and his last few personal statements are questionable as I perceive them as a cop-out when his whole opinion was about "simple economics".
Dumb dumb dumb dumb post. Do you have a clue about economics? If you did, you would realize that the fact that piracy drives up prices across the board. Say that you are trying to determine the present value of an project with a known market size. In order to price out the product, you must account that a certain percentage of users will not pay. Piracy is most definitely a sale, the provider of the software just does not get paid.
|
On June 24 2011 06:30 visual77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:26 akomatic wrote:On June 24 2011 06:20 visual77 wrote:On June 24 2011 06:14 akomatic wrote:
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play. This is almost all incorrect. The music industry as a whole is growing ( 1, 2). Only record sales are shrinking. The money is coming in from increased concert revenue and other scarce goods. The movie industry is also growing ( source) You're rght, I'm sorry I mispoke. I was looking at charts for CD and DVD/VHS/BlueRay sales. As I said, concert and theatre sales have picked up the slack from other sources. The advent of 3D has bucked the flat-lining I was mentioning. That said, all of these trends (increased cost and emphasis on live experiences, DRM, no LAN, selling music licensing) are the result of trying to bypass piracy. I don't think it's so much the result of 'bypassing piracy' as it is a changing marketplace. The content itself has become an infinite good whose primary purpose is drawing attention to the scarce goods (live concerts, online experiences, etc.). As more people share the content freely, those scarce goods become more valuable and become the main source of revenue. Fighting 'piracy' is a losing battle not only because you won't stop people from sharing, but it's really in the best interests of everyone if content creators and consumers alike learned to embrace this new model.
I agree, this was the thesis of the recent book "free" by Chris Anderson. But in the context of games there is no live experience. The alternative in the gaming industry is hard-to-pirate console games and server-side games. I think offering the single-player for SCII for free may have been a great markettng tool to get people to buy the multiplayer. But if a person was able to pirate the entire thing because the multiplayer code was exposed, then suddenly there is no more "scarce good."
|
In the end if you want a LAN mode , you have to get a cracked version of SC2.
If you dont want LAN; you have to buy it.
If that is not a logic that makes the game sell well , what else is ?
// its totally stupid guys, removing LAN was never a good idea.
|
On June 24 2011 06:39 akomatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 06:30 visual77 wrote:On June 24 2011 06:26 akomatic wrote:On June 24 2011 06:20 visual77 wrote:On June 24 2011 06:14 akomatic wrote:
How did this get to 40 pages of rationalizing piracy? Obviously piracy reduces revenue in most cases.
Music: The music industry lost over half its revenue over the past decade. Without record sales, the Indie artist model has shifted to licensing their hit single to an ad campaign and performing concerts indefinitely. Concert ticket prices have risen drastically. People used to look at their $14 and say, "I'd rather have a CD than this money because it's the only way I'll get to listen to that music when I want." The internet today laughs at people with a purchased music collection.
Movie: The movie industry has flat-lined for the past decade in theatre and DVD sales. Their model has shifted twoards theatre revenue from "event" movies, huge budget films, mostly 3D, and mostly action-adventure.
Game: The only entertainment industry that is growing is the gaming industry. If it weren't for the dynamic of the console (difficult to pirate games) and the server (essential to online games, high upkeep costs, secrecy of code) then this industry would fall just like the others. Game industries can't afford to let pirates create a work-around for online play. This is almost all incorrect. The music industry as a whole is growing ( 1, 2). Only record sales are shrinking. The money is coming in from increased concert revenue and other scarce goods. The movie industry is also growing ( source) You're rght, I'm sorry I mispoke. I was looking at charts for CD and DVD/VHS/BlueRay sales. As I said, concert and theatre sales have picked up the slack from other sources. The advent of 3D has bucked the flat-lining I was mentioning. That said, all of these trends (increased cost and emphasis on live experiences, DRM, no LAN, selling music licensing) are the result of trying to bypass piracy. I don't think it's so much the result of 'bypassing piracy' as it is a changing marketplace. The content itself has become an infinite good whose primary purpose is drawing attention to the scarce goods (live concerts, online experiences, etc.). As more people share the content freely, those scarce goods become more valuable and become the main source of revenue. Fighting 'piracy' is a losing battle not only because you won't stop people from sharing, but it's really in the best interests of everyone if content creators and consumers alike learned to embrace this new model. I agree, this was the thesis of the recent book "free" by Chris Anderson. But in the context of games there is no live experience. The alternative in the gaming industry is hard-to-pirate console games and server-side games. I think offering the single-player for SCII for free may have been a great markettng tool to get people to buy the multiplayer. But if a person was able to pirate the entire thing because the multiplayer code was exposed, then suddenly there is no more "scarce good."
While I don't have a good example or idea for every game to have a scarce good (hence why I'm a code jockey and not a business major), SC2 has a very visible scarce good - the b.net ladders. If only authorized copies could connect up to the ladder, use the matchmaking system and have a rank, league and division, then there would be a scarce good to sell to the customers. I'm not advocating a subscription service by any means, just to clarify.
I've made this example before in this post, but I'll reiterate because I think it's very relevant here - Imagine setting up a LAN party and inviting 20 gamer friends. Of those 20, only 5 have copies of SC2 (and thus, b.net ladder rankings). The other 15 are on the fence about the game. You install 15 free copies (free in the the sense that Blizzard is okay with this kind of behavior, not illegal copies) and have a 10 hour LAN party. Of those 15, 5 have so much fun that they want b.net rankings and go buy the game. The infinite good (the game itself) has promoted the scarce good (access to the b.net servers).
Edit: Bam! 250 posts. Zealot icon!
|
On June 24 2011 06:37 Shaithis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:14 ThePurist wrote:
Microsoft operating systems and office software are two of the biggest pirated softwares and they still make money. This guy tries to act like a realist but he doesn't really have a clue about economics.
The opinions are too pessimistic and overgeneralizes the vast majority of people who purchase games with their hard-earned cash. Pirates don't stop revenue streams pirates were not a consumer in the first place. The assumption that a pirated copy was a sale is flawed imo and his last few personal statements are questionable as I perceive them as a cop-out when his whole opinion was about "simple economics". Dumb dumb dumb dumb post. Do you have a clue about economics? If you did, you would realize that the fact that piracy drives up prices across the board. Say that you are trying to determine the present value of an project with a known market size. In order to price out the product, you must account that a certain percentage of users will not pay. Piracy is most definitely a sale, the provider of the software just does not get paid.
That's all jibberish, you can't just throw a bunch of economist lingo out there expecting it to form an argument by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
