Why do you feel you deserve to play this game, watch this movie, listen to this music if you can't aford it? The awnser is you dont deserve it.
People seem to enjoy analogies, so I'm gonna try one, though I'm not sure how it'll work out.
But suppose that someone out there invents a Star Trek type of matter replicator. One so good it would make Picard proud. What this means is moving on to post scarcity in food, eliminating world hunger.
But would you argue that this technology should be banned, because it would put farmers and people who produce food out of business?
I guess what I'm saying is that the dollar isn't the end-all be-all for everything. And in fact, we do have a matter replicator that works for software, the internet. And I don't quite see why we should be fighting against it, instead of embracing it.
Yeah, the affected industries would shrink. But do we really need a Saw37? Or yet another Tila Tequila album? or 3 "different" NFL games coming out every year?
I believe that the shrinkage will occur exactly there, in the wasteful side of our industries. Pixar will still produce movies, because people will go watch it in theatres. Blizzard will still make millions off of awesome games. And Metallica will always be rich.
This is not true. Why? Because most major software developers now offer trial and/or educational versions of their major packages. It doesn't even matter if these versions are feature-complete. The sheer depth of this software makes an educational version more than adequate for learning purposes. And these educational versions are even distributed free of charge.
What justification can there be for pirating the full version of a software package when the company that produces the software has gone out of its way to provide us with a free version for learning purposes? These companies have already done the legwork as far as education is concerned. (at their own expense) Piracy doesn't help them at all. If anything, it is just an ungrateful waste of the effort they go to in providing educational versions of their software.
Unity now has a free-to-use version, even for commercial projects. Epic has released the UDK, which is completely free for hobbyists, and has very reasonable licencing for indies. Open source software is becoming more and more capable and comprehensive all the time. There is no longer any practical excuse for piracy. Those bases are covered.
They offer a free version for learning? That's great. It doesn't mean that pirating the software for the same purpose is going to harm them. If you intend to learn the tools before you buy it, what have they lost? You'll either buy the tool or get hired to work for someone that will continue to invest in that tool. Or, you might do neither and try something else. If the intent isn't to harm nor deprive, what's the problem?
People seem to enjoy analogies, so I'm gonna try one, though I'm not sure how it'll work out.
But suppose that someone out there invents a Star Trek type of matter replicator. One so good it would make Picard proud. What this means is moving on to post scarcity in food, eliminating world hunger.
But would you argue that this technology should be banned, because it would put farmers and people who produce food out of business?
I guess what I'm saying is that the dollar isn't the end-all be-all for everything. And in fact, we do have a matter replicator that works for software, the internet. And I don't quite see why we should be fighting against it, instead of embracing it.
Yeah, the affected industries would shrink. But do we really need a Saw37? Or yet another Tila Tequila album? or 3 "different" NFL games coming out every year?
I believe that the shrinkage will occur exactly there, in the wasteful side of our industries. Pixar will still produce movies, because people will go watch it in theatres. Blizzard will still make millions off of awesome games. And Metallica will always be rich.
Just my 2cents on this whole thing.
That analogy doesn't work. We are talking about luxury items here. Food is not a luxury.
That analogy doesn't work. We are talking about luxury items here. Food is not a luxury.
But it's on the same level. You wouldn't argue that people have a "right" to food, would you? Last time I checked if I went into a store and shoplifted some food, I'd get arrested for it.
I know the analogy isn't great. But I think the idea is sound. Either way you're getting for free something that you used to have to pay for.
People seem to enjoy analogies, so I'm gonna try one, though I'm not sure how it'll work out.
But suppose that someone out there invents a Star Trek type of matter replicator. One so good it would make Picard proud. What this means is moving on to post scarcity in food, eliminating world hunger.
But would you argue that this technology should be banned, because it would put farmers and people who produce food out of business?
I guess what I'm saying is that the dollar isn't the end-all be-all for everything. And in fact, we do have a matter replicator that works for software, the internet. And I don't quite see why we should be fighting against it, instead of embracing it.
This happens all the time, and in games industry its companies producing way better and fun titles that just puts out the worth from the previous titles, but you can't sue someone from producing something better..
I'm pretty sure mother nature would hold the copyright for the stuff the farmers are farming though..
However, in that future we'll have people who engineer stuff with dna, and artistic designers who design the aesthetic look of this food or plant, this'll be a several year long design process just like with games, but once the design of this uberfruit is done, it's one click away from being replicated, and hundreds of thousands of manhours spent on r&d.
So a rebelling teenager could either just copy this code to produce this "tea earl grey, hot" by using a program he copied there earlier.
Or he could try make his own design, which would result in the replicator having a diarr
But it's on the same level. You wouldn't argue that people have a "right" to food, would you? Last time I checked if I went into a store and shoplifted some food, I'd get arrested for it.
I know the analogy isn't great. But I think the idea is sound. Either way you're getting for free something that you used to have to pay for.
How does food and games are on the same level? If I don't eat food I die. If I don't play games...... I die???? better play same games right now.
Well, it probably wouldn't appeal to a larger game company like EA, because they make far more money being a publisher than a studio. That isn't to say it wouldn't work. To say it can't work because they're too big isn't really proof that it won't. If some of the AAA developers went solo and tried that, I think their reputation would carry them enough that they could do it. I would agree that the likes of EA and Activision might not be able to pull it off, because they don't make games, they distribute and sell them.
No, that's not the issue that most people are taking with your proposal. Of course it wouldn't work for a major publisher. Those companies get hundreds of millions from investors. Of course, they are then expected to pay that money back with interest. (which is why they are so focused on making a profit) No one is expecting to get those kinds of figures from donations.
But how much do you really need to run a studio, even a small one? The space marines game you keep referencing is a team of 8 guys out of Denmark. With all due respect to those guys, it is a bit presumptuous for them to call their project AAA. It will take them four or five years, minimum, to bring this project to fruition at a level of quality anywhere near AAA. And for that, they will probably require at least one million dollars, probably more.
Look at the math. Lets say you have a bare-bones studio of two guys, one coder and one artist. Lets say they both live in California. In order to pay their living expenses for a year of development, they will probably need $50K each, or $100,000 total. That's just for paying rent, buying food, paying for health insurance, power bill, water bill, repairs, etc... That's not even taking into account the hardware and software expenses they would need. If they are shooting for a fairly complex game, they might need more than one year to complete it, possibly as many as three or four. So even with a very basic team we are talking about an initial investment of close to $300K.
You would need to be drawing donations of close to $100K a year just to make ends meet. That is NOT easy. And the more studios that go this route, the less money there will be available. That's why it seems so unfeasible.
It's important to remember that Minecraft didn't succeed on donations. They were distributing a prototype that people could actually play, and that they were for the most part satisfied with. People weren't paying for Minecraft based on future potential. They paid for it because they felt it was worthwhile in its current state.
How did you afford a computer that can run StarCraft 2?
I had a job, made money, and used it to purchase a number of games in addition to a computer. Now I study, have no job, and buy no games. Hardware thankfully hasn't crapped out on me except for an HDD and PSU under warranty. *cross fingers*
Also, what makes you think that a student with little to no income should be playing a lot of games? Wouldn't your time be more productively spent studying and working on your assignments? What makes you feel that you are entitled to play games? It's common for student's to be young, stupid, and not in touch with the realities of the working world.
Because I can, both in terms of time and in terms of getting my hands on the game. People like to throw out words like "entitlement" and "deserve", and make it sound like some far-ranging moral dillemma when the entire ethical reality comes down to: are you depriving someone of money and thereby causing harm. I'm not, so barring legal action I'll do whatever the hell I want and feel no guilt.
That question is the heart of the entire piracy debate, and there are two types of pirates out there. The first type is like me and can't afford software, and thereby harm nobody by pirating it because we do not factor into the market. The second, and larger contingent, is composed of assholes who do factor into the market, but just want stuff for free.
There are options these days that DON'T require piracy. Look into some of those before reaching for your torrent client.
Actually I generally play TF2, CS:Source and Heroes of Newerth, all of which I legally purchased. The games I've pirated recently are the "can't miss" titles, notably ME1/2 and Dragon Age. I definitely plan on buying them and their sequels when I get money as they are well worth it.
David-J: Which is why in my analogy I didn't use food.:)
Sure the internet is great, it has the great potential to create, but ceaseless replication with total disregard for responsibilities and consequences is not the answer.
"With great power comes great responsiblity"
So instead of trying to create things that would be more productive(Google making Chrome is a good example of productivity), instead people work on other avenues to host and share pirated media? Now *that* seems silly to me.
I'm no saint for sure, i've definitely pirated stuff(in the past, nowadays I use youtube).
As it is, I've probably further deviated from the original topic. So to bring things back down from all this "higher thinking", I'm sticking with my earlier point.
Developers need to earn money to survive, people who are in some other industry(or students) who buy these games don't *have* to play our games. They don't need it like the way we need to breathe. It's a luxurious form of entertainment(and a form of art) that we provide for people to buy *if* they can afford it.
Otherwise you'll have to save, get a higher pay somehow, get mo money. Never gonna be as easy as that, but thats life. Just because video games aren't tangible like a private jet, doesn't make it right to get it for free when it wasn't meant to be free.
How does food and games are on the same level? If I don't eat food I die. If I don't play games...... I die???? better play same games right now.
Come'on, that's not what I meant.
They're not on the same level. But the theft of which IS on the same level. You go into a store and shoplift $60 of food, or shoplift a video-game, according to the law, that's the same thing. And I don't think that you're arguing that stealing food is perfectly fine, just like how I'm not arguing that piracy is fine.
What I am arguing though, is that if I had a matter replicator, I wouldn't feel bad about replicating food, even if it means that farmers go out of business.
Actually I generally play TF2, CS:Source and Heroes of Newerth, all of which I legally purchased. The games I've pirated recently are the "can't miss" titles, notably ME1/2 and Dragon Age. I definitely plan on buying them and their sequels when I get money as they are well worth it.
This does prove that there was a system in place that brought the pirate factor completely out of the window, titles that in this case had to make you choose between "pay and play, or don't play at all".
People seem to enjoy analogies, so I'm gonna try one, though I'm not sure how it'll work out.
But suppose that someone out there invents a Star Trek type of matter replicator. One so good it would make Picard proud. What this means is moving on to post scarcity in food, eliminating world hunger.
But would you argue that this technology should be banned, because it would put farmers and people who produce food out of business?
No, your analogy doesn't work.
If that happened, everyone would just replicate money, and then they wont need jobs. The world as we know it will completely change, if money isn't the motivating factor for many to develop their creative ideas then technology may take a massive leap backwards (not saying that all creative people do it for money, just saying that many people do make things that will in some way affect how the creative people end up making their things, maybe even prevent them for doing so).
Is there a maximum duplication size?
If not then no one would probably want to be a bus driver because that's kinda boring. Rather go and duplicate a monster truck and drive that instead. Now if everyone did that, imagine the congestion! Or how about personal jets. Or personal 747s just for the sake of it.
If this device were to be made, there would be limits to it's usage and who can use it and how they use it. Many of those limits would be based on morality and trying to not let it slip in the wrong hands (which is pretty hard for a device of this nature... all it takes is 1 person to leak it and then eventually the whole world will have them since they can duplicate themselves and there's no way to stop it!) Doesn't even need to be leaked, criminal-minded people are bound to want such a cool toy, they'll find a way to steal one.
In answer to the question, yes I would argue for this technology to be banned. But not because of the farmers jobs.
I think you're underestimating the effect it will have on everyone, indie-developers usually get hit the most, since they don't reach the pirate-illiterate masses.
Well... I don't know man. I can say the same to you, I think you're overestimating it.
I mean, do we have any kind of data to actually support the claim that piracy hurts our industry? It seems like more of an emotional thing to be honest. We work so much on a game, and then we see some punk download it for free online.
I don't think it'll hurt indie games much. They also have the benefit of being more nimble with new technologies, and being cheap. My mom will never pay $60 for a game. But she'll buy every bejewelled that comes out, or its varients. Also, look at CCP with EVE. They started out indie, and look where they are. How can piracy really hurt them?
I'd argue that used games sales hurt us much more than any of this piracy stuff.
Well... I don't know man. I can say the same to you, I think you're overestimating it.
I mean, do we have any kind of data to actually support the claim that piracy hurts our industry? It seems like more of an emotional thing to be honest. We work so much on a game, and then we see some punk download it for free online.
I don't think it'll hurt indie games much. They also have the benefit of being more nimble with new technologies, and being cheap. My mom will never pay $60 for a game. But she'll buy every bejewelled that comes out, or its varients. Also, look at CCP with EVE. They started out indie, and look where they are. How can piracy really hurt them?
I'd argue that used games sales hurt us much more than any of this piracy stuff.
It was in a future scenario, if IP and copyright laws were rid of. And where you could openly copy anything without fear of punishment, atm it's more of a nuisance than a complete destroyer, it does affect some companies though.
But yes, used sales hurts more because it operates in a way more legal field.
I believe that the shrinkage will occur exactly there, in the wasteful side of our industries. Pixar will still produce movies, because people will go watch it in theatres. Blizzard will still make millions off of awesome games. And Metallica will always be rich.
No. Stop! This a terrible, terrible assumption. The biggest offenders are always the LAST ones to feel the pinch. You aren't going to "Bring Down" the "Man" by pirating games. The very first people who are going to get cut and/or laid-off from these developments are smaller developers. And that is indeed exactly what has been happening over the past few years. All of the smaller, less profitable developers have been getting closed down. The larger studios and publishers lose a little weight, but are able to adapt. And the net result is not a lesser focus on big-budget rehashes, but a greater focus on big-budget rehashes, since those are the most reliable money-makers.
The pointless re-treads of tired franchises aren't going to diminish, they're going to get worse. And increased piracy will only encourage this trend.
This does prove that there was a system in place that brought the pirate factor completely out of the window, titles that in this case had to make you choose between "pay and play, or don't play at all".
This is true of course, but I bought those games mostly because I saw that they were good and well worth the price. I haven't regretted buying them at all.
On the flipside I bought UT3 right at launch (even though I could have pirated) and regret it because it was a big fat disappointment.
No. Stop! This a terrible, terrible assumption. The biggest offenders are always the LAST ones to feel the pinch. You aren't going to "Bring Down" the "Man" by pirating games. The very first people who are going to get cut and/or laid-off from these developments are smaller developers. And that is indeed exactly what has been happening over the past few years. All of the smaller, less profitable developers have been getting closed down. The larger studios and publishers lose a little weight, but are able to adapt. And the net result is not a lesser focus on big-budget rehashes, but a greater focus on big-budget rehashes, since those are the most reliable money-makers.
The pointless re-treads of tired franchises aren't going to diminish, they're going to get worse. And increased piracy will only encourage this trend.
Do you have any data to support any of that?
It just seems extremely dubious. If piracy was perfectly legitimate, why on earth would anyone choose to pay for a big-budget rehash?
The way that I see it, the people who do good stuff, like say Blizzard with all their lines of products make their money honestly, and efficiently. The people who rehash sports franchises make their money because people can't easily get a pirated copy.
It just seems extremely dubious. If piracy was perfectly legitimate, why on earth would anyone choose to pay for a big-budget rehash?
The way that I see it, the people who do good stuff, like say Blizzard with all their lines of products make their money honestly, and efficiently. The people who rehash sports franchises make their money because people can't easily get a pirated copy.
Why would they choose to pay for anything when it's all fair game? And who are you to decide what is trash and what is not, I know alot of people who see world of warcraft as big budget trash, heck even minecraft has its vast amount of haters.
Blizzard makes really good games, but they also have the most effective drm in place: multiplayer.
Why would they choose to pay for anything when it's all fair game? And who are you to decide what is trash and what is not, I know alot of people who see world of warcraft as big budget trash, heck even minecraft has its vast amount of haters.
Blizzard makes really good games, but they also have the most effective drm in place: multiplayer.
Exactly my point.
And who said that I'm the one to decide? I never said that. What I'm saying is that if people were let to decide what's trash and what to pay for, I seriously doubt they'd choose to pay for a rehash sports title.
At the same time, when someone makes a good game that's worth paying for, people will.
Saying that Blizzard has the best drm in multiplayer is selling it way short. In fact, it's not drm at all. It's just giving people what they want. THAT is why people will pay for it.
And who said that I'm the one to decide? I never said that. What I'm saying is that if people were let to decide what's trash and what to pay for, I seriously doubt they'd choose to pay for a rehash sports title.
At the same time, when someone makes a good game that's worth paying for, people will.
Saying that Blizzard has the best drm in multiplayer is selling it way short. In fact, it's not drm at all. It's just giving people what they want. THAT is why people will pay for it.
Piracy is about getting something you want, but in this case you have to have a legal copy to get the full experience.
You can give people what they want in a singleplayer game and they'd still pirate the hell out of it.
this doesn't work because the only source of revenue for games it's the sale of their games. for artists if they don't sell their record they are fine because they get their money from touring. that's why pirating music and games it's totally different.
Piracy is about getting something you want, but in this case you have to have a legal copy to get the full experience.
You can give people what they want in a singleplayer game and they'd still pirate the hell out of it.
Not disagreeing with you, not in the slightest.
I'd just like to suggest that maybe that's not what they want, and it's more like what we'd like them to want. My brother, for example, quit playing games altogether since he started playing WoW. He says it straight up, "why would I waste time on a game with X hours, when I can play online and have many more hours from it?". Money doesn't even come into that equation. He just enjoys the multiplayer aspect of it much more. So to him, paying $15 a month seems fair. Paying $60 for a game that'll last a couple of weeks doesn't.
this doesn't work because the only source of revenue for games it's the sale of their games. for artists if they don't sell their record they are fine because they get their money from touring. that's why pirating music and games it's totally different.
Piracy is about getting something you want, but in this case you have to have a legal copy to get the full experience.
You can give people what they want in a singleplayer game and they'd still pirate the hell out of it.
Right, so why bother making a fuss over it? You can't beat it and every time the media brings it up, more people hear about it and become curious. The pirates should stop trying to justify it, the Devs should treat their paying customers better, and the media should stop covering it as they're giving it more exposure.
Does this mean that before these existed ( which it was a couple of years ago) you were against piracy? Because back then that was the only way. And still DLC, people dont like it and always complain about it. Monthly suscriptions, it's not working. Only for Blizzard, if not then talk to all the MMO's that have gone free to play.
edit.. Also monthly suscriptions and expansions don't work for all games. Do I need a monthly suscription to play Mass Effect?
It takes a large team of people devoting a year or more of work to make a AAA game and the only compensation they can earn is from sales. This is even more vital for indie games.
It takes a musician(s) comparatively little effort to make a song and they can earn compensation through multiple avenues, the most important being live performances. Joss Stone isn't crying because of lost mp3 sales.
I don't think you can really compare the music and software piracy scenes without skewing the facts.
Does this mean that before these existed ( which it was a couple of years ago) you were against piracy? Because back then that was the only way. And still DLC, people dont like it and always complain about it. Monthly suscriptions, it's not working. Only for Blizzard, if not then talk to all the MMO's that have gone free to play.
Yes, I was against piracy. And guess what? I still am. I think it's a bad thing. I said it numerous times, and it's funny that in the original 10-page thread about piracy (which I linked earlier), I had to keep saying this over and over.
Yes. Piracy is bad, and it hurts out industry. I don't believe it's a crime. And I do believe there's a lot we can do to help it.
And btw, Free to Play with MMOs seriously proves my point. If an item-mall works, then anything can work. Doesn't Valve do the same thing with TF2 now?
And btw, Free to Play with MMOs seriously proves my point. If an item-mall works, then anything can work. Doesn't Valve do the same thing with TF2 now?
It means that the game software will be shifted away from the customer, and will instead bf streamed much like ONLIVE.
And who said that I'm the one to decide? I never said that. What I'm saying is that if people were let to decide what's trash and what to pay for, I seriously doubt they'd choose to pay for a rehash sports title.
At the same time, when someone makes a good game that's worth paying for, people will.
That is the same silly presumption that Communist Russia was based on. You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that people are generally good. That is a mistake. People are naturally dicks, and will overwhelmingly behave in a dick-like fashion when given the opportunity.
If you give people the option of what they should and should not pay for...they will pay for nothing. They will take everything they want without providing ANY compensation. Pretty much every experiment that the indie community has made with this pricing model has born this out. 90% of the people who are given the option of how much they should pay for a product will not pay anything, or pay the absolute bare minimum allowed.
In an ideal world where people are fair and just (and actually have good taste in games), your pie-in-the-sky vision would probably work. But in reality, making piracy legitimate and legal would have the opposite desired effect.
I would also like to again point out that the general public has zero ability to gauge the actual quality of products. This is exactly why generic sludge continues to turn massive profits while original ideas or excellent execution means squat these days. Throw enough money at the marketing department, and the foulest turd can still seem to turn a profit. NEVER assume that the general public are going to be able to judge quality.
Valve's eastern europe coverage is shitty, at least in the Balkans.
OnLive style games would be great, but would probably suffer from the same issue depending on user location. Shouldn't be a problem in another few years though.
Valve's eastern europe coverage is shitty, at least in the Balkans.
OnLive style games would be great, but would probably suffer from the same issue depending on user location. Shouldn't be a problem in another few years though.
In another few years, Onlive will no longer exist. It tries to give the publishers everything they could dream of and bleeds the consumer while leaving their quality of service at the mercy of their internet connection. It's a hand job to the publishers and a dry anal hump to the consumer.
@Bigjohn So you're saying that if Blizzard made it optional to pay for the games, expansions and monthly fees, the majority of people would still choose to pay for it, right? And that money would be enough to fund wages and future development.
I'd like to see some statistics, how much donation money has valve earned for updating TF2 regularly - or any non-subscription-based multiplayer game for that matter.
Personally I've never donated money to a game company just because I really really liked the game. I buy the game and that's it. I don't continually give valve or blizzard (for sc2) or capcom (for SSF4) a monthly donation for being awesome.
But apparently you think enough people do to sustain the game development industry.
And that's just for multiplayer games. Most AAA singleplayer games will basically be dead if they were all legally free on release.
I do think that some indie devs might be able to survive on "morally-just" people though, due to their small size and much lower productions costs.
look at China, they pirate everything so the video game market is all MMO.... if you're pro different business models don't complain about companies churning out MMO's (and subscription based FPS multiplayer)
In another few years, Onlive will no longer exist. It tries to give the publishers everything they could dream of and bleeds the consumer while leaving their quality of service at the mercy of their internet connection. It's a hand job to the publishers and a dry anal hump to the consumer.
This is not a very good prediction. There is little chance that OnLive is going to supplant the existing retail structure. But it will probably be turning a decent profit for years to come. And its performance will improve steadily as high-speed internet access continues to expand.
Why?
Because playing games over OnLive is EVEN EASIER than pirating them. In theory, OnLive has the potential to provide access to games that actually rivals piracy. Some people will be willing to purchase games over OnLive just because it is more convenient than pirating them. With OnLive, you don't even have to wait for a game to download before you can play it. You don't have to mod a console, or burn files to disks. You press a button, and almost immediately begin playing.
And thanks to their partnership with Vizio, their service will probably have an even easier time of it moving forward. Now you don't even need to purchase extra hardware to attach to your television. Any Vizio screen purchased after 2011 will have OnLive compatibility built in by default. How long before other TV manufacturers start lining up?
Doesn't Xbox Live and PSN offer downloadable games though? Given the fact that Onlive requires a beefy internet connection anyway, the choice between streaming a game and possibly having compression or lag issues, or waiting 15 minutes for all of my stuff to be rendered onsite, I'd definitely pay and wait a short while.
The only problem with downloading games right now is the undersized and overpriced hard drives that are shipped in some consoles. I don't think the market is quite right for going to an all download method of distribution, but when it is I think we'll see large hard drives being included as a standard feature on all consoles.
Doesn't Xbox Live and PSN offer downloadable games though? Given the fact that Onlive requires a beefy internet connection anyway, the choice between streaming a game and possibly having compression or lag issues, or waiting 15 minutes for all of my stuff to be rendered onsite, I'd definitely pay and wait a short while.
The only problem with downloading games right now is the undersized and overpriced hard drives that are shipped in some consoles. I don't think the market is quite right for going to an all download method of distribution, but when it is I think we'll see large hard drives being included as a standard feature on all consoles.
I think it was from a publishers standpoint, that if piracy was legal, they could just stream games to players, and never have a copy out there, that way there would never be anything to copy around, and the only solution would be to get a proper license to play the game.
You may be absolutely right about this, I don't know to be honest.
But, you can't tell me that none of that $15 a month x10million goes into development (meaning, salaries for Blizzard devs). Probably not even exclusively WoW. There's no way those $15 are purely for server cost. They're profit, and people are fine with that.
Second, you're right, Blizzard doesn't actually promise they'll release patches. But it goes to show how much that thought is prevalent, that I just assumed so. Thinking about it further, I don't believe there's a promise there. But everyone accepts it as such. When I first started playing MMOs (WoW was my first), the person who got me into it described it just like that. You pay $15, and they release new stuff over time. I never heard an MMO-dev deny it either. It goes with the territory of what an MMO is.
I mean, an xbox game costs roughly the same, and there's no monthly, and you play it online. So it's pretty obvious, even if not stated, that the monthly subscription goes into them further developing it, keeping the game fresh.
honestly I dont see where your coming from on this post at all or what Blizzard and monthly subscriptions has to do with any of this.
any profit made by a studio could be used to spur further development on the game or future games. thats a given. why are you trying to argue that a subscription is different then just paying a flat fee up front?
in fact the way I see it having a monthly subscription would give people MORE of a reason to pirate a game. if you already paid the 40 bucks for the game and then are forced to pay 15 bucks extra every month to play the game they bought. it almost seems criminal. but really when it comes to wow that shit is worth it, such a great game IMO. If you gave people the option to pay 15 bucks a month or not too 99% of people would not pay.
yes some of the monthly sub goes to the upkeep of the serves and the pay for the people who upkeep the servers but Blizzard makes crazy bank off that game. thats why most Blizzard employees drive around in cars made of pure gold from what I hear.
I for one have never donated money to a studio because I liked there game or thought there up coming project sounded cool. and really I doubt I ever will. Also I stay pretty up to date on all things game industry related, a lot more then your average joe gamer and even still there are so many games I dont know about. So how are they to know what the good games are to help support?
If your suppose to be getting all this magical awesome marketing once the game is out and its freely distributed how are you to make money? People are not going to be like, oh hey I enjoyed this game I think I am going to donate some money to this studio for the fun time I had. No, thats not the world we live in, thats not how humans beings act and thats just not a realistic idea.
That is the same silly presumption that Communist Russia was based on. You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that people are generally good. That is a mistake. People are naturally dicks, and will overwhelmingly behave in a dick-like fashion when given the opportunity.
Yeah, I'll freely admit this. I do believe mankind is basically good. And that influences my entire thought process. If that's something we disagree with, then that's fine of course, but let's keep it to another topic.
That's right guys. It's ok to pirate everything except DLC packs, monthly subscriptions, and expansion packs. Those are off limits. Gotta let game devs make money somehow. What kinda asshole would pirate that shit?
I think it was from a publishers standpoint, that if piracy was legal, they could just stream games to players, and never have a copy out there, that way there would never be anything to copy around, and the only solution would be to get a proper license to play the game.
I suppose I glossed over that part. I think it's generally a risk maneuver simply because of psychology.
I'm generally opposed to paying for services or things that disappear over a given period of time. Pay Per View on TV or any sort of On Demand services are a huge turnoff for my wallet. When I buy something, I want it to be there tomorrow, next week, year, and on my deathbed. I realize that's probably not going to happen with my car, but I guess I can deal with it.
Furthermore I guess I'd have a big problem supporting platforms that are virtual or cloud based. For all these services, the terms of use could always change, and imagine if a company like OnLive developed enough of a software library and user base, that it decided to move on to a Pay To Play payment method, rather than a license purchase method? They'd basically have their own little World or Warcraft for every SP game on the market.
Replies
People seem to enjoy analogies, so I'm gonna try one, though I'm not sure how it'll work out.
But suppose that someone out there invents a Star Trek type of matter replicator. One so good it would make Picard proud. What this means is moving on to post scarcity in food, eliminating world hunger.
But would you argue that this technology should be banned, because it would put farmers and people who produce food out of business?
I guess what I'm saying is that the dollar isn't the end-all be-all for everything. And in fact, we do have a matter replicator that works for software, the internet. And I don't quite see why we should be fighting against it, instead of embracing it.
Yeah, the affected industries would shrink. But do we really need a Saw37? Or yet another Tila Tequila album? or 3 "different" NFL games coming out every year?
I believe that the shrinkage will occur exactly there, in the wasteful side of our industries. Pixar will still produce movies, because people will go watch it in theatres. Blizzard will still make millions off of awesome games. And Metallica will always be rich.
Just my 2cents on this whole thing.
They offer a free version for learning? That's great. It doesn't mean that pirating the software for the same purpose is going to harm them. If you intend to learn the tools before you buy it, what have they lost? You'll either buy the tool or get hired to work for someone that will continue to invest in that tool. Or, you might do neither and try something else. If the intent isn't to harm nor deprive, what's the problem?
That analogy doesn't work. We are talking about luxury items here. Food is not a luxury.
But it's on the same level. You wouldn't argue that people have a "right" to food, would you? Last time I checked if I went into a store and shoplifted some food, I'd get arrested for it.
I know the analogy isn't great. But I think the idea is sound. Either way you're getting for free something that you used to have to pay for.
This happens all the time, and in games industry its companies producing way better and fun titles that just puts out the worth from the previous titles, but you can't sue someone from producing something better..
I'm pretty sure mother nature would hold the copyright for the stuff the farmers are farming though..
However, in that future we'll have people who engineer stuff with dna, and artistic designers who design the aesthetic look of this food or plant, this'll be a several year long design process just like with games, but once the design of this uberfruit is done, it's one click away from being replicated, and hundreds of thousands of manhours spent on r&d.
So a rebelling teenager could either just copy this code to produce this "tea earl grey, hot" by using a program he copied there earlier.
Or he could try make his own design, which would result in the replicator having a diarr
How does food and games are on the same level? If I don't eat food I die. If I don't play games...... I die???? better play same games right now.
No, that's not the issue that most people are taking with your proposal. Of course it wouldn't work for a major publisher. Those companies get hundreds of millions from investors. Of course, they are then expected to pay that money back with interest. (which is why they are so focused on making a profit) No one is expecting to get those kinds of figures from donations.
But how much do you really need to run a studio, even a small one? The space marines game you keep referencing is a team of 8 guys out of Denmark. With all due respect to those guys, it is a bit presumptuous for them to call their project AAA. It will take them four or five years, minimum, to bring this project to fruition at a level of quality anywhere near AAA. And for that, they will probably require at least one million dollars, probably more.
Look at the math. Lets say you have a bare-bones studio of two guys, one coder and one artist. Lets say they both live in California. In order to pay their living expenses for a year of development, they will probably need $50K each, or $100,000 total. That's just for paying rent, buying food, paying for health insurance, power bill, water bill, repairs, etc... That's not even taking into account the hardware and software expenses they would need. If they are shooting for a fairly complex game, they might need more than one year to complete it, possibly as many as three or four. So even with a very basic team we are talking about an initial investment of close to $300K.
You would need to be drawing donations of close to $100K a year just to make ends meet. That is NOT easy. And the more studios that go this route, the less money there will be available. That's why it seems so unfeasible.
It's important to remember that Minecraft didn't succeed on donations. They were distributing a prototype that people could actually play, and that they were for the most part satisfied with. People weren't paying for Minecraft based on future potential. They paid for it because they felt it was worthwhile in its current state.
I had a job, made money, and used it to purchase a number of games in addition to a computer. Now I study, have no job, and buy no games. Hardware thankfully hasn't crapped out on me except for an HDD and PSU under warranty. *cross fingers*
Because I can, both in terms of time and in terms of getting my hands on the game. People like to throw out words like "entitlement" and "deserve", and make it sound like some far-ranging moral dillemma when the entire ethical reality comes down to: are you depriving someone of money and thereby causing harm. I'm not, so barring legal action I'll do whatever the hell I want and feel no guilt.
That question is the heart of the entire piracy debate, and there are two types of pirates out there. The first type is like me and can't afford software, and thereby harm nobody by pirating it because we do not factor into the market. The second, and larger contingent, is composed of assholes who do factor into the market, but just want stuff for free.
Actually I generally play TF2, CS:Source and Heroes of Newerth, all of which I legally purchased. The games I've pirated recently are the "can't miss" titles, notably ME1/2 and Dragon Age. I definitely plan on buying them and their sequels when I get money as they are well worth it.
Sure the internet is great, it has the great potential to create, but ceaseless replication with total disregard for responsibilities and consequences is not the answer.
"With great power comes great responsiblity"
So instead of trying to create things that would be more productive(Google making Chrome is a good example of productivity), instead people work on other avenues to host and share pirated media? Now *that* seems silly to me.
I'm no saint for sure, i've definitely pirated stuff(in the past, nowadays I use youtube).
As it is, I've probably further deviated from the original topic. So to bring things back down from all this "higher thinking", I'm sticking with my earlier point.
Developers need to earn money to survive, people who are in some other industry(or students) who buy these games don't *have* to play our games. They don't need it like the way we need to breathe. It's a luxurious form of entertainment(and a form of art) that we provide for people to buy *if* they can afford it.
Otherwise you'll have to save, get a higher pay somehow, get mo money. Never gonna be as easy as that, but thats life. Just because video games aren't tangible like a private jet, doesn't make it right to get it for free when it wasn't meant to be free.
Come'on, that's not what I meant.
They're not on the same level. But the theft of which IS on the same level. You go into a store and shoplift $60 of food, or shoplift a video-game, according to the law, that's the same thing. And I don't think that you're arguing that stealing food is perfectly fine, just like how I'm not arguing that piracy is fine.
What I am arguing though, is that if I had a matter replicator, I wouldn't feel bad about replicating food, even if it means that farmers go out of business.
This does prove that there was a system in place that brought the pirate factor completely out of the window, titles that in this case had to make you choose between "pay and play, or don't play at all".
No, your analogy doesn't work.
If that happened, everyone would just replicate money, and then they wont need jobs. The world as we know it will completely change, if money isn't the motivating factor for many to develop their creative ideas then technology may take a massive leap backwards (not saying that all creative people do it for money, just saying that many people do make things that will in some way affect how the creative people end up making their things, maybe even prevent them for doing so).
Is there a maximum duplication size?
If not then no one would probably want to be a bus driver because that's kinda boring. Rather go and duplicate a monster truck and drive that instead. Now if everyone did that, imagine the congestion! Or how about personal jets. Or personal 747s just for the sake of it.
If this device were to be made, there would be limits to it's usage and who can use it and how they use it. Many of those limits would be based on morality and trying to not let it slip in the wrong hands (which is pretty hard for a device of this nature... all it takes is 1 person to leak it and then eventually the whole world will have them since they can duplicate themselves and there's no way to stop it!) Doesn't even need to be leaked, criminal-minded people are bound to want such a cool toy, they'll find a way to steal one.
In answer to the question, yes I would argue for this technology to be banned. But not because of the farmers jobs.
Well... I don't know man. I can say the same to you, I think you're overestimating it.
I mean, do we have any kind of data to actually support the claim that piracy hurts our industry? It seems like more of an emotional thing to be honest. We work so much on a game, and then we see some punk download it for free online.
I don't think it'll hurt indie games much. They also have the benefit of being more nimble with new technologies, and being cheap. My mom will never pay $60 for a game. But she'll buy every bejewelled that comes out, or its varients. Also, look at CCP with EVE. They started out indie, and look where they are. How can piracy really hurt them?
I'd argue that used games sales hurt us much more than any of this piracy stuff.
It was in a future scenario, if IP and copyright laws were rid of. And where you could openly copy anything without fear of punishment, atm it's more of a nuisance than a complete destroyer, it does affect some companies though.
But yes, used sales hurts more because it operates in a way more legal field.
No. Stop! This a terrible, terrible assumption. The biggest offenders are always the LAST ones to feel the pinch. You aren't going to "Bring Down" the "Man" by pirating games. The very first people who are going to get cut and/or laid-off from these developments are smaller developers. And that is indeed exactly what has been happening over the past few years. All of the smaller, less profitable developers have been getting closed down. The larger studios and publishers lose a little weight, but are able to adapt. And the net result is not a lesser focus on big-budget rehashes, but a greater focus on big-budget rehashes, since those are the most reliable money-makers.
The pointless re-treads of tired franchises aren't going to diminish, they're going to get worse. And increased piracy will only encourage this trend.
This is true of course, but I bought those games mostly because I saw that they were good and well worth the price. I haven't regretted buying them at all.
On the flipside I bought UT3 right at launch (even though I could have pirated) and regret it because it was a big fat disappointment.
Do you have any data to support any of that?
It just seems extremely dubious. If piracy was perfectly legitimate, why on earth would anyone choose to pay for a big-budget rehash?
The way that I see it, the people who do good stuff, like say Blizzard with all their lines of products make their money honestly, and efficiently. The people who rehash sports franchises make their money because people can't easily get a pirated copy.
Why would they choose to pay for anything when it's all fair game? And who are you to decide what is trash and what is not, I know alot of people who see world of warcraft as big budget trash, heck even minecraft has its vast amount of haters.
Blizzard makes really good games, but they also have the most effective drm in place: multiplayer.
Exactly my point.
And who said that I'm the one to decide? I never said that. What I'm saying is that if people were let to decide what's trash and what to pay for, I seriously doubt they'd choose to pay for a rehash sports title.
At the same time, when someone makes a good game that's worth paying for, people will.
Saying that Blizzard has the best drm in multiplayer is selling it way short. In fact, it's not drm at all. It's just giving people what they want. THAT is why people will pay for it.
http://www.dump.com/2011/01/16/singer-joss-stone-on-piracy-video/
Totally. I completely agree with this.
Piracy is about getting something you want, but in this case you have to have a legal copy to get the full experience.
You can give people what they want in a singleplayer game and they'd still pirate the hell out of it.
this doesn't work because the only source of revenue for games it's the sale of their games. for artists if they don't sell their record they are fine because they get their money from touring. that's why pirating music and games it's totally different.
Not disagreeing with you, not in the slightest.
I'd just like to suggest that maybe that's not what they want, and it's more like what we'd like them to want. My brother, for example, quit playing games altogether since he started playing WoW. He says it straight up, "why would I waste time on a game with X hours, when I can play online and have many more hours from it?". Money doesn't even come into that equation. He just enjoys the multiplayer aspect of it much more. So to him, paying $15 a month seems fair. Paying $60 for a game that'll last a couple of weeks doesn't.
DLC, montly subscriptions, expansions...
Right, so why bother making a fuss over it? You can't beat it and every time the media brings it up, more people hear about it and become curious. The pirates should stop trying to justify it, the Devs should treat their paying customers better, and the media should stop covering it as they're giving it more exposure.
"It's cool, have my money already"
Does this mean that before these existed ( which it was a couple of years ago) you were against piracy? Because back then that was the only way. And still DLC, people dont like it and always complain about it. Monthly suscriptions, it's not working. Only for Blizzard, if not then talk to all the MMO's that have gone free to play.
edit.. Also monthly suscriptions and expansions don't work for all games. Do I need a monthly suscription to play Mass Effect?
It takes a large team of people devoting a year or more of work to make a AAA game and the only compensation they can earn is from sales. This is even more vital for indie games.
It takes a musician(s) comparatively little effort to make a song and they can earn compensation through multiple avenues, the most important being live performances. Joss Stone isn't crying because of lost mp3 sales.
I don't think you can really compare the music and software piracy scenes without skewing the facts.
Yes, I was against piracy. And guess what? I still am. I think it's a bad thing. I said it numerous times, and it's funny that in the original 10-page thread about piracy (which I linked earlier), I had to keep saying this over and over.
Yes. Piracy is bad, and it hurts out industry. I don't believe it's a crime. And I do believe there's a lot we can do to help it.
And btw, Free to Play with MMOs seriously proves my point. If an item-mall works, then anything can work. Doesn't Valve do the same thing with TF2 now?
It means that the game software will be shifted away from the customer, and will instead bf streamed much like ONLIVE.
I got no problem with that.
As someone in the east who has to deal with high ping on valve games: Noooooo!
Wut.
That is the same silly presumption that Communist Russia was based on. You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that people are generally good. That is a mistake. People are naturally dicks, and will overwhelmingly behave in a dick-like fashion when given the opportunity.
If you give people the option of what they should and should not pay for...they will pay for nothing. They will take everything they want without providing ANY compensation. Pretty much every experiment that the indie community has made with this pricing model has born this out. 90% of the people who are given the option of how much they should pay for a product will not pay anything, or pay the absolute bare minimum allowed.
In an ideal world where people are fair and just (and actually have good taste in games), your pie-in-the-sky vision would probably work. But in reality, making piracy legitimate and legal would have the opposite desired effect.
I would also like to again point out that the general public has zero ability to gauge the actual quality of products. This is exactly why generic sludge continues to turn massive profits while original ideas or excellent execution means squat these days. Throw enough money at the marketing department, and the foulest turd can still seem to turn a profit. NEVER assume that the general public are going to be able to judge quality.
OnLive style games would be great, but would probably suffer from the same issue depending on user location. Shouldn't be a problem in another few years though.
In another few years, Onlive will no longer exist. It tries to give the publishers everything they could dream of and bleeds the consumer while leaving their quality of service at the mercy of their internet connection. It's a hand job to the publishers and a dry anal hump to the consumer.
I'd like to see some statistics, how much donation money has valve earned for updating TF2 regularly - or any non-subscription-based multiplayer game for that matter.
Personally I've never donated money to a game company just because I really really liked the game. I buy the game and that's it. I don't continually give valve or blizzard (for sc2) or capcom (for SSF4) a monthly donation for being awesome.
But apparently you think enough people do to sustain the game development industry.
And that's just for multiplayer games. Most AAA singleplayer games will basically be dead if they were all legally free on release.
I do think that some indie devs might be able to survive on "morally-just" people though, due to their small size and much lower productions costs.
This is not a very good prediction. There is little chance that OnLive is going to supplant the existing retail structure. But it will probably be turning a decent profit for years to come. And its performance will improve steadily as high-speed internet access continues to expand.
Why?
Because playing games over OnLive is EVEN EASIER than pirating them. In theory, OnLive has the potential to provide access to games that actually rivals piracy. Some people will be willing to purchase games over OnLive just because it is more convenient than pirating them. With OnLive, you don't even have to wait for a game to download before you can play it. You don't have to mod a console, or burn files to disks. You press a button, and almost immediately begin playing.
And thanks to their partnership with Vizio, their service will probably have an even easier time of it moving forward. Now you don't even need to purchase extra hardware to attach to your television. Any Vizio screen purchased after 2011 will have OnLive compatibility built in by default. How long before other TV manufacturers start lining up?
The only problem with downloading games right now is the undersized and overpriced hard drives that are shipped in some consoles. I don't think the market is quite right for going to an all download method of distribution, but when it is I think we'll see large hard drives being included as a standard feature on all consoles.
I think it was from a publishers standpoint, that if piracy was legal, they could just stream games to players, and never have a copy out there, that way there would never be anything to copy around, and the only solution would be to get a proper license to play the game.
honestly I dont see where your coming from on this post at all or what Blizzard and monthly subscriptions has to do with any of this.
any profit made by a studio could be used to spur further development on the game or future games. thats a given. why are you trying to argue that a subscription is different then just paying a flat fee up front?
in fact the way I see it having a monthly subscription would give people MORE of a reason to pirate a game. if you already paid the 40 bucks for the game and then are forced to pay 15 bucks extra every month to play the game they bought. it almost seems criminal. but really when it comes to wow that shit is worth it, such a great game IMO. If you gave people the option to pay 15 bucks a month or not too 99% of people would not pay.
yes some of the monthly sub goes to the upkeep of the serves and the pay for the people who upkeep the servers but Blizzard makes crazy bank off that game. thats why most Blizzard employees drive around in cars made of pure gold from what I hear.
I for one have never donated money to a studio because I liked there game or thought there up coming project sounded cool. and really I doubt I ever will. Also I stay pretty up to date on all things game industry related, a lot more then your average joe gamer and even still there are so many games I dont know about. So how are they to know what the good games are to help support?
If your suppose to be getting all this magical awesome marketing once the game is out and its freely distributed how are you to make money? People are not going to be like, oh hey I enjoyed this game I think I am going to donate some money to this studio for the fun time I had. No, thats not the world we live in, thats not how humans beings act and thats just not a realistic idea.
Yeah, I'll freely admit this. I do believe mankind is basically good. And that influences my entire thought process. If that's something we disagree with, then that's fine of course, but let's keep it to another topic.
That's right guys. It's ok to pirate everything except DLC packs, monthly subscriptions, and expansion packs. Those are off limits. Gotta let game devs make money somehow. What kinda asshole would pirate that shit?
I suppose I glossed over that part. I think it's generally a risk maneuver simply because of psychology.
I'm generally opposed to paying for services or things that disappear over a given period of time. Pay Per View on TV or any sort of On Demand services are a huge turnoff for my wallet. When I buy something, I want it to be there tomorrow, next week, year, and on my deathbed. I realize that's probably not going to happen with my car, but I guess I can deal with it.
Furthermore I guess I'd have a big problem supporting platforms that are virtual or cloud based. For all these services, the terms of use could always change, and imagine if a company like OnLive developed enough of a software library and user base, that it decided to move on to a Pay To Play payment method, rather than a license purchase method? They'd basically have their own little World or Warcraft for every SP game on the market.
I'd have a huge problem with that.
Because there has never been any piracy on consoles and handhelds?...