Killzone 3 Hits Torrent Sites
polycounter lvl 15
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2011/02/14/report-killzone-3-hits-torrent-sites
Aparently someone didnt want to be left out of the piracy fun....
According to several published reports, Killzone 3 was leaked to piracy and BitTorrent sites around the internet this weekend. This revelation follows another major leak that happened over the weekend: Crytek's Crysis 2. According to TheSixthAxis by way of PS3 News, a "pre-release" version of the game (described as the European version) started showing up on sites like BlackCats-Games. The download weighs in at 41.40GB under the label Killzone.3.EUR.PS3-MIRSUPER, with another version without 3D named Killzone.3.EU.JB.PS3-MrBLACK weighing in at 22.3GB.
Aparently someone didnt want to be left out of the piracy fun....
Replies
The leak is not good news, but this made me smile.
No but seriously, what the hell? I hate people doing this, obviously bad for the company/industry, but it's also gonna make companies become more and more paranoid, no more bringing in hard drives to work etc...
I always thought you never used externals in the workplace due to stuff like this happening? Hope both developers recover from the pirate, seems this might hit up a new type of security with two leaks in such a short span.
Haha!
This definitely sounds like a press copy leak, judging by the fact there were two versions.
Can't wait for my Helghast edition
I remember playing the first one with a friend on split screen, extensively. I purchased the second one and it's okay, but this one is awesome.
All I can say is I will be buying it.
In before trolls try and fail to make the argument that piracy is somehow ok.
usually it's small mom and pop game shops not obeying street date (there is a store near me that selling MVC3 tonight, employees had copies a week ago), people in distribution centers, or workers in the disk pressing factory.
anyway since this is polycount OH MY GOD THIS IS THE END OF GAMING AS WE KNOW IT EVERYONE IS GOING TO LOSE THEIR JOBS
You almost made me roll of my chair with the last sentence, well played mr. racer :P
Before anyone goes "Bwaaah END OF GAMING!", remember console leaks aren't anything new.. Happens to a major part of big 360 releases if I'm not mistaken... Also due note that I'm not saying I'm happy with this, but it's really not the news of this century.
Thats what I thought, I mean the file sizes are soo huge and blu rays are expensive and sony sues anyone that tries it, and system updates constantly increase the consoles security. Sony are doing a great job to fight those dirty pirates!
I love my ps3
Im drawn between bulletstorm and killzone though as they are released same day here, I might just get both hahaha.
edit; spoke to soon haha, sure it wont last though, we will get a system update in a few days probably that will completely wipe out their efforts.
"In before trolls try and fail to make the argument that piracy is somehow ok."
I guess that means me? No, it's not okay. People worked on those games and they deserve to be paid. I, for one, merely contest how that should be accomplished. The problem is, the current model isn't well adapted to the market we have today. Some of it (infringement) actually helps the game and some of it doesn't. Even though people are getting their hands on a game they didn't pay for, they still are of value to the business as a word-of-mouth advertisement. "Piracy" cuts both ways at the same time, so it's both good and bad. There must be more models for profiting from games than just selling copies. How about we figure out some strategies that don't involve conflict against those that consume games?
Here let me list a few positive points:
1. File-sharing copyrighted works saves costs on distribution because the users actually spend their own bandwidth to deliver your games.
2. When people share your game, it gives people the opportunity to discover your games that might not have known about them before.
3. You don't have to be bound to a publisher that would take in huge profits while you toil over a game under a fixed income.
4. There's no DRM, online activation, nor other invasive software checking that your customers are legitimate, possibly making it harder to enjoy your game or breaking other software on their system.
The negative points:
1. It invalidates traditional models.
2. It's hard to control who gets a copy, so you can't reliably sell copies.
3. It's illegal.
4. You can't dictate the terms of use for the game with the consumer.
r13 on Today 02:01 PM
There is no excuse for piracy of games. Games are not food or shelter. You don't need them to survive. There is no excuse you can formulate that isn't a justification of some sort. It's theft. Period.
End of discussion, thread closed.
By the time you are able to get this, find a blueray burner, the firmware will kick you out. A pointless exercise.
GT5 had it right by forcing you to update the firmware before installing. Basically making piracy impossible.
Whatever people might think about the way SONY might act, the console was built specifically to play PS3 games legally. George Hotz is an idiot to think he can argue otherwise and I hope SONY rip him a new one. They did not say "heres a unix box, please use it for whatever"
It would be nice if PS3 was backwards compatible. We have to understand that the original license holders would rather re-sell these games through the PS3 marketplace. (I guess they won't bring PS2 compatibility back until PS2 sales reach zero. 7.9 million PS2 units sold last year...)
@Greevar
The point you miss is that it take millions of dollars to make games now. If they are available for free, in whatever way, studios can't make money. If studios can't make money, they won't make games. If they can't make games, people here lose their jobs.
Your argument in this thread (and the other one) is missing this vital point. It's probably best for you to take some time to think about that and read what other people are saying, instead of trying to argue your corner on a point of view that is extremely unpopular on this forum. Unless that is you want to be labelled as a Troll. In which case we will happily ban you.:poly122:
Whatever people might think about the way SONY might act, the console was built specifically to play PS3 games legally. George Hotz is an idiot to think he can argue otherwise and I hope SONY rip him a new one. They did not say "heres a unix box, please use it for whatever"
They marketed and sold the PS3 with the "other OS" feature. Many people bought the PS3 because it had this feature. Then, Sony ripped that feature out. As far as I see it, they have every right to restore functionality to a device they paid for. Hotz did just that and more. Regardless, people have the right to modify any product they purchase. Sony has no right to stop people from replacing the firmware with another. Would you stand by and let Ford rip out your engine because someone found a way to make it run on alternative energy?
"The point you miss is that it take millions of dollars to make games now."
I didn't miss that at all. The typical AAA title cost roughly 20 million to 50 million dollars to produce. Publishers have become very wealthy exploiting the hard work of those with the skill to create and use that wealth to fund more works.
"If they are available for free, in whatever way, studios can't make money."
That's where you're missing the point. My point was to find and exploit alternate revenue sources while leveraging the cheap distribution infrastructure so conveniently developed by the public at large. The goal of this is to reduce dependency on publishers, externalize distribution costs, and expand public awareness of your services. It's unimaginative to assume that the games industry can't function without support of the traditional business model. It's becoming abundantly clear that it can't function with it.
Now, once and for all I want to make this very and explicitly clear because some are still misconstruing my statements:
I am not advocating, defending, nor justifying the act of copyright infringement. I'm advocating to find a business model that adapts to the issue that not only nullifies its drawbacks, but exploits its advantages.
You all believe that piracy = theft. I get it. It's actually infringement, but you want to use a term that encourages more disdain towards it than it merits. Fine. I'm not here to debate the semantics of law anymore. I'm seeking solutions to a problem that is obviously not going to go away by us throwing vitriol, hate, and inequitable laws at it. I thought the people most affected by this issue would be willing to look for diplomatic solutions, but I see that I was mistaken. "Punish the thieves!" seems to be a far more popular solution here. Let's stop beating people down with the law. It's not winning any points for anybody. I'm sure throwing insults, litigation, and hate at the people that play your games will go far to engender them towards you in the future.
You're like an angry mob out for blood. I don't fully support your view and I don't fully support the infringers' viewpoint either. I do, however, see that both sides each have some valid points that deserve credence. I also see that neither side wants to compromise either because both sides are rank with cognitive dissonance.
And to anyone else who agrees with you, I challenge them to post all their work for all to download free of charge with no ownership or copyright attached. It gets harder to argue your point when you're on the other side. ;-)
Go back to whatever alien planet you clearly came from.
Wow, checkmate! I guess I better go back to my corner and lick my wounds. You have effectively countered my points with Ad hominem arguments. Have you not been listening? I'm not on "the other side" of anything. I actually hold a position between the pro-IP and pro-infringement arguments.
The main thrust of what I'm arguing for is a form the the Threshold or "Fund and Release" methods. Look it up, you might learn something. Or, take a look at it in action out in the real world: http://www.8bitfunding.com/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/590373879/orion-prelude?ref=spotlight
Damn it I'm trying to help and all I get is grief because my ideas aren't the stupidly quick and easy method to make money with art that fits with what you want it to be. We are all here to help each other with our art right? Well, I'm trying to help too. At least give me some credit for trying.
Well, he has a point, you'd go quite far with your argument if you could prove that you can live without any need for IP-laws, or did you change your opinion on IP laws again?
I don't know what this thing is about companies exploiting their staff though that you keep mentioning. Game jobs pay exceptionally well and give amazing benefits and is honestly one of the best industries to be in. Now paying us lots a money doesn't give them the right to exploit us and I can only count on one hand the studios that have exploited staff in the past but they soon change their work ethic once the publicity hits. I remember people shouting about epics constant crunch, I think if I worked there for that sort of money and working on such an awesome project I would be working crazy hours too. Because I enjoy it and juicy bonuses at the end
Just to put it into perspective, I used to manage a gamestation store which was always in the top 5 in the uk revenue wise and was making an ok wage, still not great for what you have to put up with. My first industry job as a trainee and I was instantly earning alot more, a year later and I was earning even more. theres no exploitation there, it felt more like me exploiting them, they pay me to have fun and make cool stuff with like minded peeps.
The only thing I hate is xboxlive and psn making demos exclusive to their gold or plus customers. But then again it's normally a week wait and you get to play the demo anyway haha but I'm impatient
funding development, a la minecraft or dwarf fortress, is the only business model that makes actual sense
well, seeya
Anything that people are willing to pay for has intrinsic economic value, the fact that you can steal/copy the same product does not mean it has no economic value, this shows a basic misunderstanding of economics.
In the case of games, artificial scarcity is created by the people who develop games so they can make a living doing it.
Well, I know what Kaskad is referring to. He's referring to the laws of supply and demand. If you've ever had any education in economics, supply and demand are typically two converging values at the point which they do converge, is the price the market will bear. The problem being with digital goods is the supply is effectively infinite, so the demand never truly rises to a price above $0. Now, copyrights and distribution monopolies apply a form of artificial scarcity that makes the supply appear finite by restricting who gets a copy through merchant transactions. The prevalence of the peer to peer networks exposes this flaw in the model that publishers rely on to be profitable. This only works because laws are in place that create a scarcity that doesn't naturally exist.
Crazyfool:
The meaning of exploit I was referring to in my previous post was that where one utilizes the resultant goods created by the development team to sell for profit. I just didn't want to use that many words.
Giles:
To clarify my previous inflammatory comment:
Of course you can't make a living just giving away your art. That's not practical. If you plan to give away your art, you need to form a strategy that uses the publicity generated from people seeing your works that will build revenue. Take Neil Gaiman for example. He offered his book "American Gods", which was selling well in its own right, for free online. What was the result? Sales for his physical books went up 300%. The irony of it is, this guy was spitting mad about his stuff being on the internet for free. So the lesson to take away here is that your art can build awareness and good will toward the goods you charge for. Use the infinite goods to sell the scarce ones. The scarce good in game development is our time and effort applied to making games. The foundations are there, but someone needs to fill in the critical details that will make it work.
Rampant piracy reduces the economic value of games, certainly, however it does not negate the value entirely, as should be obvious.
Your argument is "I don't like the current supply and demand", not "there is no supply and demand". This is a huge difference.
It says he put it up there, free for just a month, 7 years after it had been released.
Game-developers do this even today, this is not a new thing, and the one thing is does prove is that when someone does release an old game for free, it will be seen as a very special thing, and will be very good pr, and will drive sales for the things from the same creator that isn't free.
They all do it according to their own choice, that's why it's so powerful.
Inherent economic value?
While today's media can be replicated infinitely with little cost, perhaps, (burnt to disk), the initial creation of said media has a considerable cost and comes at great effort (direct and indirect operating costs). These costs are justified by the interested parties who want to consume that media (consumers) and the profit companies can make by providing that desired media to the masses.
I do feel that the current business model is outmoded and developers would be wise to get ahead of this (I'm sure there are some smart people somewhere who are working on it). What that solution is, I don't know, but complaining about piracy, game, after game, after game, isn't fixing anything.
I'm not so much whining about piracy, but much more the self-justifying people.
The mass-pirates that just pull up their ships and take the booty without being self-justifying, I'd say those are less annoying, because they know what they're doing.
uh yeah... I'd say if everyone on this board 'handed over' one piece, 98% of it would have been produced on cracked software (either completely, or at some point during its pipeline. Im not saying that's fair or right, I'm just pointing out your argument isn't really a great one.
First of all, I never said there was no supply nor demand. I said the supply is effectively infinite and therefore will never increase its demand. That's wholly different from what you said. Also, you're confusing value and price. Those are two different things. One indicates what the market will bear (price) and the other represents an immeasurable and arbitrary worth to the individual (like watching the sun rise). The demand is there, but the complete lack of scarcity fails to drive up demand any more than a price of $0. People who do pay for games do so because they are compelled to by laws, social norms, or a lack of awareness of other methods of acquiring them. These are all factors that skew the reality of the situation.
It's like two people balancing on a beam that is centered on a pole. One is demand, the other is supply. When they are equal, they are balanced. This is where we find the price the market will bear. When an infinite good like a game is introduced, the supply heavily outweighs demand. It becomes unbalanced because clearly there is more supply than the demand could ever deplete. So the demand can't balance with the supply and the whole thing fails. The traditional solution to this is make the supply artificially scarce. This only works if the seller of the good has a perfect monopoly on it. We know that isn't the case anymore and intellectual goods are reverting to their natural state. When these things could only be accessed by purchasing them on fixed mediums that were made of scarce goods, the system worked. We no longer need those fixed mediums for a great many of those works, so the scarcity goes right out the window.
We're facing a huge paradigm shift on the nature of intellectual goods that is never going to reverse. So I don't see the benefit in perpetuating a failing model. I know it's not an easy thing to digest, but it does appear to be the way the wind it blowing.
Think about it this way, in reality book publishing is about as infinite as video game publishing, there are costs associated with both printing books, burning cds, or digital distribution. Books can easily be scanned into a digital medium, and infinitely copied, or easily photocopied. It just happens that copying a video game is much easier and convenient to do. Hell, many books you order off of Amazon are printed TO ORDER.
However the same basic principal exists in the world of book publishing, are you to say there is only "fake" supply and demand here?
I personally think its ludicrous to try and tell people what is "Good" and "Bad" supply and demand, and what is "Real" and "Fake". Supply and demand is a very simple concept, its either there or it isn't.
Value and price are not the same thing, however, without value people would not be willing to pay any price for an item. Saying an item is entirely without value means that you couldn't possibly sell it in any form, few such things exist in the world.
7 years ago? I didn't know that. I was aware that it was only for a month, maybe I should have mentioned that? My mistake. Nevertheless, there are now free copies of his book floating around the internet forever that people can download and discover a new author they may never have known prior. This exemplifies the power of using the infinite goods to sell the scarce ones. The age of the book is irrelevant.
You can't force more water into a full cup.
The overall point I'm trying to make is that intellectual goods such as games are very similar to other abundant goods like the air we breath. There's enough of it that everyone can have it. If everyone can have their own and it doesn't exhaust the supply, there's no price the market will bear on it. Yes, there is demand, but it's not enough that it will bear any price without artificial restrictions applied to it. If I were the only person that you could go to for a particular work, I could effectively name my price because I have a monopoly on it, as long as that price doesn't exceed what people will pay under those conditions. If hundreds of other people offer the exact same good for free, no one will accept my price because anyone and everyone can have it without cost. That's the inherent flaw in the economics of selling abundant goods.
So, what should I do? Well, I could give away my works for free to push competitors out of the market and proceed to offer my skills for hire instead. That's one option. It would allow my work to serve as an advertisement of my skills that would, hopefully, compel someone (or many people) to hire me to create art for them. Artists already do this in the form of portfolios. you do work that you weren't solicited to create and then you post it online for others to see. Given, you never share out your source files, but that's more for defending against plagiarism. In the game industry, the artist doesn't sell copies. The artist sells his skills to create art and gives the completed works to the publisher so they can sell it.
Without protection of IP/artistic works, there is simply no industry, without industry our highly specialized skills are worthless. My time is extremely valuable not because what i do is unique, but because what I do can be marketed and sold at a profit. If you take away all protection of IP, then you have nothing to sell. So you can't simply throw out all the rules, and give everything away, because at that point there simply is no market.
Then can I have your dna please? Since its free?
What? I think you're mistaken. The industry would not fall into oblivion if copyright law was repealed. If you're going to rely solely on selling copies, copies which are already easy to copy, then you're not going to be solvent in the market. But there are still people willing to pay you to make art. Just because selling the results of your sweat and tears doesn't work in an unprotected market, doesn't mean you can't leverage your talents for those willing to pay for it. It's the same as a home builder. You give them the resources (money and materials), they give you their labor. That's what is at the center of this all, labor. Labor is always worth paying for and it can't be taken against one's will or copied. It's the ultimate scarce good.