| Xelloss said: Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics. I am sure you have heard that saying. Oh, and yes many areas of the world that do have extraordinary rates of piracy, do in fact have semi-decent PCs ( 2 yrs or so behind USA in many cases) and at least cheap DSL. The exact situation varies by region, in any case its unrelated to USA piracy discussion. Also, a big big big chunk you are forgetting is PC cafes, which are extraordinarily popular in many parts of the world. You may remember the hubub around Valve and their PC cafe stance some years ago, because so many cafes werent partnering through their program and were effectivly pirating Steam games ( in Valves view). That obviously wasnt a huge deal for the USA, simply because PC gaming cafes as such are practically non-existant here. Well, I wasn't limiting the piracy discussion to just the US... in countries where they have decent PCs and at least DSL-speeds, there's probably some sort of software market... it's just likely a lot smaller than it would be without piracy. Also, WoW is pirated to hell and back. There is tons of server emulators available, and ton sof people who play on them. The fact that millions of people pay for it each month is a testament to the fact that if you offer a good service like WoW does, people will pay. Anyone with google and some very basic comp skills could be playing emulated wow with their buddies in minutes. I'm not questioning that people will pay for a good service - actually my stance was that yes, a good service will sell enough to make money, meanwhile it will also be pirated more. What I said about WoW was that it's a lot more difficult to pirate... I suppose I was wrong about it not being pirated as much. Thanks though, as my stance was that piracy is rampand, and it was, in fact, Vlad who insisted that WoW(or rather, blizzard games in general) don't get pirated. Thirdly, IE decision for IWnet was not because of piracy, they even said as much. Just like a wow server can be emulated, IWnet will be emulated. And even if it was not practical, there is still no reason to keep the server hosting as P2P from a technical or anti-piracy standpoint. There is no reason a stand-alone dedicated server platform could not be integrated in IWnet with the same piracy safeguards, and even locking the map rotation to "official" maps and those who have purchased DLC maps, as a client-based P2P listen server. None. This brings us away from piracy and even desire for $$ from DLC in the IWnet discussion, and back to the real reasons they made the move. Like arrogance, and utter contempt for their established fanbase. The decision may not have been amde because of piracy, but in the end, it's still to blame. The fact is, where PC gaming used to be the bread and butter of FPS game developers, nowadays it's just a drop in the bucket. Most of them (with the exception of Valve and maybe one or two others) get 90% of their sales on consoles, and thus programming similar solutions (and DLC that than can be sold on consoles and the PC) gets the support. Because of widespread piracy, most developers focus primarily on consoles now. And if the boycott successfully hurts their bottom line? Congrats, they may phase out PC versions all together. Last, I do question the numbers and methods used by anti-piracy companies. For one thing, they are motivated by money.. which is not bad in of itself, but fundamentally their services provide NOTHING to the consumer, or even the publisher. Find me one anti-piracy DRM platform outside Steam that even does a little to deter piracy. Proof? Its all cracked at launch for the most part, most games are cracked pre-launch. So how are intrusive software, limited activation, etc helpfull to either the customer or the publisher when this state exists? This is why DRM is bad, if the draconian anti-piracy measures did jack or shit, a lot more PC gamers including myself would find it much easier to swallow. This is why many including myself are OK with Steam, because Steam type platforms actually do have some positive effect ( it is not perfect but fake steamauth is not as easy or reliable as a 3MB crack to DL), plus Steam provides some added value in terms of being able to re-download, easily reinstall, and your purchases arent tied to one machine - you can play them on your new PC quickly, easily and without permission from anyone. Well, I'm not supporting all these DRM platforms that don't work. However I can see why companies deter methods that make piracy even easier. For instance, your friends can easily set up a custom server to play on for many games - but games with built in LAN functionality can take it to another level. A private server can make their own large scale service allowing all the benefits of a full, real hosted server, yet using pirated copies. So easily. So what do the companies do?Lock it down so the pirates have to do more work, and restrict what they can do so you can't get the complete experience without the full game. Great for gamers? No. Bad for pirates? Yes. Find a DRM that works,and you will find yourself with a valid argument in favor of the anti-gamer DRM measures that some companies take. I could spend all day ripping apart the flawed statistics and logic used by peddlers of anti-piracy measures, and the publishers who parrot the powerpoints shown them by said anti-piracy companies but it really is not worth the effort because the flaws are so plain, those who do not see them usually will not be convinced even if you point them out. Promoting piracy is bad, I agree - however I would say that apologizing for companies that act in deceptive, underhanded, or just plain ignorant manner is no better. It does not help us as customers, and ironically it does not help the developers and publishers either. DRM peddlers in general are not productive members of the gaming community, nor the development or distobution supply chain (with the exception of the DDL providers) , they are parasites who provide nothing yet make owning and playing games more cumbersome, eat up huge dollars paid by publishers which are passed on to the customers yet fail to deliver any real measure of anti-piracy. They do not deserve to have anyone come to their defense. I guess you can look at it that way. But I've never really considered "our efforts aren't working, let's not even try anymore" to be a good reason to just stop. Instead of a new DRM, a lot of companies are removing the features most taken advantage of to easily pirate their software, and give pirates the full enjoyment of the game. It effects everyone, yes, but then again other than for a few of the biggest developers, PC development is just barely worthwhile at all. If it hinders just a small number of pirates, and salvages even a handful of extra sales, then it may be the difference between them developing for the PC, and not. |
