By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Countering Piracy aka Publishers Are Morons

code.samurai on 07 October 2008
bardicverse said:
code.samurai said:
bardicverse said:

Its all a matter of how the process is approached. Like not releasing a game in a format that those countries can understand, region locks, etc. Make it difficult enough to work around the anti-piracy measures or at least more expensive to work around them, and the problem fades away to a small minority.

A few people are researching ways to corrupt curcuity via code, sort of like a viral EMP that would fry the circuits on a motherboard. I don't understand the exact process of how it is done, but you would only imagine how much people would want to avoid such a thing frying their console or computer.

Right. You do know of course that those measures might backfire and fry your legit client's motherboard right? Of course you do and in case you don't maybe you should think if it's worth paying millions (if not billions) for lawsuits and lawyer fees just to just to punish the few of those who are guilty. Please. Stop. You're making your fellow game developers look bad. I'm just talking about the marketing and executive departments they're the ones who stick the price tag.

And please, don't get me started on that pointless thing called region locking... *shakes head*

I doubt Im making my fellow game developers look bad by telling you what some people out there are trying to do. I already know of the easier process if someone really wanted to kill a machine, which just is a matter of shutting a cpu fan down, turning off the alarms that warn of overheating and the alarm that shuts down the machine when it overheats. Oven box syndrome. I'm just saying what I've heard people discuss on the topic of anti-piracy measures.

The worst part of this is that you wouldn't be able to trace the issue to the point that you could prove a company nor person did indeed fry your computer.

Yet I digress. I already made my point in another thread on how piracy only hurts gamers in the end, and I think we're on the same page there.

A better question is this - would you pirate a game if it were only between $10-$20 to buy?

 

 

Ok, now you're just making yourself look bad.  You should know that anything with software can be replicated under the correct conditions you should ask your QA team maybe they can teach you a few tricks.  Since you're not very quick on the uptake and so I'll try to explain why it is not a good idea a bit more slowly.  The point I was trying to make, which you obviously (obliviously?) missed is that when you develop technologies that maliciously cripple a pirates computer is that you would end up in a heap of trouble and your company will shut down faster that you can say "damn you pirates."  And you pay for bad reputation for the rest of your life.

I am not disagreeing that piracy does not hurt the industry, it does.  What I'm explaining is how the publishers can sell more games by finding a sweet spot that everybody could afford so that they would not have to turn to piracy to play games.  And yes if a game was 20-10 we would be seeing wii-like sales figures in games, and it would generate Movie-like revenues which is only $5-$10 a pop but ends up generating $50m to $100.

$60 may have made sense back when this generation was just starting with customers under a million, but at this point they can make a killing if they actually found the price point where everybody agreed they'd buy at launch date.



Around the Network
code.samurai on 07 October 2008
twesterm said:
Kenny said:
twesterm said:

 

I can agree with that, but sadly if people don't see OMG KILLER GRAPHICS 60 HOUR AAA GAME!!!!!!!! they think it must suck and then it doesn't make money.  If a game doesn't make money, it isn't a success.  Games like MGS4's, FFXIII's, and Gears of War 2's raise an unrealistic bar.

 

That was more of a joke, I wasn't serious.

 

My sarcasm detector is confused because of all the times I've seen people use that actual argument seriously.  It's actually pretty reassuring to see so many of these insane arguments on vgchartz turn out to be nothing more than sarcasm.

 

 

I take any chance I can to take cheap shots at pirates and call them dicks, even if it means bad jokes. 

Yes bad jokes and you also forgot quite lame.  We all agree piracy hurts the industry.  The point is that the game publishers are pursuing the wrong steps to stop them, the dicks will always find a way circumvent technology.  The dicks have been doing this for ages now, reverse engineering has become an art.  Address the customers needs via better pricing and better way to evaluate if they like the game (in the OP) and you will see piracy dramatically decrease.  I wonder how many Apple Store customers used to get their stuff from the old Napster and Audiogalaxy, hm...



Bitmap Frogs on 07 October 2008
DKII said:
That doesn't mean games aren't overpriced from a consumer standpoint, it just means developers are spending too much making the games.

 

HD graphics cost a shit ton of money to make.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

twesterm on 07 October 2008
code.samurai said:
twesterm said:
Kenny said:
twesterm said:

 

I can agree with that, but sadly if people don't see OMG KILLER GRAPHICS 60 HOUR AAA GAME!!!!!!!! they think it must suck and then it doesn't make money.  If a game doesn't make money, it isn't a success.  Games like MGS4's, FFXIII's, and Gears of War 2's raise an unrealistic bar.

 

That was more of a joke, I wasn't serious.

 

My sarcasm detector is confused because of all the times I've seen people use that actual argument seriously.  It's actually pretty reassuring to see so many of these insane arguments on vgchartz turn out to be nothing more than sarcasm.

 

 

I take any chance I can to take cheap shots at pirates and call them dicks, even if it means bad jokes. 

Yes bad jokes and you also forgot quite lame.  We all agree piracy hurts the industry.  The point is that the game publishers are pursuing the wrong steps to stop them, the dicks will always find a way circumvent technology.  The dicks have been doing this for ages now, reverse engineering has become an art.  Address the customers needs via better pricing and better way to evaluate if they like the game (in the OP) and you will see piracy dramatically decrease.  I wonder how many Apple Store customers used to get their stuff from the old Napster and Audiogalaxy, hm...
  1. So do you expect them to just stop all efforts then?
  2. I use to get all my music free from Napster before iTunes and now I only get it from iTunes (and sometimes Zune, Yahoo Music, or Amazon if iTunes doesn't have it).

 



 

code.samurai on 07 October 2008

^ I expect them to redirect their efforts give the customer move value for the buck rather than add barbed wires. Because, you know, people usually don't like barbed wires.

Oh and you weren't getting them for free, but you already know that.



Around the Network
twesterm on 07 October 2008
code.samurai said:
^ I expect them to redirect their efforts give the customer move value for the buck rather than add barbed wires. Because, you know, people usually don't like barbed wires.

Oh and you weren't getting them for free, but you already know that.

 

You do know free means not paying anything right?  At least that's what I assumed it meant because that's how I use to get my music from Napster before those other silly programs I use to use...

And you didn't answer my question: do you expect them to stop all efforts against piracy?

Or better yet, what do you expect them to do?  Not everbody can make their own Steam and not everyone wants to even use Steam.

Also, just to be clear, things like Spore's DRM main purpose isn't to stop the people from torrenting because we all know it just doesn't, what it does is keep you from installing it and then handing it to a buddy.  The majority of people that complain about it don't even ever install the game more than 3 (or 5 now) times, they just complain because it's the popular thing to do.



 

nitekrawler1285 on 07 October 2008
Bitmap Frogs said:
DKII said:
That doesn't mean games aren't overpriced from a consumer standpoint, it just means developers are spending too much making the games.

 

HD graphics cost a shit ton of money to make.

 

Not all games have to push the most polygons and have high resolution textures to be hits. Ask Nintendo.  Developers just choose to do so ignoring customer demands for a fun product and inflating developement costs for themselves.  If they don't learn to change their developement proccesses then they wont have to worry about it once they have closed their doors because they didn't  get large enough returns on their investment.



code.samurai on 07 October 2008
twesterm said:
code.samurai said:
^ I expect them to redirect their efforts give the customer move value for the buck rather than add barbed wires. Because, you know, people usually don't like barbed wires.

Oh and you weren't getting them for free, but you already know that.

 

You do know free means not paying anything right?  At least that's what I assumed it meant because that's how I use to get my music from Napster before those other silly programs I use to use...

And you didn't answer my question: do you expect them to stop all efforts against piracy?

Or better yet, what do you expect them to do?  Not everbody can make their own Steam and not everyone wants to even use Steam.

Also, just to be clear, things like Spore's DRM main purpose isn't to stop the people from torrenting because we all know it just doesn't, what it does is keep you from installing it and then handing it to a buddy.  The majority of people that complain about it don't even ever install the game more than 3 (or 5 now) times, they just complain because it's the popular thing to do.

Oh I'm sorry, I just assumed you weren't an idiot.  You do know that copying music without paying means you're pirating them right?  Or is that too small scale to count?  The point is you got your music legally after you found the alternative to be reasonable.  I was trying to make a point comparing that to the guys in #2 and #3, that when they can get their games at a price they can accept they will rather buy them.

I don't expect the companies to do anything, but I do want them to give everyone a better price point that will serve theirs as well as our interests.  Perhaps I should send the CEO an email with the subject "Win-Win Situation," thats an upper management term but you might also know about it.



twesterm on 07 October 2008
code.samurai said:
twesterm said:
code.samurai said:
^ I expect them to redirect their efforts give the customer move value for the buck rather than add barbed wires. Because, you know, people usually don't like barbed wires.

Oh and you weren't getting them for free, but you already know that.

 

You do know free means not paying anything right?  At least that's what I assumed it meant because that's how I use to get my music from Napster before those other silly programs I use to use...

And you didn't answer my question: do you expect them to stop all efforts against piracy?

Or better yet, what do you expect them to do?  Not everbody can make their own Steam and not everyone wants to even use Steam.

Also, just to be clear, things like Spore's DRM main purpose isn't to stop the people from torrenting because we all know it just doesn't, what it does is keep you from installing it and then handing it to a buddy.  The majority of people that complain about it don't even ever install the game more than 3 (or 5 now) times, they just complain because it's the popular thing to do.

Oh I'm sorry, I just assumed you weren't an idiot.  You do know that copying music without paying means you're pirating them right?  Or is that too small scale to count?  The point is you got your music legally after you found the alternative to be reasonable.  I was trying to make a point comparing that to the guys in #2 and #3, that when they can get their games at a price they can accept they will rather buy them.

I don't expect the companies to do anything, but I do want them to give everyone a better price point that will serve theirs as well as our interests.  Perhaps I should send the CEO an email with the subject "Win-Win Situation," thats an upper management term but you might also know about it.

Did I ever say that I've never pirated music or anything?  I wasn't aware that I've ever said that on this site.  But hey, congratulations on insulting a mod and getting yourself a warning.  Thumbs up to you.

Did you miss my post earlier where I said every cent is accounted for and games are that expensive for a reason?  Games take a lot of money to make and they need to be $60 if the developers even want to break even.

 



 

bardicverse on 07 October 2008
code.samurai said:

Ok, now you're just making yourself look bad. You should know that anything with software can be replicated under the correct conditions you should ask your QA team maybe they can teach you a few tricks. Since you're not very quick on the uptake and so I'll try to explain why it is not a good idea a bit more slowly. The point I was trying to make, which you obviously (obliviously?) missed is that when you develop technologies that maliciously cripple a pirates computer is that you would end up in a heap of trouble and your company will shut down faster that you can say "damn you pirates." And you pay for bad reputation for the rest of your life.

I am not disagreeing that piracy does not hurt the industry, it does. What I'm explaining is how the publishers can sell more games by finding a sweet spot that everybody could afford so that they would not have to turn to piracy to play games. And yes if a game was 20-10 we would be seeing wii-like sales figures in games, and it would generate Movie-like revenues which is only $5-$10 a pop but ends up generating $50m to $100.

$60 may have made sense back when this generation was just starting with customers under a million, but at this point they can make a killing if they actually found the price point where everybody agreed they'd buy at launch date.

You apparently totally misread or didn't read my previous post before this, so in turn I guess I'll avoid your snotty retort, as you went WAY off the mark of what I was saying in the first paragraph.

The end means is that we're on the same page, though you communicate like an Aries. =P

It is a rare day when I buy a $50 game, and usually will give any game a shot for $20 or less. I'm living proof of your exact argument. Our title, when it is ready to be released, will be sold  for $10.