backtop

Software Activision Sues Game Pirates
Stephen Kamizuru (Blog) - September 23, 2008 8:27 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 120 comment(s) - last by XtremeM3.. on Sep 29 at 6:56 AM
P2P File Sharers currently not targeted

Activision is suing accused software pirates for up to $150,000 per offense according to game industry news site Edge. James R. Strickland of New York is being sued for copyright infringement, an act which includes illegally copying and distributing games.

The case focuses specifically on the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 released in 2006, but Activision also accuses Strickland of "copying and/or distributing" other unnamed copyrighted videogames and plan to add these accusations to the lawsuit.

According to Activision, the alleged infringement was "willful and intentional, in disregard of and indifference to the rights of Plaintiff." Activision is seeking statutory damages ranging from $30,000 to $150,000 for each infringement of each copyrighted videogame. They are also seeking reimbursement of legal fees.

In addition to the Strickland suit GamePolitics has uncovered Activision has been quietly suing other individuals who are apparently not represented by counsel and who, as part of their settlements, agree not to discuss the case.

Activision's lead attorney on the cases is Karin Pagnanelli, who has worked on numerous copyright cases on behalf of clients in the music business. To alleviate concerns that Activision may be suing file-sharers as well, Pagnanelli sent GamePolitics an email stating, “While we don’t comment on litigation involving clients, we can advise you that we have never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision.”


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Useless
By zac206 on 9/23/2008 8:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of spending huge amounts of money to find the pirates, pay the lawyers and everything they could simply sell the games a little bit cheaper and then, less poeple would copy games...!




RE: Useless
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 9:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you Brandon. I've heard it all, 'if games were cheaper', 'if there was no drm', 'I want to try before I buy, (which is fine, but lets face, most people just try)'. All a bunch of excuses, games cost money to develop, they are not going to get any cheaper. Games are becoming more complex take longer to release, and are much more expensive to make than 5 years ago.


RE: Useless
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2008 9:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
And costs are only going to go up.


RE: Useless
By Mitch101 on 9/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 9:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
Although a lot of the monthly subscriptions do go into maintenance and support, I do agree that they should have far more than enough money to distribute it at a lower cost, if not completely free. The whole concept can go both ways
On one hand, they have the majority of the die-hard WoW fans who are willing to buy the game because they love the game and want to keep up with all of their friends, and on the other hand, releasing the game very cheap or free for the matter, in my opinion, would attract more customers that weren't playing before by advertising a bunch of free new stuff, as well as keep the customers like yourself who do not want to pay for it. Both ways I see as a win-win situation, but i think the latter would be better, but I'm not a college educated marketing team, so perhaps they have more statistics to run off of.


RE: Useless
By stonemetal on 9/23/2008 2:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Then you missed the recent report that WOW spends $5/per player /per year on maintenance. They are raking it in hand over fist there should be no charge for the litch king if it keeps people on the feeding tube one more month.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
What about server upkeep, the staff required to manage all of the networking, paying developers to patch and fix exploits, as WELL as player upkeep, this all accounts for more thna that, BUTTTTTT, i TOTALLY agree, in no way am i saying that blizzard is in any way shape or form running low on cash. $15/month per player is FAR more than enough to keep everything in line as well as line the pockets of the CEO pretty thick with cash.


RE: Useless
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2008 9:57:30 AM , Rating: 5
WTF? The Lich King is gonna be $40? Glad I don't play WoW but thats ridiculous. I mean they pull in tens of millions a month in subscription fees. Expansions are supposed to be $20-30.


RE: Useless
By quiksilvr on 9/23/2008 4:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
And companies wonder why piracy ensues? 10 bucks to watch a movie in a theater? 20 bucks to watch it on DVD? 30 in HD? A dollar for a 128 kbps mp3 song?

The $60 for a new game is understandable IF it is a great game. But I can never EVER in my life willingly pay to play online. I already spent 60 bucks for the game, 300-400 bucks for the console, 30 bucks a month for the internet and 700 bucks for the HDTV. I'm NOT going to pay just to PLAY the game just because you aren't willing to cut down on profits.


RE: Useless
By tential on 9/23/2008 7:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to play a game like WoW you should pay to play. One payment of 60 dollars for the game isn't enough. 60 dollars doesn't cover 2 years worth of play at all. However they shouldn't make you be paying for each expansion pack. They make over 100 dollars off you a year I think that's enough.


RE: Useless
By Gatt on 9/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By quiksilvr on 9/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By rcc on 9/24/2008 4:22:28 PM , Rating: 3
Whatever trips your trigger.

Personally, if an online game is good I have no problem with a subscription fee. You get changes to content and fixes in the dynamics of the game, and you actually (oh, shock and horror) get to interact with other people. WoW is what, $15 / month now? For how many hours a month of entertainment? It's still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment you can get. You'd spend more for a short night at the bar.

$40 for an expansion is a bit high, but it brings major changes. And, it includes a free month of game time, so it's really a $25 expansion pack.

I probably shouldn't admit this around here, but I'm a capitalist. They are offering a fair value for the price. I'm really sorry that you diagree, but 10 million people plus or minus a few, are ok with it.

The market will adjust itself, or will end. Pirates, copy infringement technicians and other thieves crimp the process, they don't help, make a statement, force companies to lower prices, etc. They just steal for their own profit or gratification.

When I go to the dojo I pay a monthly charge. There was also an startup fee, so there should be no monthly charge, right? Uh, no. How about your electric bill, unless you have outstanding credit and/or history with them you will pay a deposit and start up fee. So how dare they charge a monthly fee?

So, vote with your wallet. You don't like it, then as you have mentioned, don't give them money. But, don't steal.


RE: Useless
By Veerappan on 9/26/2008 11:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't see a problem with having to pay extra just so that you can play online with others? Isn't paying for the game and the internet access enough?


I actually don't see a problem with paying $12-15/month for an MMO for one simple reason: It saves me money.

Before I started WoW, I was buying a new game every month and a half. At $50/each, that's $400/year. While I was playing WoW, my new game purchases happened once every 4 months or so. I was spending enough time playing WoW that I didn't get through the other games nearly as fast.

Using these purchase rates, and an average of $50/game, I was spending $400/year on games without WoW, and $330 with it (3 games/year @ $50 + $12/month for WoW). Spread the purchase price of WoW ($60) and its expansion ($30 when I got it) over the 3.5 years since I purchased WoW, and the pricing is still in favor of paying for the MMO.

Also, even though there is an expansion that has been released and there is another one coming soon, there have also been multiple releases of new dungeons in the past via patches for free. Not all new content is explicitly charged for, and part of that is financed by the subscription fees.

Summary: There is a case to be made for paying for a monthly subscription to a game, depending on your game purchasing habits.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Useless
By Mitch101 on 9/23/2008 9:41:37 AM , Rating: 5
We need to stop supporting review mags who base their reviews a lot of time on the revenue income of their advertisers which are the game companies. Bad review and they pull their advertising. Bag game good review and they pay for advertising which is just a payout.

Its a broken business model and review mags need to change the model or go the way of the dinosaurs.


RE: Useless
By MrWho on 9/23/2008 12:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I stopped buying gaming mags a long time ago, and read all my reviews online - and even that I take with a grain of salt, like the GameSpot ones since the Kane & Lynch review drama.


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 10:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
I did not say they were all terrible, i'm simply saying if they made the games "better" and put more thought into gameplay, storyline, multiplayer, etc instead of "how awesome can we make the lighting effects in this room", more people would buy it cause its good.

IMO, most of the greatest games in existence to date are those on N64 and SNES, because the graphic artists did what they could for the hardware's limitations, and the studio didn't end up spending millions of dollars to hire top of the line modelers and texture artists. A simple sprite here and there would do it, and they spent the majority of their resources on programmers and people to develop gameplay elements.

As for money, my parents never bought me a single thing in my life. And I am not justifying that you download a game simply because you do not have the money. What I'm trying to get across is, if you do not have "all the money in the world", spending $50 on a game that you will play for 15 minutes is stupid. Not everyone has enough money to go out and buy 100 games at $50 a pop ($60 for ps3/360 games) only to find out "well, i didn't really like that too much, oh well".


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 10:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think console people have alot of options than PC gamers. At least you can go to blockbuster and rent games to try out before buying them. I remember my console days and I did JUST THAT. There are also ALOT of online rental services, kinda like netflix, for games only. I don't recall their names but I think they are like $10 a month for one unlimited rental. To me that is cool.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 10:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly I wish this were possible for the PC. Being, imo, that the PC is a far superior platform to those crappy consoles out, it would be nice if one could just rent the games they release that offer a 5-8 hour single player campaign and toss together a multiplayer to justify that its there, instead of trying to pay $50 for it, when it clearly was not worth it. These types of games are easily distinguishable from the rest and it is obvious when someone is simply trying to be greedy and make as much as possible. Why can;t the game studios try and make games more fun than graphically intense, and low prices instead of raising them (360/ps3)


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 10:16:09 AM , Rating: 3
I play alot of FPS and RTS games. Therefore the PC is a better platform in my opinion. I do enjoy fighting and racing games much more on a console and therefore still have a PS2. I might have to pony up for a PS3 when they refresh them and lower the price in the future.

But It would be nice to have options to try then buy. In these economical times I hate to waste money on a game I will never play again.


RE: Useless
By Spivonious on 9/23/2008 11:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
I find that most of the big PC games have playable demos. One or two levels is usually enough to let me know if I'll enjoy the game.


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I enjoyed the BF2142 demo back when and it definitely gave me the taste i needed to buy it. And i still play it every so often. I want an actual playable demo. You don't want to much to give it away but you want enough to suck you in.


RE: Useless
By Spivonious on 9/23/2008 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I think the Prey demo is a good example. It set up the storyline, showed off some of the gravity-defying tricks and the portals, and let you see how the graphics and controls were. I played the demo, beat it, and went to the store to buy it the very next day.


RE: Useless
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2008 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah any game I got as a kid was either my money or a christmas or bday gift.


RE: Useless
By jtesoro on 9/23/2008 10:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agree that most people don't have money to spend $50 for every game they'll just play once and get bored with. But is that a "reason" to pirate it? No way. It's an excuse, and a flimsy one at that. I can't buy all the BMWs, Jaguars and Mercedez Benz's that come out, but I can get a good Toyota, Mazda or Ford.

Can't afford a new $50 game? Head over to Yahoo games, ratedFree, Armor Games and tons of other sites. Lots of good free stuff there. People should just stop making excuses.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 10:14:07 AM , Rating: 1
You make a strong point, but why not simply lower the prices of these games? It is obvious that these types of games do not require super multi-multi-million dollar budgets, and lowering the price is a perfectly reasonable option. Why is it that a game like FEAR comes out for $50, but the expansions, which have almost the same length of a campaign, cost $25, or $30, even with a bunch of new content - weapons, enemies, levels, etc.


RE: Useless
By Regs on 9/23/2008 10:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
You can wait until they hit bargain bin? In a "free market", people decide what the prices of products or services by supply and demand. If people do not want the product, the price will go down. Just don't buy it! Why give these lousy (or bad decision makers) developers any more excuses like theft?

How much are you willing to give up to pay for Far Cry 2? Likely less gas on your car for a few weeks, and a few less trips to the ice cream palor. Though how much are you willing to give up for a game like Reel Fishing III ? You wouldn't give up a gum ball for that game.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By jtesoro on 9/23/2008 11:38:56 AM , Rating: 3
I'm hesitant to give out specific examples of prices going down because it might look like I'm cherry picking to prove a point, but here goes anyway.

I'm a fan of real-time strategy games and first person shooters. Two games I've been keeping an eye out for are Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander. Both came out with high price tags and I didn't feel like paying full price for them. They're firmly in my Amazon.com shopping cart's "Saved Items", but look at them now:

Company of Heroes - a new copy is $19.99 after 2 years. $8.00 used.
Supreme Commander - new copy $19.99 after 1-1/2 years. Just $3.99 used !!

I think the used copies are priced extremely well, and I even would strongly consider getting them new to reward the entire supply chain (developer, publisher, distributor, retailer, etc.) for putting these good products in my hands fair and square.

Even products of the hated EA don't fare too badly. You mentioned Crysis, and I bought this new when it first came out for $35. That was less than a year ago. Today, the new price hasn't moved much, but I can get it used (again off Amazon) for $19.99. A reasonable amount and no piracy needed.

So all things considered, I still think the "right thing" to do is get legitimate copies and avoid piracy.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By StevoLincolnite on 9/23/2008 2:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
1) Buying Second Hand Console games is a No-Brainer.

2) Buying Second Hand PC Games for single player is a no-brainer.

3) I know my StarCraft CD Key off the top of my head. xD - After 10 years of installing the game after every format, who wouldn't? - I don't even have the original CD's anymore! Which is where Second hand Discs come in handy.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 3:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
The main point was solely about PC games, sorry if anything was confusing, but i thought it was somewhat obvious that all the piracy debate in the comments was PC-based. Buying used single player games does have a huge advantage yes, but my comment was geared towards multiplayer games. I suppose my comment may have been misleading, since we were referring to different things.

1) I agree, or better yet, rent them if theyre ssingle player
2) I agree, if its for single player, and its cheap, theres nothing wrong with buying a used game (as long as its not a steam game, or you're in trouble)
3) I'm not sure how that really applies to what was said above, i have serials from generals and ut2004 i've memorized by how many times i've installed them too, but i was pointing out that anyone can buy a game, write down the key, and sell it back (if its allowed) and if someone bought that used multiplayer game for the multiplayer, they may be in a big surprise when that person is also using it or distributed it to pirating sites.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/23/2008 11:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
Companies charge what they believe will bring in the most money. Do you know why? Because that is what companies are supposed to do. If they could make more money selling them for less they would.

Price is a specious reason to pirate. At what point does an actual monetary cost beat free? If one is going to download a pirated game at 50 bucks why not at 20?


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 11:52:21 AM , Rating: 1
Because $20 is far more reasonable to pay for the majority of games. There are still some barely worth that, but if they were that bad, I don;t even think the heavy pirates would waste their time.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/23/2008 1:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
20 dollars is more reasonable to whom? If you make a decision some item is not worth its purchase price don't buy the damn thing.

BTW-You can find loads of really crappy games for $20 3 months after release. It is the best sellers that maintain their prices.


RE: Useless
By tential on 9/23/2008 7:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you are pirating games now because they cost a lot most likely you are going to pirate them no matter WHAT the price is. If you weren't paying for something that was 50 dollars why are you going to pay for it when it's 20 dollars? You can give all the reasoning in the world that you are paying too much but in the end you are stealing because it is cheaper to steal and not because you don't want to pay a price.

Basically you are saying that if you were at a store and you could choose any price to pay for the game you would pay around 20 dollars than taking it free like you normally do which I find to be complete BS.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/23/2008 9:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
I am assuming you replied to the wrong person since you are repeating a point I have already made.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/24/2008 12:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
This doesnt make any sense? How is $20 not better than $50? I can get 2.5 as many games at that price, which is far more worth my $50. You clearly have no concept of how much money is worth...


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/24/2008 12:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
And if you pirate games you can get an infinite amount for nothing. I understand people who honestly think pirating is ok, I disagree with them but I understand it. What I don't understand is people who say "If the game was priced at X I would buy it but since it is priced at X+Y I am going to pirate it." There is no ethical consistency. If pirating is ok why would the price matter? And if it is not ok why pirate at any price?


RE: Useless
By rcc on 9/24/2008 4:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You make a strong point, but why not simply lower the prices of these games?


This is a really bad piece of counter-intuitive logic. Why lower prices when the demand exists. If people didn't want it, they wouldn't be stealing it. Obviously from the producers perspective the answer is kill piracy.

The pirates and thieves are actually helping maintain prices, without them if sales decreased, so would prices.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/24/2008 6:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's not the point. Because the devs never sell a new game lower than $50, how do they know that $40 won't generate MORE demand? They've tried killing piracy, and from what I've seen so far it's doing nothing. Does it REALLY hurt such and enormous company to try the other thing once with a good game? Activision didn't really do anything with anti-piracy with CoD4 and look how well that sold.. A simple cd key to play online, a cd check for SP, and the multiplayer lan isnt even protected at all. Goes to show, if u make a good game, people will buy, simple as that. They've even cracked the game to support online play, on plenty of low latency servers, so that you don't need a valid key to play online, but people STILL buy it.


RE: Useless
By kiwik on 9/23/2008 10:26:30 AM , Rating: 3
If games were actually good instead of being more of the same, I'd buy them, like I did for TF2, Portal, Supreme Commander, Civilization 4 and Sins Of A Solar Empire.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 10:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. Every game I really like, is one I've purchased. HL2, UT2004, UT3, C&C, etc


RE: Useless
By LiquidIce1337 on 9/23/2008 12:39:03 PM , Rating: 1
+1 to that comment I purchased HL1, HL2, UT, and many other great games because I liked what I played when I downloaded a pirated version to test it out and see if it was worth getting. I do not agree that is legal to provide copies of it to people or sell it however. I would however say games are way too expensive. Especially when msot of them these days now have in game advertisements and are endorsed by all kinds of extra applications that are not needed to make the gameplay enjoyable (gamespy arcade anyone?)


RE: Useless
By foolsgambit11 on 9/23/2008 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 4
I fully support your sentiment, but feel obliged to ask you to please stop conflating piracy and stealing. They are two distinct illegal activities.


RE: Useless
By jonmcc33 on 9/24/2008 7:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "It's too expensive" excuse just doesn't hold water.


Gas is too expensive.

Food is too expensive.

Health care is too expensive.

<_<


RE: Useless
By Manch on 9/24/2008 8:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
I've posted this before, but i figured you would enjoy a whole list of excuses that dont hold any water.

Why I justify pirating:

I (INSERT EXCUSE) so I download (YOU MEAN STEAL) it (EXTRA JUSTIFICATION IF NEEDED).

Here below are some excuses you can insert: *extra justification is separated by a "~"

-can't Afford it

-am afraid it might be crap

-can't return it

-spend all of my money on hardware

-don't trust the reviews ~ to make sure it's good.

-like to try before I buy ~ then if it's good I buy it(NO YOU DON'T)

-am broke because of the poor economy took my leisure money

-deserve this game

-am not hurting anyone but the multi-mega-gazillion-billion dollar whore like corporations who feed on the innocent and poor

-feel everything should be handed to me free of charge, and free of the consequences of my actions

-wouldn't if there were a finite number of games available, or if the number of pirated copies equated lost sales -which by any stretch of the imagination will never be the case

-can't drop $50 on a new game when it comes out to see if I like it

-feel the prices that are being charged for video games and computer games right now are way too high for what you are getting

-have no other recourse becuase it's no longer for sale

-can steal it without suffering any consequences

-am not "stealing" I'm cloning it like as if I were to clone a car

-shouldn't pay American prices when I make several times less money than they do

-am not making any money off of it

-am helping the company obtain media exposure!

I didn't even get half way through this forum before I gave up on copying(or am I pirating!) excuses from all the damn post justifying stealing.

That being said since I may have "procured" some of my "official" excuses from other peoples post, in all fairness I give everyone in the world permission to use my "Official Guide to Justifying Piracy"!!!

Just copy it to notepad or whatever and use as your own! It's OK I swear!


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/24/2008 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
While some of those are crappy excuses that I've heard from people, some of those you had to have just made up. I have yet to hear anyone say they were going to download a game because they deserved to do so. Also, you need to get it right, that downloading software is not technically stealing. Having the actual software is fair use, but everything used to crack it and release it was copyright infringement, which isn't stealing. And I'm not using that as an excuse for pirates to use, I'm just putting that info out there.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/24/2008 11:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, you need to get it right, that downloading software is not technically stealing. Having the actual software is fair use, but everything used to crack it and release it was copyright infringement, which isn't stealing.


I can't follow your logic here. Are you saying DLing software is fair use? If so you couldn't be more wrong.


RE: Useless
By michal1980 on 9/23/2008 8:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
^right.

wasn't their a band that gave out a cd for a name your own price?

Even then about 1/2 the download copies were pirated.


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 9:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Its true, even though the album was free from their site for download, in the first week five hundred thousand people downloaded it via torrent.


RE: Useless
By xsilver on 9/23/2008 9:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
that band was radiohead - speculation is that they made $10mil US btw.
plus average price was $8 which im going to assume that if you remove the people that paid $0 the average would probably have been $15.

I still believe that people will still pay close to correct value for it provided the product is good. Problem is that if prices were reduced top tier games would probably end up making the same amount of money (more sales but lower prices)
however crap games would make considerably less (same sales, lower prices)
therefore there is no incentive for the publisher to reduce the price.

The fact that people are p2p an album that is free anyways just shows that they werent even remotely interested in buying anything in the first place.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/24/2008 1:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
The figures on Radiohead are highly speculative and dubious. There was an online survey that indicated that downloaders paid 8 bucks on average. That number is almost useless.

Radiohead's tactic had two major advantages: it garnered them lots of attention, always important in the music field; and Radiohead owns all the rights to their songs.


RE: Useless
By xsilver on 9/24/2008 5:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
hence my use of the word speculation... I do suspect though that they did make a crapload of money, even if it was $2mil from initial sales, thats nothing to be sneezed at.

Your second point though about owning their own rights is very important as I remember a funny anecdote from a UK popband (atomic kitten? cant remember) that didnt own the rights to any of their songs and broke up because they went broke. Apparently they made only $20k a year so it would have been better to work at maccas or something! lol

I think my original point about game publishers not having any real incentive to reduce prices is still very valid though.


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 8:45:46 AM , Rating: 1
I was just about to say this. I mean isn't the run of the mill "pirate" just someone who can't afford the game and therefore tries to get it cheaper.... in this case free? I am not saying I pirate games, but I have installed a "non legit" copy of many games because I did not want to shell out $50 if the game was going to be horrible. A lot of times their demo's only show the best of the game and not the negatives. OR not enough to make a decision. I think if game creators gave us demo's that give us a good taste of the game and stopped all of the legal fees and cost of developing Anti-piracy measures and lowered the price a little, they would see most likely an increase in profit. I have a valid copy of every game I own, but I like to test drive a game before I buy it. With PS3 and xBOX360 internet capable and with hard drives, delivering a good demo is now as feasible as on a PC.


RE: Useless
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/23/2008 8:48:51 AM , Rating: 1
You ever heard of these little things called professional reviews or user reviews? Or maybe even Metacritic?

I check out Metacritic before I buy ANY game and I check out what other "regular" gamers have to say about the game. I don't HAVE to be the first person in line to buy a game during launch day -- let someone else be the guinea pig.

That being said, pirating a game to "test it out" still isn't an excuse. If you can't afford to buy the games, find another hobby.


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 9:13:55 AM , Rating: 5
No review will match what your own personal review will be. There have been many games that get HIGH review that I just don't like. Other's I have do agree with. I have downloaded countless demo games and most of them are pretty good and have brought me to one conclusion or another. I with ALL games had a demo to download. Give me one level to play and test out. Then if I like I will buy. I'm not saying you need to make games cheaper, I know there is a huge cost involved in the production. However I do think it is a waste to constantly put money into these piracy lawsuits and elaborate DRM software. The money could be better spent.

I don't want another hobby, I have several. I enjoy video games, however they have so many marketing gimmick that make you preceve the games as GREAT, when in actuality the 2 minutes you saw were the only good parts in the game. I want to test it out, like a car. I have a stack of games that I have purchased, and I am not one to pirate games for my own advantage. Besides, how do you play a multiplayer game online without a valid key anyways? That is what I find with most games I "test out". I think that in itself would get a person to purchase the game to play online.


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 9:29:43 AM , Rating: 1
Your entire post is just a bunch of excuses trying to justify your illegal activities. You talk about better money spent, yet you do not realize that if peoples perceptions about right and wrong do not change, developers will be spending their money better... on consoles..


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 9:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
I am not saying i download and install pirated copies out the wazoo over here. I just wish they would have more Demo. Ok maybe I should rephrase the demo thing. I want a Playable Demo, not just a Demo video to watch. Maybe I should have cleared that part up. There have been only a few games that I was itching for a demo and there wasn't one. So a buddy of mine was on the fence as well so we installed it and liked it and therefore bought it.

I do agree and admit i shouldn't have done it. But i was not about to shell out $50 on the possible chance it might be good. And as for the car argument. Of course you only get a taste, but you still get to drive it. I don't need the story line given to me or the entire thing mapped out. I just want to see if the game feels good and looks good. That's all.


RE: Useless
By DASQ on 9/23/2008 11:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
So your suggestion is that people just cover their eyes and throw $50 darts at what you hope is a dartboard?

Buying games is much unlike buying anything else. If every game had a demo to go along with it, maybe it would be a different story, but they don't. Many game retailers will also not take returns on opened games, no matter how awful the game was. And like many people, I find game reviews and opinions of others very hit or miss.

Next time you buy a car, take it based on the salesman's critique and don't test drive it. Have fun.


RE: Useless
By foolsgambit11 on 9/23/2008 12:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Most places, you can't test drive motorcycles, but people still buy them. They don't borrow them from the lot in the middle of the night, drive them around, then either return the bike or drop a check off in the morning. They use reviews, or find a friend with the same bike to try it out, or whatever. The risk of being unsatisfied would seem to be much higher with a $15,000 investment than a $50 one.


RE: Useless
By DASQ on 9/23/2008 1:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I never hear of that in Canada.

I'll take your word for it, but sheesh, not being allowed to test drive a motorcycle?


RE: Useless
By Nik00117 on 9/23/2008 5:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
I work at a dealership who sells bikes. We don't allow our customers to test drive bikes because they aren't ridable until we send themt o the delievery center anyways.

I've sold countless cars as well without poeple test driving them.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 5:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well with cars, it's completely up to the person to test drive it if they want. If they don't and should have, it's their own fault, nothing more.


RE: Useless
By adiposity on 9/23/2008 11:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
Professional reviews are a joke. When Doom3 came out you couldn't find a single professional review that gave the game less than 9.7, several sites even awarding a 10.0! This, for a game that was boring, lazily written, with linear, poorly designed levels. Just to site one example of bad level design, every single room basically has a hidden panel from which a bad guy hops out. Every single item of note is in the middle of a room which will inevitably have a "punishment" group of bad guys who attack you for getting the good item. These lazy attempts to make levels difficult requires no imagination and I'd have to say most gamers were not impressed with Doom3 (gfx notwithstanding). But somehow, the game pulled in some of the highest initial scores possible.

Game companies don't want you to know how good their games are before you buy. Why? Because they are rarely as good as they say. And when they can get reviewers to overstate their value (out of fear of not being included in the next review process), they should expect to have their games pirated by people who have been burned in the past.

Personally, I'm against piracy because I think as many people as possible should buy games to support the companies. And I no longer even play PC games, I only use my PS3. I think consoles are the future: they can do a fairly good job of preventing piracy, and they represent a consistent set of specs for a low price compared to PCs. In theory I have no problem with someone who can't afford a game pirating it, as I don't see any harm being done.

That said, there is a serious problem with software as a product that cannot be truly evaluated without buying it, and cannot be returned once bought. Few other products are like this (restaurant food comes to mind). 60-day trials for microsoft office are fine, because they are fully featured. One solution I heard of involved selling games for $0 and then charging $5 for every hour played after that, up to 12 hours ( = $60). If you liked the game, you keep playing and just accept the $60. If not, you stop playing after a while and only pay $10 or whatever. Not sure how well it would work but it would offer a solution to people who don't like paying $60 only to find they hate a game. Perhaps not perfect, but better than today's solutions.

Dan


RE: Useless
By DASQ on 9/23/2008 12:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that they don't want you to know how the games really are. That's why many companies now release the demo a week or two after the retail game has hit shelves, to lure in the impulse buyers before their previews, reviews, and awesome trailers are exposed as mediocre.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 12:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most of the REALLY good developers have demos of the game up before it's retail release. But more times than not, developers do not release a demo, or if it releases one, it doesn't show the full potential of the game. Some do, some don't, it's somewhat of a gamble because it's hard to decide what to put in a demo, especially if the game you're trying to advertise doesnt REALLY live up to its hype. (In which case the demo consists of every possible good thing in the game, and people get really demoralized about the real game)


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 9:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
A demo is how you test out a game. Please do not tell me that you do not get the basic idea and gameplay style while playing the demo. There is no reason you need to download the entire game in order to test it out if you really intended on buying it.

And to say that you only get 'the best' out of the demo, what exactly are you expecting? For the entire storyline to be given to you, to let you decide whether or not you want to play the game? Why not think this way for everything then? Lets take buying a car for instance, the test drive only showed me the good because it is totally new. I guess I should be able to drive it for 50k to see how the wear and tear is before I make my decision.

If you download a full version of a game, what is the incentive for me to buy it even if you like it?

P.S as another poster has already mentioned, Bands like radiohead have given out their album for free, only to have it downloaded more times from torrent sites, than legitimately from radiohead, there is no reason to believe that lowering the price of video games will have any effect either.. I know it did not here in Canada when they changed the prices from new games (PC and Console) to 59.99 instead of 69.99


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 9:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
An experiment like that is fundamentally flawed though. If you see people at the grocery store handing our free samples or asking if you want to buy it, people grab the free samples and rarely buy it. Had they NOT released it for free, how does that prove that any of those people who didn't buy the album weren't simply going to torrent it anyway, in which case the end result would have been exactly the same,but without radiohead knowing the statistics. The fact of the matter is, just because someone downloads something without paying, does not prove that those people were planning on paying for that product anyway. And although a different concept, those who shoplift from the store are going to jump at the opportunity to get something for free; however, in this case they are simply stealing products with a physical value.


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 10:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had they NOT released it for free, how does that prove that any of those people who didn't buy the album weren't simply going to torrent it anyway, in which case the end result would have been exactly the same,but without radiohead knowing the statistics.
Which was my point! People will pirate anyways regardless of price or availability. Whether they would have bought it or not, it still does not change the fact that a product was free, and people still went through illegal channels to get it. I am with you that not everything we download we intend on buying, I do this with music all the time, but if I like even a few tracks of an album, I usually buy it, and I have a few thousand CD's so I don't really consider myself a pirate.

The problem with these games is not that people who are legitimately testing the games and then buying them if they like it, the problem is people using that as an excuse, even though they will fully play the game, and they found it fun. This is just plain unfair for developers.


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 11:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the software developers should do a survey on what encourages software piracy among games. They spend all this time fighting in court. Maybe they can learn what drives the piracy rather than spanking a select few. Granted some people are just compulsive downloaders and would do it regardless. Those people need counseling and probably have other issues in their life. But the average Joe who downloads a pirated game probably has a reason. Find that reason and work on it. Some kind of common ground. Like I said, maybe spend the legal fee money on creating a demo for us to try. One idea I do like is delivering games via a download rather than the cost of packaging and shipping. $50 for a game at the store and $40 or $35 for a game you download and pay for with a CC or Paypal. They email you the license key and you download the install.


RE: Useless
By JustTom on 9/23/2008 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think your point about DLed games being sold at a lower price is a good one.


RE: Useless
By gaakf on 9/23/2008 8:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
Please keep in mind the increased cost of creating a video game and the process of getting it in your hands. The developers, publishers, and retailers all have to be paid and there has to be a reasonable profit as a result for future game projects if you would like a series to continue.

I do not believe for one second that games 'a little bit cheaper' would cause less people to pirate. Most people pirate because they do not want to pay, period.


RE: Useless
By jmtabak on 9/23/2008 9:27:28 AM , Rating: 3
I am not claiming or denying anything about my past history, but I had NO problem shelling out $30 for Crysis Warhead.

I tried Spore. I would buy it if it were a $30 game. I will not pay $50 for it though.

If people wouldn't pirate, prices would be lower, and more people would buy the games. Chicken, meet egg.


RE: Useless
By gaakf on 9/23/2008 8:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is a fundamental difference between developing Crysis and Crysis Warhead. The framework for Crysis Warhead was already laid out by its predecessor so the development costs were not nearly as high. That is why Crysis Warhead is $30.

Spore was developed from the ground up unlike Warhead. There were greater development costs and in turn a higher price tag.

The $30 you would rather pay instead of $50 for spore is a 40% reduction in price. Hardly that reduction I was referring to in my earlier post.


RE: Useless
By gaakf on 9/23/2008 8:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hardly that reduction I was referring to in my earlier post.

I meant to say, "Significantly more than the price reduction I was referring to earlier."


RE: Useless
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2008 9:18:12 AM , Rating: 2
Agree with Kenobi's comments entirely.

And in these lawsuits, it seems they are more going after those who are responsible for ripping the games and making them available to be pirated. Not people just downloading.


RE: Useless
By omnicronx on 9/23/2008 9:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And in these lawsuits, it seems they are more going after those who are responsible for ripping the games and making them available to be pirated. Not people just downloading.
Yep, sounds like this guy was a leak for a number of games. I really doubt they will go after individual users downloading the games, now that's how you lose customers.


RE: Useless
By Crota on 9/23/2008 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
Even if you charged $20 a game, there are individuals who still do not belive it is worth $20 to pay for a good game and will still steal it. I know this is not an apples to apples comparison, but look at the music industry, people will pirate CDs, albums all the time when they themselves cost $15?

I am getting really tired of people saying they wouldn't steal it if it was just cheaper... "If I could afford that luxury I would pay for it?"


RE: Useless
By Jay2tall on 9/23/2008 10:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
I would pay $50 for a game if i knew it was good and I would enjoy it. I think a good majority of people would. Especially since most games are most enjoyable when played online, its hard to have a pirated game let alone the online account.

As far as CD's I will buy a CD if the WHOLE CD is good otherwise I'll just buy the individual songs online. I like that option. Although I hate some of the article I read that they say you can't make a "backup copy" of your own DVD or CD. Well i guess you can and it is legal, but it is illegal to get around the DRM software to do so. That is lame. I don't like keeping actual CD's in my car because I have alot of them and I've had friends who have had their car broken into and stolen. I also rip them to my MP3 player from my CD any apparently that can be considered illegal if the CD has DRM. Granted I have not run into any yet, but the idea of it is annoying.


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
But there's your point, in my opinion, a game could very well be worth $30, and would encourage me to buy it over $50, but $15 for a cd is outrageous. You may think $15 is cheap for a cd, but if you think about it, it's barely worth $10, and $5 would be a much better price point. I can't even remember the last time i wasted $15 on a cd, bu this might have something to do with the fact that i don't listen to as much music as most people.

Things like iTunes make getting the music far more acceptable (if they got rid of the stupid restrictions and let you get them as mp3s and such too) because you don't have to pay for the songs you don't want. Why buy a $15 album if you only like 2 songs? They force you to get other 10 on the cd, which makes people less likely to buy an entire compilation. As successful as iTunes is, it would probably be even more successful if they just released all the songs as restrictionless mp3s, not just a few here and there etc. If people really wanted to leak the music from iTunes, they already know how. There's no point in putting protection on the stuff.


RE: Useless
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2008 10:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if they got rid of the stupid restrictions and let you get them as mp3s and such too


You mean like iTunes, Amazon, and several other sites now do?


RE: Useless
By inighthawki on 9/23/2008 11:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
I was referring specifically to iTunes, I understand there are many other places to get them, but my point is that iTunes would be even more popular if apple wasn't so ignorant as to think that those who want to pirate and release the music from their store couldn't do it anyway, then more people would be happy and come back. I've never used iTunes store, and in fact hate iTunes as a piece of software itself, and i would never use it, but I do know that they place a lot of restrictions on the music, and that's just plain dumb in my eyes.


RE: Useless