quote: Original post by MatrixCubed
So what justifies corporations charging ungodly sums of money for such games that are, at best, average quality with flashy graphics?

The gullibility of consumers.

quote: You might cry out that it''s illegal and evil and morally wrong to download software that you aren''t paying for, but at the same time, how wrong is it to rape the public with piss-poor products targetted at teenagers while playing on their needs to be socially acceptable?

I don''t care much for "illegal" and "evil" and "morally wrong", but the rest of the above statement is just incendiary rubbish. "Rape the public"?! Rape is an act of force; no one forces you to purchase these products. Thus, in order to convince the consumer to "vote with their wallets", manufacturers invest heavily in advertisement - using all the psychological tools at their disposal to persuade the consumer their way.

Kindly can the rhetoric.

quote: This doesn''t go for games only, this goes for clothing, music, sportswear, and food. It just so happens that it''s easy to get away with "sharing" games and music.

The fact that you need to place the word "sharing" in quotes is a clear indication that you''re twisting the meaning of the word. You can''t "share" what you don''t own.

quote: Evolution dictates that stronger beings prey on the weaker to survive; times haven''t changed. But the weaker have evolved to realize that, although they might not be part of the stronger pack of aggressors, they certainly can be more intelligent and circumvent such stupidities as "legalizing" strong-over-weak ideologies.

What is this, "Criminal inspiration hour"? If you think the commerce laws are such a problem, yet refuse to secede from the society, then change the laws. Call your congressman/senator, organize rallies, boycott products. Your ideological basis is weaker than your commercial one.

I''ll just ignore your diatribe on cigarettes abd alchohol. At the very least, I admonish you to research the (commercially vested) reasons for the prohibition of hemp.

quote: Going back to the "problem" of game piracy, please take a good long look at why something is legal or illegal before proving your own narrow-minded nature in the name of righteousness.

And the same to you.

This thread is way off topic, and very few people have any real suggestions on design techniques to combat piracy.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Regarding copy-protection schemes and their user-friendliness...

I believe that some digitally distributed software uses a scheme like this: The user gives the vendor some kind of ID, e.g. their name; the vendor uses this info to generate a key, and then the user enters both the ID and the key. The software verifies that the key is appropriate for the ID.

It''s nice for the user to be able to use this same ID/key combo to install another copy of the software on another machine, but of course he/she can also share their ID/key with another person.

So, one idea I had was to make the ID something confidential to the user, something he/she would not even want to give to a friend. The obvious example is the user''s payment information (cc#, etc.). If you do this, you might also try to emphasize to the user the risk of sharing his/her payment info (e.g., by putting a "buy" button for something in the same "about" dialog box that displays the payment info).

Do you think this scheme would be effective? Would it bother users? (Presumably the user''s payment info would be obtained during the buy transaction, and then it would just get stored locally on their machine.)

freeWARE rules!
^(free, not free copies)

quote: Original post by Sandman
I was reading a rant on piracy on another board, and it got me thinking.

Lets face it, standard copy protection methods simply do not work. Unless ridiculously strict and invasive laws are passed preventing any electronic reproduction are passed, piracy will continue.

Personally I think it is about time the industry realised this and stopped punishing its supporters.

The only thing that copy protection does is annoy the legitimate users of the software. Having to faff around finding the CD to play the game, weird issues with copy protection code interfering with other software on the player''s machine etc. Why on earth would someone want to pay for software plagued with all these problems when they can download a warezed version for free?

Personally, I reckon the best copy protection of all is a good quality game and a sensible price point.

Some Examples:

Quake 1 had no copy protection (or at least none that I am aware of) and ran directly off the HD - no CD required. Did this really hurt its sales?

Linux - right from square one this software was meant to be given away free, yet people are still prepared to spend money on ''distro packs'' containing everything on CD''s (for convenience) and manuals.

I''ll agree that current means of copy protection are ineffective. To my knownledge the majority of copy protection is transparent (with the exception of companies like Microsoft that require activation). As far as strict an invasive go the DMCA is certainly a step in that direction. As for price points, they depend on development cost. In any case there is alot to consider and I doubt anyone solution is going to solve the problems with piracy.

quote: Original post by Unwise owl
I was just thinking that you maybe wanted to hear a 15-years old game consumer''s opinion:

Ever thought about how expensive games are? Paying 40$ for one game is a little too much for me. And often I must buy an additional expansion pack to be able to get a level editor for that game etc.

This cost makes it impossible for me to purchase more than about 4 to 5 games/year. Therefore when I have to choose between 20 titles I of course buy the 5 best games . The rest I usually (illegaly) copy from friends!!!

But does this damage the developers? I''d never had paid for those extra 15 games anyway, I just can have more fun by copy some of them.

And have you ever seen a teenager pay for VC++? I haven''t. It is far too "very, extremely, ultra, stupid" expensive.

If you stop to consider how much money and time is put into developing those games and then marketing/distributing them(normally some were in the millions per game), $40 actually sounds reasonable. Besides the prices normally go down within a few months. Just because you can''t afford what you want doesn''t mean you have the right to take it. Your making illegal copies of a game probably doesn''t hurt anyone but think of how many people out there feel the sameway and do the same thing. It all adds up in the end. There''s an example of this sort of behavior (not specificly piracy) in philosphey called "the tragedy of the commons" (If your interested goto http://dieoff.org/page95.htm under the heading "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons". Do you really have to have VC++ you know there are free C++ compilers out there like the one Borland recently released.

All you complaining about the crap with MMOGs, go to the Multiplayer forum. If someone makes a successful game that uses a peer-to-peer model, the industry will no longer be able to charge $20 a month claiming that hosting''s expensive. Peer-to-peer (in my opinion) is viable, just go to the Multiplayer forum and look at the different threads arguing the topic.

A note about making high quality games: Half-Life, for example, is the game I have played the most. I have played Half-Life for 3 years now and I still play it at a rate of 30 minutes/day. Why you may ask?

Half-Life is the sort of game which is bound to be succesful. By delievering a good singleplayer story the developers at Valve attracted many customers. (However the multiplayer at that time was poor.)

But then Valve did something drastic. They released the sourcecode of the game logic and enabled people to make their own versions of Half-Life while using the HL-engine. I''ve tried it all: I''ve programmed HL-mods in C++, I''ve made my own levels and I''ve even tried to make custom 3D-models (although that wasn''t succesful :D).

The point is that I own 3 copies of Half-Life today (because I need the CD-keys). And I''d never dream of copying it illegaly because I don''t think it is worth it. I admire the developers at Valve who was able to develop a game which is still played today on the internet by hundreds of thounsands (Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Fire-Arms, etc.)