Slashdot Mirror
Independent Dev Reports Over 80% Piracy Rate On DRM-Free Game
An anonymous reader writes "Developer 2D Boy has written that they are seeing an 82% piracy rate for everyone's favorite DRM-free physics puzzler, World of Goo . Surprisingly, this rate is in-line with what they were expecting. The article also features a fascinating comparison with the piracy rate of another game that was shipped complete with DRM, at 92%. There seemed to be no major difference in the outcomes of the rate regardless of whether DRM was used or not ... well, no difference other than the cost to implement such nonsense."
These additional options that do a better job reaching the target audience may artificially inflate the piracy figures for PC downloads. i.e. It's not that the game is heavily pirated, it's that the PC version is less popular among paying customers and thus at a statistical disadvantage.
That's the kind of the objective thinking the world needs more of.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Hey, I'm sorry, but I have to tell you, that there is no such thing as objectivity.
What you meant, was that it fits your own personal world view of what is fair and right.
In other words: You said "I agree, and I want more people to agree with me."
This is perfectly valid, because everyone exists to spread his genes and views (the two methods of reproduction), and I with you good luck with it, as long as it does not hurt my reproduction.
But don't lie to you and to others by acting, as if this had anything to do with objectivity.
Please don't feel offended. I got this mixed up too, until some time ago. I thought there were some absolute "right" and "wrong" and "true" values.
The closest thing to this are physics laws and mathematics. But hey, in reality, what meaning does the number "3" or the word "gravity" have, if there is nobody (by definition with his own point of view) defining it? What is the definition of reality?
Maybe the only thing we all can agree on, is that everything in this universe/reality, whatever it is, is relative.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Aah... I wish you luck. :)
Next time I'll try that "preview" thing. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Why does a (mis)stated example affect any of the other statements the GP made? And to clarify the GPs example: "that someone who relies on a text of unknown origin is as rational/irrational as someone who relies on multiple separate texts of known origin"
Agreed. But please stop with the miscapitalization of regular words, it makes you look like a zealot.
And why is "we don't know (yet)" not a satisfactory answer?
You had me until you randomly started capitalizing words in mid-sentence. So, you're perverting "our proof is incomplete" to "the incomplete proof means that you're wrong", and you're accusing the GP of not being objective?
Please do.
Ever been to a museum?
Which experiments? Anatomy experiments are duplicated every day by common people of the medical profession, genetics experiments are duplicated every day by common people of the farming profession. Any other examples you'd like me to give you?
That's wildly overstated.
The important thing is that you have become irrational and lost all objectivity in your allusion of evolutionism not based on every-day phenomena.
Which opinion would that be? I mean, it's not like you are providing a counter-opinion to be found equally valid, thus disproving the GP.
I think maybe you should spend a little more time understanding what born again means as well as intelligent design. Then again, you are bringing up reason when talking about a set or subset of people who will never be able to validate the science and in the end have to pick and chose who or what to believe in. That's like faulting a kid for thinking blue is his favorite color instead of red which might be your favorite color just because neither of your can explain why you like the colors you like. In the end, and even with this specific statement, you are simply saying that because you believe something, you are more right and more reasonable without ever understanding or even attempting to understand what drives the other person.
A great deal of evidence that you have personally found or discovered or evidence that someone else has found, cataloged and hidden away for safe keeping then wrote about it in books and journals so you can understand what they were doing and what they discovered. Because you know, the later describes the bibles of many different religions as well as how we work on previous discoveries with science. Now, another thing, A great deal of evidence doesn't mean all the evidence and there are gaps in the evidence as well as competing theories of evidence like taking millions of years verses the punctuated equilibrium theory verses the new protein switch quickness theory and even the Bubble theory of evolution which rules out the inter-species evolution problems but generates it's own problems.
On the other hand, Creation does not say that evolution didn't happen, it just says that it didn't happen with 2 humans, Adam and Even. Of course there were more people on the earth then Adam and Eve or the animals in the garden of Eden. As for evidence, this is just nonsense because you have no evidence of abiogenesis in evolution nor do you have any evidence that two people couldn't have been created by some omnipotent being. But this gets even more complicated because in evolution, you have no evidence that species evolved into other species other then someone's interpretation on what they think are the facts presented to them at the time of the interpretations. So we are actually on the same footing with Creation to a degree- we are listening to someone else's authoritative accounting of the events. You have chosen to believe one over another. Nothing more- you have faith in that your rendition is more accurate then other renditions and you will probably never get access to any of the evidence directly yourself as well as you will most likely never find your own evidence or have your own digs to discover the fossils. I take it that you haven't looked at the mechanics behind your opinions and beliefs much.
We'd be waiting for researchers to try and verify his data and replicate his results. Barring the existence of a covert FSM agenda among gravitational physicists, it seems likely that a more objective value will quickly be adopted. :)
Well... again, objectivity is a relative quality. In the example I gave, the one physicist's findings were more objective than those of his his pastafarian colleague. If the pattern repeats across the careers of the two researchers, we could reasonably describe the first of them as more objective in his work than the second.
Similarly, we can generalise this further, and say that if we have one discipline that draws conclusions based on reproducible observations and logical deduction, and we have a second that bases its deductions on received wisdom and articles of dogma, we can reasonably say that the first discipline is more objective than the second.
That's not to say that all scientists are always correct, any more than I mean to say that all clerics are always wrong. Neither am I saying that all scientists always follow the rigours of the Scientific Method, nor that the religious debater will always ignore the evidence of his own eyes where it conflicts with the tenets of his faith.
But if you're looking for an objective conclusion about a subject, objectivity is what science is all about. Religion on the other hand tends to be about faith and dogma first, and objectivity when it doesn't get in the way of dogma.
For that reason, if you want objectivity, then (IMHO) I'd say that science is by far the better bet.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Yes, I mean by saying there isn't enough data to compute therfor we can't give an answer. I didn't mean giving up on the search but with every discovery or theory, there is the inevitable what was before that. In one instancde, it was always there or it was just there seems to be the end of the beginning.
No, I regard that as in it doesn't say anything about X so it can't prove X wrong. It's quite simple of a concept. I'm surprised you didn't see it, imagine I said the black sheep are interesting while pointing to a field with black and white sheep. Now imagine someone else attempting to twist this to claim that I said all black sheep are interesting or that black sheep are more interesting then all white sheep or that they are somehow better or worse then each other or anything other then what I said. When we take something like evolution and attempt to apply it to things it was never intended to show or compare against, we aren't accurately representing the issues.
Ahh.. your starting to think along the same lines. So if the current theory doesn't explain the quantum effect, would it be proper to use it to make an assertion that a quantum event isn't possible when it doesn't even incorporate the mechanisms necessary to make that statement?
Well, actually, no they aren't false. There are gaps in the fossil record which is why about once a year you see stories, even here on slashdot, that claim this discovery of a fossil closes the door on some gap. Now, these gaps might not be big enough for you to question but they are big enough for someone else to question- especially if they aren't already of the belief that science is somehow more right.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing Creation of science or evolution, I'm arguing that the mechanisms behind the excapetance of either are almost identical to the vast majority of people and whichever you chose to believe has came from the same trust built into whatever influenced your decisions. Most people incorrectly attempt to use Evolution to disprove creation which only shows their lack of understanding of either.
Sure. And it would be a valid check if the researchers verifying it didn't have the same dreams or worse yet, some neo-quasi-political reasoning to find his research valid. Like I said, you have to trust the system to be free of things like that and when someone chooses which to soak their confidence into, it is a matter of who is more convincing at the time.
I would agree in general but when you have people claiming that creationist are rational or objective because of their own views which seem to be no more rational or objective, I find cause to call shenanigans on them. I don't dispute the premise that in an ideal world, science will remain more objective and rational but as we have seen, or at least I have, the people wrapped up in it are neither and they directly influence the outcome of the experiments when they are availible or the interpretations of the evidence when experiments aren't availible.
I'm sure I could illustrate this better with a car analogy and seeing how this is slashdot it seems more then appropriate. The laws and rules of the road are designed that in an ideal world, if everyone payed attention and followed the rules, we wouldn't have any fatal accidents. But because people who have been entrusted with following the rules don't seem to want to all the time, we have accidents that shouldn't occur and some of them are fatal. Well, it's the same with science in the principle of what is being presented, if the rules are followed, we can assume it to be objective and commonly accurate. Then people say stupid stuff like Science classes in school should teach Creation and religion to be fraudulent and the evolution disproves religion or creation and in the end, you have people who are not convinced that everyone on the road is following the rules and that you will be safe to drive down the street with them. In the end, the process of making the decisions one way or another will be pretty much the same when you examine the mechanics behind it from a objective point of view.
Now, I do believe Science is more accurate, I also believe that different realms of science handle themselves differently and you can't really take the whole as a reflection of a specific science. But my decisions to trust science to a degree over religion is no more rational or more elite then someone else's decision because in the end, I will never be able to reproduce the studies, verify the date, validate the conclusions, or come to any conclusion other then if someone's claim is creditable or not. Remember, for years we thought the sun revolved around the earth or that a chariot driven by a god chased the sun across the sky or that some war between good and evil happened on a daily bases and we still kept time, we still knew what the seasons were and so on. So even proving that something built off some flaw doesn't mean that the flaw is now valid, it means we were able to build off of it. So saying look, it explains everything up to this day still doesn't mean it is more right or wrong. The only thing that can do that is the integrity of the systems which I am starting to doubt slightly in some cases when more and more idiots stray from religion and latch onto science.