Slashdot Mirror
Stardock Declares Victory Over Demigod Piracy
We recently got a look at some hard numbers related to the piracy of Demigod , a new game from Stardock and Gas Powered Games. Now, two weeks later, Stardock CEO Brad Wardell has essentially declared the game a success in spite of the piracy, and reaffirmed the company's stance that intrusive DRM is a bad thing. The game's sales figures seem to bear him out. Quoting:
"Yep. Demigod is heavily pirated. And make no mistake, piracy pisses me off. If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way. The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don't buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary — our customers."
He isn't gloating. He isn't saying they've beaten the pirates. He's saying the game is selling well despite them, and it is. There's a big difference.
Hey, come on now - he's a visionary standing up for our rights!
I don't care about the personality of the CEO, as long as he's providing me with DRM-free games I can play on any computer any time, without fighting with SecuCrap, ShitForce, or requiring a DVD.
The only thing I care about (as a gamer) is whether the game plays (excluding obvious stuff like the game should be fun :P ), and lately a lot of games just don't run. :/ I can't tell you how aggravating it is to buy a game, install it, and find out it crashes instantly with some error code related to the DRM.
Damn you EA. You suck.
Won't something like Metcalfe's law also apply to games. The more people that play the game the higher the worth of the game. So while losing customers to pirated versions is bad (but I'd argue not too common and entirely unstoppable by DRM), gaining non-customers to pirated versions is actually good (not very good as you don't get any money) as it adds value to your game. In the case of multiplayer games this value is obvious (even if they can't play against legit version, they will help augment the community) and for single player games they may tell friends and eventually somebody they know who likes the game may pay for it.
It would be interesting if somebody could put a monetary value on pirated version (other than stupidly assuming every pirated copy is a lost sale)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
What should we be focusing on? Maximizing profit or maximizing game development? or in other words - producing games to live, or living to produce games? I know which future i want ... and i want it now!
I dunno, I'm still annoyed. I bought GalCiv and all the expansion packs because 1) they are great games and 2) because they were not copyprotected.
Later on they snuck online-hardware authentication into the game. So if they go out of business, and I upgrade to a new computer, I lose the games I bought.
That pisses me off to no end since this exactly the reason why I've still not played games like BioShock (due to the DRM).
So StarDock is in no way the champion that they were in earlier days.
Games are easy to make. Gpogle for 'flash games' and you'll find 100,000 crappy little card games and Tetris clones. Good games are HARD to make. It costs real time from people with real talent who need to be paid in real money. The problem is that the costs of developing a game are not connected to the cost of replicating the game. The first copy of the game costs 5 million dollars. the second copy costs 4 cents.
Piracy isn't an issue until it's so rampant that those with the money choose to pirate anyway.
Would you pay 4 dollars to see a matinee? Would you buy a scifi novel for 6 bucks? Try comparing the time you spend enjoying each of these to the time you spend on a video game, and you'll find that the 40-50 dollars spent on a good game is surprisingly cheap!
I bought GTA San Andreas a long time ago. (years?) I picked it up again this last weekend and got another afternoon of fun out of it!
Don't be at all hesitant to buy a good game, even if you have a playable pirate copy - it's insurance for more fun in the future!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
If you like what he's done, you ought to contact the company and let them know how you feel. We complain enough here on slashdot, sometime it's nice to be positive for a bit as well. We ought to encourage those who do cool things.
Qxe4
I'm not sure how this company can say they sell plenty of copys despite DRM, and that they don't use DRM. I personally bought demigod and they use Impulse (Steam basically) which I was forced to install on my pc and authenticate by phoning home to play online not to mention I have to keep this 3rd party app open if I wish to ever play. Demigod is really only a multiplayer game. your options for single player are playing against bots. The pirates playing on hamachi are probably minimal for the same reason few people play dota on hamachi to get around a wc3 cd key. Also I should add that when I bought this game I couldnt even logon for 3 days, because the cdkey in my package was in use (This seemed to be an issue for MANY people) and I had to send about 7 emails to tech support and take pictures of my friggen case and cd to prove I wasn't a "Pirate"
Especially when it comes to one's own product. It usually just encourages people to find ways to prove you wrong...........
Or corporations. Gamestop in this case. Although they were probably more motivated from a hissy fit at stardock daring to release it online, cutting out them as a middleman, when gamestop has faithfully treated PC games like garbage.
His argument for a long time has been that copyright infringement sucks, but it happens protections or not. However protections piss off your legit customers. Thus, since they don't stop copying and do piss off the people that pay, don't do them.
I think this is quite a good attitude. I mean yes, people copied the shit out of Demigod. People copy the shit out of most anticipated new releases so that shows nothing other than people are interested in the game. The interesting title to compare it to would be Spore. Spore was much more highly anticipated, however it had real whiz bang copyprotection: SecuROM 7 including online activation. To hear the talk on it, you'd think this was your 100% anti-copying solution. All sorts of nifty encryption and obfuscation and you have to connect to an online server! Ha, beat that shit pirates!
The result? A torrent with 5 digits worth of peers active on it on the Piratebay when it came out. Ya THAT was real effective.
So Demigod got copied all over, but still sells well and they spent $0 on copyprotection and didn't piss off legit customers with it. Spore got copied all over, and they spent a non-trivial amount on protection and pissed off customers.
I don't know how it'll all play out in the end. What I know is that I do own Demigod, and I do not own Spore. SecuROM 7 games can get fucked IMO. I don't play the limited activations thing. I like to be able to upgrade and reinstall my system, and I like to be able to play my games 10, 15, 20 years later (I still play Xcom).
> the "copying = theft" mistake
From the definition of steal, courtesy of dictionary.com:
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance
Def #2 makes illegitimate copying theft pretty much by definition, but even if you want to interpret that as only "ideas" and not "intellectual property", then #3 will cover it with its fairly broad "to ... get ... insidiously".
So yes, copying is, in fact, theft. Maybe not in the same way as stealing a car is theft, but I don't see him saying it is.
> The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games
> and people who don't buy games.
Thats what always puzzled my about filesharing haters: Why _do_ some of them bother at all, if they make enough money, that somwhere on the other side of the world, maybe also on some other planet, two people he never knew and will never know shared their stuff?
> accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way.
And promptly, he delivers the answer himself. Just another delusionist trying to shoehorn the planet into his business model. Copying a piece of information from your neighbor is not a theft. Yes, you do get something for nothing, but thats the whole freaking point of a copying machine. Endless supply for everybody. It does not automatically imply (although he would undoubtely like the thought) that you suddendly owe the creator of the original "as if" the piece was a physical product which cost money to produce. You first have to bend your mind heavily, internalize this "as if" concept almost religiously (which happens automatically if "as if" would make you money) in order to overlook the difference. The copying machine works only one way. Yet, the delusionists still think that the money (i.e. the wealth) they should get in exchange for providing input pieces to the copying machine has either to be multiplied at the same rate (i.e. an astronomical one, no less), or else the copying machine has to be smashed in order to _not_ bring wealth to everybody.
"after 20 years of experiment, practically all arguments are now against the internet."
The quote (that didnt fit into the subject line) is a conclusion from a recent article by one of germanys largest newspapers (Frankfurter Allgemeine), which is usually known for lobbying heavily for tougher IP laws. I always knew our grandgrandgrandfathers were right back then! General Ludd was the man! Lets finally get breaking some damn copying machines again!
As I see it, pirating a game is only excusable if you're doing it to try it, after which you either buy it or stop playing.
Just recently I did this with Galactic Civilizations II - I downloaded it, played it for a while, liked it, went out and purposefully bought the game: Stardock got another sale when, had I not had a chance to check the game, they would have gotten nothing (I don't trust the industry - been burned once too many by some of the over-hyped turds they put out)
Way too many games out there come out not working well or not at all. The game reviews press is no help at all - they'll give glaring reviews to games which are pretty enormous turds, and conveniently forget about the bugs and lack of long term playability.
In my view, it's not at all morally reprehensible to pirate a game for testing - as long as you buy it if you keep playing it.
Bears don't do 'business' in the woods.
Bears do, however, shit in the woods.
Just, y'know, when people start cringing from /language/, then we truly are doomed.
The problem is the word "appropriate". Appropriate means (m-w.com):
1. to take exclusive possession of
But you cannot take exclusive possession of "intellectual property", because it's not really property at all. In a world without scarcity, the concept of property has no meaning.
The third definition is extremely broad - winning the lottery is clearly not theft, but it clearly happens "by chance" and therefore meets the definition. So does buying a gift in secret.
I'm not here to argue that copyright infringement is acceptable. But the reality is that the rights granted to copyright holders are much more limited than the rights granted to property owners. Copyrighted works are not "property" because you can't own an intangible work. You can be granted a limited monopoly on the reproduction, exhibition/performance, and distribution of that work for a limited period of time.
I agree.
Neverwinter Nights 2 was the biggest disappointment I've had in a game during the last few years. Since NWN 1 was such a blast; an old group of friends who played D&D together years before got it near the release date but since the game paused for everyone as soon as one player talked to an NPC. It made the experience hard to enjoy.
Some feats in the manual weren't included in the game it shipped with (volley).
Demigod? This game rocks so far from what I've played - 3 days straight.
The game is well-balanced and the style of rpg/strategy is very refreshing. They have an amazing start to a game that I hope they continue to support so a strong community develops.
They just need to add a few more features;
-Replays
-Multi-player Game Filtering (like TF2)
-Tutorial / Single-Player Campaign that introduces each Demigod
-Ability to click on the minimap to zoom the screen to that location
Did I miss any features that should be included? (perhaps in a patch)
He used the term thief:
thief, noun,
a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
which by it's definition doesn't apply in this situation.
I'll accept the use of the word piracy as it has widespread use as relating to copyright infringement but I do think it's rather ridiculous to compare copying data to theft and murder on the high seas.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Maybe this is flamebait because Brad Wardell has been posting a lot of information about the networking problems they had, how they didn't found them during beta and what they are doing about it.
In the first week, there was an update at least once a day, and even now he's still keeping the players updated about how far along they are, answering questions on the forum and helping players with connection problems.
You are so right on that the on-line for demigod is worthless. I have tried multiple times, during and pre prime time, and have never been able to get into a game.
For a game that is almost all on-line, single player gets really boring after a few plays, that the on-line setup are so bad is something that should of been fixed before they shipped.
The UK legal definition of "theft" is: A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
I would be very suprised to find the US definition was not much the same.
That 'permanently depriving' bit though, means copyright infringment can never be theft.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1968/pdf/ukpga_19680060_en.pdf
to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
I can't remember the last time I saw somebody in court charged with theft of a girlfriend (outside of Suadi or Iran). Nor can I remember any arrests under the definition of "to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly", for gaining a point in a game through strategy, chance or luck, or for "stealing" attention.
Maybe that's because the definitions used in law are not the same as those used in the dictionary. If they were, we could accuse Brad Wardell of being a murderer because he made a quick profit, which is a definition of killing from dictionary.com
The word under discussion is not "steal" though, but "thief". http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thief
THIEF, crimes. One who has been guilty of larceny or theft.
Look up both larceny and theft there, and you'll see they involve the taking of property. Making a copy of something does not involve removal of the original from the owners possesion.
On the same subject, making a copy does not involve "copyright theft", unless you happen to have taken away the rights of the creator. The way big studios use hollywood accounting to swindle writers for instance.
This does leave a slight problem for people who like to rant about piracy though.
either buy it or accept that you're a copyright infringer and quit rationalizing it any other way
doesn't sound quite as good as calling people thieves.
Seriously, this stance on DRM is like the RMS stance on openness "Unless everything is 100% my way, no compromise it is WRONG!"
No, Demigod isn't DRM'd. The DVD is a standards compliant DVD with no trickey shit. The game installs and runs with no checks of any kind.
Online play requires authentication and use of an online server? Oh well stop the presses I mean that hasn't happened with except, well, maybe every online game ever. As to if something like that is DRM is rather a semantic argument. Sure it does require a legit copy, but then the anti-DRM stance was never supposed to be about being allowed to illegally copy things, now was it? Needing to log in to a central server to play is a feature many games have simply for player convenience. Heck I remember when Gamespy first got started it was because the whole decentralized server thing with games like Quake was a problem. How did you find people to play with? So there was a 3rd party "central server" created that all the distributed servers talked to. Newer games are just having their own central service.
Finally no, you needn't run Impulse to run the game. Impulse has it's little "Impulse now" thing that it likes to run, but all that does is check for patches. Shut it down if you like (there's an option to tell it not to load on startup). You can run the game without Impulse, or without a net connection for that matter.
The point here is that if you are going to cast things like having a CD key and using a central matching service in the same category as SecuROM and such, then you are effectively making you definition of DRM meaningless and running off in to zealot territory. The reason you should, as a gamer, be anti-DRM is because it makes games not work. Like you take these recent games with SecuROM that you can only install 3 times, ever. After that, you are done. THAT is DRM and that is a problem. Wanting you to have an account on their online play service to play online is not DRM.
Gamers need to be a little reasonable here because remember, as with all things, there is a balance of rights. Yes, you should have the right to buy a game and play that game for as long as you want in the way you want. You shouldn't have some DRM program getting mad because you installed it too many times or because it doesn't like your CD drive. However the developers have rights too. They have a right to try and make sure people aren't illegally copying their game, and they certianly have a right 0ot make sure those people who do illegally copy it can't make use of the services the company provides for it. It shouldn't be an all or nothing situation on either side.
I'd liken it to freedom of speech. Yes, you have the right to freedom of speech, however your right to freedom of speech can't interfere with my right to freedom of association. What that means if you are free to speak your mind, but not in my living room if I don't want you to. I am free to ignore what you say. Yes, that does limit your rights in a small way. You don't have the right to force me to listen to your views, however that is a necessary limit on your rights to preserve mine and one I think we can all agree is reasonable.
So you need a balance in games rights too. Demanding no DRM is fine when DRM means "Shit that interferes with rights I should have." Demanding no DRM is not fine when DRM means "Anything you do that I don't approve of."
Last week I stole £300 by betting on the horses.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
1 : to take exclusive possession of : annex
2 : to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
I always love the guys who argue definitions while quoting from the dictionary, except forgetting to include ALL the definitions...especially the ones that show they are wrong. See definition #3.
Is it now possible to play a round without one guy with bad networking destroying the whole game?
Using GameRanger to play Demigod online made this possible from the start. The problems only occurred when you used their matchmaking infrastructure, Impulse.
GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
Because a feature of a game is broken justifies pirating it?
You did exactly what he stated, you used whatever inane reason you could find to justify being a thief.
In other words, you declared yourself a victim and decided upon restitution you deemed appropriate, which apparently is that stealing other people's property is ok if it has a bug. What's next ? Unacceptable box art?
Game companies, actually any software company, do not have to attain a defensible position in regards to not wanting to have their products pirated.
What it really comes down to is that thieves will always find some justification. As soon as the their condition is met they will invent a new offense and thereby justify their continued thievery.
sorry, but your post sucks and that it was rated insightful is a disgrace to those of us who do programming for a living. I can't meet your high standards because they don't exist in any form that can be quantified thereby meaning anything I produce you want you will just take.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No, Demigod isn't DRM'd.
And in the very next paragraph:
Online play requires authentication
You're full of it.
If the game requires any form of authentication to unlock any significant functionality then it's DRM'ed. End of story.
It has nothing to with RMS. Nothing to do with zealotry. It's DRM. That's "Digital Rights Management".
You can try rationalizing the DRM all you like whilst pretending that somebody can still "buy" the game but you know full well that when somebody doesn't have control of their own keys it's just another form of rental.
Some people are happy to rent. Many aren't, no matter how hard the marketers and assorted astroturfers try to dissemble.
---
Adopt an astroturfer. Make their life hell.
Huh? What?
You (or someone) thinks a game has a horribly broken feature A and therefore thinks it's ok to pirate the shit?
Excuse me but just as the quote says, you're trying to rationalize your thiefing.
If you think game is broken piece of crap, don't buy it. It doesn't give magically give you right to ignore copyrights and pirate it.
...the horribly broken multiplayer in Demigod is an example of exactly why many people choose to pirate games rather than pay upwards of $90 (in Australia, equivalent in your local currency) for broken software.
Stardock recommended GameRanger precisely because of the major multiplayer problems with Demigod's built-in matchmaking. The game's multiplayer itself played just fine through GameRanger. It's safe to say there would have been a lot more refund requests otherwise, and it took some of the heat off Stardock while they tried to address the problems.
They even added a download button for GameRanger on their Demigod page right next to the Impulse one.
GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
You're trying to beat a regular dictionary into something else.
2. covers "I had this great idea, but my coworker stole credit for it"
3. covers "He stole second base", "He stole a kiss" and "They stole the win through sheer luck"
If you don't want to talk in pictures about things that really aren't stealing, a conservative definition as found in a legal dictionary is:
"STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required. Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises."
It's pretty clear that it refers to physical property and that "take" and "deprive of" requires removing it from the owner's possession. All you have done is fallen for the propaganda that a collection of immaterial rights with a right's holder is also "property" with an "owner". If holding those rights were permanent and equal to property as they profess we should still be paying the cavemen who invented the wheel, Gutenberg and the guy who made the first BLT sandwich. If they take one extreme people will take the other, and when that snaps there'll be an "IP" revolution.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
because it's likely to attract flames?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
#3 is bullshit, since it more depends on the definition of a right, not on the definition of theft itself.
Using the logic that ignoring someone elses artificial (its not natural nor consensual, remember) "right" on something _you_ already possess you then could also argue that William Wallace was "stealing" when he refused to hand over his wife to get fucked by the english occupying forces who installed themselves an exclusive artificial right "ius primae noctis". Also a slave running away from his owner would be "stealing" because the slave obviously does not have the "right" to run away. Marital infidelity also could be "stealing" of someones exclusive "sex right" in jurusdictions where extramarital sex is not allowed.
The right to share information with other people is inherent, it doesnt have to be explicitely granted. Like your right to have sex. You dont first need somebody to "allow" you to have it. The right you think of, the copyright, is not a real right, but a _removal_ of other peoples rights to freely exchange information (or bodily fluids) with each other, ie a communication ban, i.e. censorship. Ignoring censorship "rights" isn't stealing, no matter how much you'd like to call it so.
Since a thief is really "one who steals," (Webster) your whole argument is moot. He didn't charge the people with "theft" in a courtroom; he called them thieves. Get over it. It's perfectly sensible in that situation.
Oh, and "piracy" includes copyright infringement, not just boats. a couple hundred years of English says so.
Put identity in the browser.
#3 also seems to cover winning in lottery: "to ... get ... by chance".
That kinda reminds me of the radical feminist argument that all heterosexual sex is rape, because there is a power difference between the partners and therefore consent is not possible (which is not only a non-sequiter, but would also apply to any sexual relationship, but I guess radical feminism isn't really famous for logical coherence). Changing the meaning of words is a wonderful way of winning arguments.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
According to that definition, when I was given a free Nintendo DS and 10 games because I won a raffle, I stole it - "to take, get or win [...] by chance"
For completely not-creepy reasons, the local teen center turned me into a criminal!
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
1. "I bought GalCiv ... they were not copyprotected."
okay, got it, what you bought was not copyprotected... you can install it, play it, and nothing gets in your way.
2. "Later on they snuck online-hardware authentication into the game."
I suppose that's by means of an update or something of the sort... okay, with you so far...
3. "So if they go out of business, and I upgrade to a new computer, I lose the games I bought."
and here you lost me, at least on technical grounds.
If at point 3 you can no longer play the game from point 2, could you still play the game from point 1? I presume that you can.
You'd have to argue that the game at point 2 is still the game from point 1 - and I'd argue that it isn't ; what if the developer went bust immediately after launch? you wouldn't have gotten any updates for point 2 to exist.. but you could still play the game from point 1.
So if point 3 should happen, nothing happened to the game you bought - you've still got it from point 1. You can't play it with the updates from point 2, but presumably you didn't buy those updates*.
Doesn't make what you mention any less troublesome - but in terms of what would happen to the games you purchased, in this case? Presumably not a whole lot.
=====
* Though more and more it seems that an implied part of the cost of purchasing a game is the 'privilege' to download major bugfix patches, often through some major gaming portal that will ditch that patch after a year or so and you have to hunt around to find the patch elsewhere.
> the "copying = theft" mistake
From the definition of steal, courtesy of dictionary.com: 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. 3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance
Both of those definitions imply that the thief is denying the original owner the thing stolen. Copyright infringement doesn't have that attribute. Neither of those definitions fit particularly well. So why you do you want to call one offence (copyright infringement) by the name of a different offence? I can't see any legitimate reason, so you must be just looking to get some sort of emotional response from people.
Just use the correct term: copyright infringement.
It is not good business of IP publishers to turn their customers into casualties of the battle against copyright infringement. Furthermore, it is not the fault or failure of the customers that copyright infringement occurs and they are the absolutely LAST people who should be inconvenienced or penalized in any way for the actions of others.
By imposing unreasonable controls and limits on those who pay legitimately, they are only harming those who pay legitimately.
To do anything less than honor and respect your customers is the wrong approach to the problem of copyright infringement since they are the furthest people from the problem.
So unless you have full control over THEIR servers, it's DRM?
I didn't say that. Stop dishonestly pretending I did.
Anti cheating measures? DRM! unique usernames? DRM! not allowing incompatible out of date versions on the server? DRM!
That's it, dishonestly try to muddy the waters.
DRM is about your software and your PC. Not about services provided on someone else's systems.
When your software is deliberately locked to a system you don't control for the purpose of controlling your use and significant functionality in the game can only be accessed with that system's approval then it's DRM.
If the user can run their own server (as many early games did), thus allowing them to access that significant program functionality without being controlled, then you might have a point.
---
Adopt an astroturfer. Make their life hell.
Just wanted to highlight a portion of the parent poster's.. post:
Let me paraphrase that.. In a world without scarcity, all physical property becomes intellectual property.
There is no (notable; you'll still have to use electricity, maybe the media to write them on, etc.) scarcity of bits/bytes - therefore everything that can be described in, and used almost directly from, those bits and bytes becomes intellectual property. The same applies to analog storage where that is feasible - e.g. music and video.
Say replicator (the star trek type, not the stargate type) technology existed, and there is no scarcity of whatever it uses to replicate objects from - suddenly you -can- make copies of any physical property. So what value would that physical property hold? The same as, to many, music and video now: next-to-none. It has in essence become intellectual property, where you may have had some initial reward for the original design and potentially fabrication, but after that it's trivial to make copies of at next-to-no expense; and I'm going to guess that the 'pirates' of tomorrow would be doing exactly that.
You're full of it.
If the game requires any form of authentication to unlock any significant functionality then it's DRM'ed. End of story.
HE'S FULL OF IT?
Anyways, Demigod requires online servers to unlock functionality. Are those online servers DRM?
Because if they aren't, then anyone who sets up their own server (they're out there), has unlocked that functionality.
At the end of the day, you just seem like you don't want to participate in a capitalist society, and I have to wonder, what are you doing in the US?
You're right that if copyright infringement is wrong, something like bugs at launch don't suddenly override this. However, if one doesn't believe copyright should even exist, then nitpicks like this have more force.
And yes, it's perfectly possible to make a decent living as a programmer without the existence of copyright. I don't feel personally aggrieved by copyright infringement. I try to stay out of businesses where a company depends on copyright for its existence.
Demigod can be played without impulse, assuming you have the retail copy. Just can't patch it.
Given their stance on not screwing over paying customers, I would assume that at the end of life of the product they would release a regularly downloadable patch, but that stage the only multiplayer you'll be doing will be via hamachi etc anyway because they won't be running the matchmaking servers.
Ezekiel 23:20
They develop the games for a living so I suppose they want to get the money to live from it. They could have done all that work for free but they didn't (presumably because spending that much time on developing makes it hard to get money from other sources and at some point any human will want to have a decent life for himself).
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
3. "So if they go out of business, and I upgrade to a new computer, I lose the games I bought."
and here you lost me, at least on technical grounds.
If at point 3 you can no longer play the game from point 2, could you still play the game from point 1?
I bought the game as an electronic download. I also bought the expansion packs via electronic download. This all goes through the Stardock package manager.
At some point the protection was added (I don't know at exactly what date). Since it wasn't announced and no permission was asked, I have lost the version without copyright protection.
I also believe the expansions require a certain patch-level of the main game, so if I had a backup of the main game somewhere, I still be locked out of playing my expansions.
The point is, part of the reason why I _bought_ the games was the lack of any DRM. In their current FAQ about this issue it's stated somewhere along the lines "Aw c'mon.. it's not like we're asking a bloodsample or something. Our DRM is non-intrusive and easy. C'mon guy!". But my point in losing my games in care of bankruptcy is still valid as long as they keep using DRM.
Though more and more it seems that an implied part of the cost of purchasing a game is the 'privilege' to download major bugfix patches, often through some major gaming portal that will ditch that patch after a year or so and you have to hunt around to find the patch elsewhere.
This is an interesting point. However, most games only release bug fixes. Usually any substantial real content is released as a pay-for expansion.
Combine this with the attitude of most software companies that the user is now a glorified beta-tester, ("Aw, we'll fix it in a patch, lets release now and start raking in the cash."), and suddenly the argument of expecting free bug-fixes seems very reasonable indeed.
As a sidepoint. I also bought "King's Bounty: The Legend" because I loved the old "Might and Magic Heroes" games..
The damn disc won't even read in my computer! My laptop's drive reads it ok but lacks the hardware to run it. The disc it not scrathed or anything but it's the damn DRM they're using that locks me out. I had to wait for a crack to be release to play it because on the official forums the advice was "Your DVD drive is broken, go buy a new one", which is bullshit because all other discs I own read just fine. It's not even an obscure brand drive.
In short DRM is evil incarnate. I don't buy any games with DRM that is too restrictive. The fact that Stardock snuck it in later sucks balls.
Take Unreal Tournament as an example. After a reasonable time, they release unprotected executables via the regular patches.
Can't we just be happy they're still not going to use DRM? It seems good enough to me, whatever the reaoning.
It's depressing really.
I used to think that if we ever created nanotech(in the sci fi style, the kind of goop which can create anything out of raw material) then we'd have a chance at fixing most of the worlds problems.
Now I know when someone learns how to build a house for free someone else will sue them for using some variation on a "4 walls and a roof" patent.
Governments who don't understand the technology will be lobbied to ban it much as they are lobbied to ban P2P.
It will probably be justified on the basis of stopping paedophiles or terrorists or drug dealers or whatever the enemy of the day is.
Dictionary.com doesn't a legal argument make.
According to US law, theft is simply depriving of use of property and has a completely different set of rules and punishment than copyright violations. Sort of like the difference between murder of the 1st degree, 2nd degree, homicidal negligence, and manslaughter.
Each type of crime has a different set of laws and punishments.
If you were before a judge and said "But it this dictionary gives a different definition of the law I broke!", he'd probably laugh at you before throwing the book at you.
I say this because copyright violations tend to get you more jail time than actual theft of property.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Cheers to Demigod's developers for their decision to go with no DRM. I've not even played the game, but I'm glad to hear that one of the things that pushed me to console gaming is seeing a sunset. DRM has, in the past, forced me to go to a piracy site to find a cracked .exe file that will remove the necessity of having the dvd in the drive. Even this light form of DRM pushes me towards piracy instead of just letting me enjoy my purchase without having to haul a small stack of "play disc"s around in my laptop bag. In the several years I've been separated from PC gaming, it sounds as if the problem has only gotten worse.
Much of this leads me to believe that services like quakelive.com are getting a leg up on how games will be delivered in the future.
Copying is a fact of nature, and we will never get everyone to agree not to do it, nor would we want to. Seek out another business model, or suck it up and live with the current awful one.
I don't know why you were modded redundant because you made a different point than most others.
And I agree as a person who firmly believes in reductionism of the world around me.
What is the difference between being killed by a mugger, a grizzly bear, or lightning bolt.
There is really none in the end result because I'm dead. People could get made at the mugger, bear, and even the lightning bolt but that doesn't change anything.
You can say that mugger had free will in order to choose so it makes you mad, but is he really no different than the bear or the lightning bolt.
In all reality, I cannot control what they do or appear to choose to do and being mad doesn't help anything. What I can do is buy a gun and shoot the mugger or bear.
Or ideally not put myself in situations where I am faced by either because some phenomenon (like lightning) can't be dealt with.
I mean... How silly it is to be mad at lightning. The same thing goes for pirates because yelling at them is just as effective as yelling at a grizzly bear or lightning.
Do something to mitigate them or avoid the situation.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The correct term is theft.
I supply a product. You use it or take it without compensating me. You're a thief. Steal an apple, steal an idea, steal a game. Thief, thief, thief. You're hungry, I don't deserve to it, you want to play it for free. Still a thief, thief thief.
Why do people have such a hard time accepting this? Are we so coddled that we can't look ourselves in the mirror after we do something "bad". I wish people would stop using all these defense mechanisms so they can pretend they are good people, and just openly say it: I'm a cheapskate thief.
I think the approach Microsoft have taken in the past in China, if I remember correctly by offering to exchange an illegal copy of Windows for a cheaply licensed one if not free is the sort of strategy that the industry needs to look at. However the games and software market are a bit different so we can't treat this solution as universal - operating systems cost a lot more money to develop than a game, despite their rocketing costs. The Ultimate Steal promotion that Microsoft run for students to buy Office 2007 Ultimate for a reasonable price ~£40 is the way forwards, this enables one to actually think about the value they're getting instead of merely dismissing it as out of their price range. The normal version retails closer to £700. Likewise this last weekend gone by Valve have continued their great promotional pricing with the Orange Box at just under £6 on Steam - you cannot fail to pick that up. Valve are one of these companies however that add tremendous value to their games and the multiplayer element generally precludes pirates from being able to enjoy the experience as well. I remember about 6 months ago they also did a deal for the original Half Life on Steam for $1, I snapped that up too even though I've already got a legitimately bought copy of Half Life, albeit not on Steam. I think when faced with tremendous piracy that you're not going to get rid of you might as well attempt to reasonably convert those into actual sales. I do pirate a lot of things, but I also own many more things. I find that I will never generally buy a game on release for £30 - it just doesn't make sense when it's going to go down to the >= £15 mark a few months later. Games that are less than £10 I will consider buying as an impulse purchase. In short, the games market sadly need to look at their pricing. If we look at efforts like Wii Ware this is where we're going. Simpler more focussed games that cost less to produce and accordingly cheaper prices.
You forget theft of service:
Now, shut the fuck up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I was one of those who hadn't heard about Demigod and when it came out I pulled down a copy, played it, bought it. Spore? I did want to buy it but ignored it as I ignore any DRM filled crap that's going to crap on my computer and my rights. You publishers can take those games and shove them where the DRM don't shine. If they're games I'd like to play perhaps I'll buy them for the Xbox360 after a year or so when the price is down - after all, you guys taught me how to be patient and not impulse buy something cause it looks good so thank you for that DRM asses. I'm also loving the ObjectDocks from Stardock - the free version does exactly what it says it's going to do and isn't a memory hog. Wow, who knew they could make products like that anymore? As for the Demigod game, I'm one that doesn't like to play online but this game can give me a nice game I can finish in a half hour like a casual game does. Perfect.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
No. It's theft, just more accurately, theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/
No, but presumably uslegal.com does make a legal argument. It's theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/
Nope.
The "this thing is only an release candidate" and "I have to deal with a random collection of spare parts" or
"I want to get rid of this crap copy protection" are not exactly "new excuses". These are things that have
been plaguing the game playing public for DECADES.
Just because you haven't been around long enough to have had these same
problems yourself 20 years ago, it doesn't mean that they are somehow new.
You would think that the industry would have gone extinct by now with all the whining.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The reason it was broken is because too many pirated copies were hitting the servers too early. Gamestop released the game early, then pirated copies were made and circulated. So before release, Stardock had production numbers hitting the servers that were set up for the beta. The production servers weren't scheduled to go online until the following week, but because of GameStop releasing early they had to push them out in rush fashion.
Funny, he's not suing anyone and deliberately left DRM out of the game. Oh, but to even MENTION that people pirating the game are assholes makes him a thug? No, saying that makes you a stupid asshole. Do you think it's a right to be able to pirate goods? Far be it from me to berate people for doing it (who hasn't?), but I'm not going to act like it's a right and how DARE someone say otherwise!
No, you are just being ignorant and "intentionally naieve".
The OP said a LEGAL DICTIONARY. These sorts of things tend to cite case law. This isn't just some random "laymans" dictionary we're talking about here.
This is something you'd know about if you had ever cracked one open in your life.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is much like the usual common misunderstanding of what murder is (legally).
Quite often you will see fiction or news story take a certain set of facts that
meet the obvious criteria for NOT being murder and make all sorts of noise about
"injustice" if the perp "gets off".
In law and morality, all the little details matter.
Those that whine about some sort of moral or ethical "purity" should be the first
ones to start the splitting of hairs and insist on painfully precise terminology.
Like rules so much? Then start by actually paying attention to them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Do you think it's a right to be able to pirate goods? Far be it from me to berate people for doing it (who hasn't?), but I'm not going to act like it's a right and how DARE someone say otherwise! Steering clear of your biased terms such as 'piracy', I would say that there is absolutely nothing wrong in making a digital copy of something. Nothing is being stolen. Try to think beyond the outdated copyright system you have been led to believe is 'correct'.
Please, that is not the context they use the word and you know it.
They use the word to equate pirace with direct and immediate loss of money.
You want to get selective and ignore context? fine:
People who pirate give acknowledgment to that people who make the game. Clearly any one but a moron can see that number two is about taking credit and appropriate(ideas, credit, words, etc.).
SO it doesn't apply.
Also, you will always be number two to me.
Number three:
Could deleberitly butchered it in your quote and change what they were saying. Shame on you.
"or win insidiously"
i.e. cheat.
So it is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There is even special laws regarding it for that very fucking reason.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wish there was a "-1, Idiot" mod.
The point of his rant was that he knows he can't make bits copyable, despite the fact that he wishes otherwise. It was in TFS...
Change "he can't make bits copyable" to "he can't make bits uncopyable".
I still don't like the idea of copying. But the analogies discussed here made me realize something. This issue has been with us **always**. But, in a way, we seem to be redefining theft. Let's take an example: Throughout history men and women have spent a lot of effort designing furniture. They would then sell this furniture. Someone else, upon seeing this new design, would go and copy it and make their own, sometimes even selling it. We have entire periods and styles of furniture throughout history based on this. **no-one ever thought a thing about it***. Thoughout history men and women have created products from their own materials that were exactly like others they saw or owned. In some cases it might have been considered tacky (imitating art), but in others it was just thought of as making do. Why are we now making the reproduction of things so restrictive after an entire history of humanity freely reproduced works of which were instrumental in making progress? Imagine if the "copying" of books had been (successfully) banned a thousand years ago? We might not have a Bible, or Shakespears works, or a guitar? Thanks to slashdot I am beginning to see this issue as a fundamental issue of a civilized society and now believe we should have very strict limits on copywrite.
Way to gain sympathy from them by calling them thieves?
You know... they will not buy stuff from people they don't like.
Especially if 1. they would/could not buy it anyway, and 2. you still have that game, so it was not stolen, and they are no thieves. (Stealing = Original owner does not have it anymore.)
I agree that it's unfortunate and stupid of those users, to come knocking on your servers, so they can use them without actually paying for anything. And this part really would be something close to stealing. (I don't know how it's called in US law, when you obtain something by fraud.)
But this way, you just pissed them off in addition. Good luck selling future games to them.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Um, bullshit. Complete bullshit. Someone worked on that so they could make some money. They don't make this stuff for free. You see, there is something wrong with making a digital copy under certain circumstances, ie, copying music from a CD to an iPod is fine, but downloading commercial software for free is not. It's not the same thing as stealing a physical item from a store as nobody loses a piece of inventory, but you're still taking something that belongs to someone else, essentially. Yeah, I pirate software from time to time, but I also purchase software when I can. Saying there's nothing wrong is idiotic. If there's nothing wrong, then we should all do it! Byebye to the vast majority of the software industry. Believe it or not, most people want to make money off of their work so they can eat. Sure, some folks make free software, and that's fine if they want to, but saying that all software should be free whether the creators like it or not only makes you look like an utter prick who is trying to justify what he's doing.
The type of DRM limits his play, and the update basically made it impossible to play the game,e ven with a new install of the original media.
Either it was download electronically(steam?) or there is online play you must ahve the DRM for.
The company added a limitation AFTER the purchase. At the very least people who don't like it should get there money back if they so choose.
It isn't a fix, it's adding a limitation to being able to play the game.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Heracles called. He wants his glory back.
I see this argument a lot, and it is as equally as mindless as the PR folks trotting out the "copying = theft" in such simple terms. At the end of the day it is still theft. It is dealing with lost revenue. That revenue has been taken from me and I can no longer use it. That is the whole "theft" piece that zealots try to use to debunk copying=theft. The problem is they aren't stealing the game/music/whatever. They are stealing revenue.
Now...to go on and say that every pirated copy = 1 lost sale is pretty intellectuallily dishonest too. But to say no pirated copy = any lost sales is equally stupid. So...some percentage of pirated copies DO equate to some number of lost sales. Those lost sales are stolen revenue. Now...since there is no way to round up all the people and figure out which ones would have bought it and would not have bought it, the only sane approach is to spread the lost revenue across all of them. Some companies try to do that using the 1 copy = 1 lost sale ratio, and I think that is pretty bogus, but there is going to be a more correct formula for determining that average and it is not $0 lost/copy.
It amuses me to no end to watch people who have absolutely no underestanding of business or economics chiming in on how this should work. It is honestly almost more amusing than the people that have no understanding of the technology chime in.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Same with Starcraft and Diablo II. I still play those games under Wine, and now I don't even need my CD with the official patches. Good times.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Uh, maybe you don't remember the last article about this:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/18/0255254&from=rss
In short, piracy cost them plenty, in time and money.
Comment of the year
I read the article and the first thing that came to my mind was "you know, you're right." I like his solution (more or less.) A nice way to look at it.
-- Jason
I've pirated a lot of games, but out of respect for Stardock's principled stand, I haven't done this with Demigod or any of their other games. Pirates in general who rationalize by complaining about the price of games or draconian copy protection should go out of their way to accommodate the few (or one) publisher who acts reasonably. Presumably they're saving a ton of money by getting their games for free, so some of that money should go to Stardock. That is, if you like the game. Which suggests another problem of "how can I know that" so I'm waiting for a demo. Does a demo exist yet?
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Unfortunately the "Is it fun?" stage is usually the one that gets shortened in favor of "Does it have teh shinies?" stage.
Oh lord, grow up. The whole piracy isn't thievery thing has reached stupid levels on here. People are not paying for something that people spent a lot of time and effort on. It is a form of thievery that has been legally defined as copyright infringement.
They actually did "loose" money since the pirated copies forced them to work overtime upgrading their online service and caused a degradation in performance to their customers.
What the hell studies are you talking about? Studies written by people with your immature frame of mind? Studies written by people who don't actually write and sell software? Give me a break.
There are plenty of ways you can find out about a game without using piracy. You can read reviews by a reviewer that likes games you like. You can look at sales. You can look at how it is rated on various sites. You can ask your friends. But you choose to rationalize your illegal activities instead. Pathetic.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
There are a lot of open source game projects that would love to have people donate their time helping to improve the product.
Really? Damn, I need to go reinstall Diablo II now that i won't have to search for the disk every time i want to play it.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
If I don't get what I want, they don't get what they want (My money)
I don't want a game that phones home
I don't want to keep a CD in the drive (resorting to using daemon tools or no CD cracks)
I don't want DRM crapware installed
They want my money, but they seam to get that people want no strings attached game. And as I haven't heard of this game before, I will try it, if I like it I will buy it. Lets see if they actually made a fun game that I am looking for. If it meets my requirements, and is fun, I may get more than on copy, and my friends too for lan play.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
It sounds like the Stardock CEO understands that, but he's still not about to let the pirates feel all warm and fuzzy inside about what they're doing. Playing a pirated version of a game longer than the few days it takes to figure out if it'll run on your system or if its fun or not is wrong, no matter if you want to call it theft, copyright infringement, or simply bad juju.
Call me an optimist, but I hope people will have more common sense when that day comes.
The justification for having the patent will be so I can make money off it so I can get stuff and feed my family. If we had replicator technology, I can get stuff basically for free anyway, food included. So if I'm the type of person who's happiness depends on how much stuff I have, then i can still be happy. The only type of person this doesn't work out well for is the type that is only happy when they have something and no one else has it. But those people are mostly dicks anyway.
Of course, now there's a problem with motivating people to actually do some work, but that's the future's problem. Let them deal with it.
Then we'd all have to change our viewing preferences to -5.
Don 't go there.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
World of Goo had something like a 95% piracy rate, and I believe the studio stopped making games because they couldn't make ends meet. Don't think you want to use them as a good example of this working.
Is this a court of law or a regular internet forum?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Just wanted to let you know, I believe that with Impulse you can "Archive" any game you have downloaded / installed (or update for a game), to be installed in the future. From what I understand, Impulse may still need to connect to their servers to verify you own the game, however they are working on "Impulse Anywhere" (see http://anywhere.impulsedriven.com/ which sounds like it will allow you download an offline installer for the games you've purchased.
Only applies if you pirate the game and then use their servers to play. Setting up your own hamachi connection to play Demigod or simply downloading and playing something like Arcanum would not qualify.
I see this argument a lot, and it is as equally as mindless as the PR folks trotting out the "copying = theft" in such simple terms. At the end of the day it is still theft. It is dealing with lost revenue. That revenue has been taken from me and I can no longer use it.
False. It wasn't taken from you, and it's disingenuous to say "I can no longer use it", because you never had it in the first place. It was hypothetical, potential revenue: money that your customers might have given you. But until they actually decide to give it to you, it still belongs to them, not you, even if you really really wish they'd give it to you. You can't lose something that isn't yours.
This is like saying Roger Ebert "steals" money from movie theaters and studios when he gives a bad review. They were never entitled to that money anyway; it belongs to the customers, and it's up to those customers to decide whether they want to spend it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
HE'S FULL OF IT?
Look up the words "digital", "rights" and "management".
Anyways, Demigod requires online servers to unlock functionality. Are those online servers DRM?
Depends. Are those servers controlled by the owner of the software or the vendor?
Because if they aren't, then anyone who sets up their own server (they're out there), has unlocked that functionality.
If those servers are not hacks, are legal and the average purchaser can create and access those servers then the game is not DRM'ed.
At the end of the day, you just seem like you don't want to participate in a capitalist society, and I have to wonder, what are you doing in the US?
Irrelevant to the question of whether a piece of software has DRM or not. I'm more than happy to participate in a capitalist society however you seem to have a very narrow view of what a capitalist society is.
---
For the copyright bargain to be valid all DRM'ed works should lose copyright.
If the game requires any form of authentication to unlock any significant functionality then it's DRM'ed.
Finally, a co-conspirator! I too demand an end to Slashdot's and gmail's reign of DRM tyranny.
I've been lobbying for years for random people to be allowed to log onto my account to post and read my emails. However, the fatcats in Dexter and the Googleplex want to keep swimming in their moneybins and refuse to acknowledge my request.
Please communicate with me via email at nitpicker999@gmail.com.
The only thing I care about (as a gamer) is whether the game plays (excluding obvious stuff like the game should be fun :P ), and lately a lot of games just don't run. :/ I can't tell you how aggravating it is to buy a game, install it, and find out it crashes instantly with some error code related to the DRM.
Funny you should mention that because I'm one of the many people that are having serious issues using Demigod. The single player works mostly as advertised. But the multiplayer uses a new P2P system, and for some unknown reason I can't connect to 90% of people. And if you can't connect to someone, then you can't play in their game. A patch they pushed out a week ago changed it so that about 75% of the time if you can't connect, the game locks up (this affects everyone). Yes, it locks up, and they've done nothing about it for the past week.
Granted, these issues appear to be the result of absolutely terrible network code instead of DRM, but it still pisses me off. I've lost hours fiddling with settings to no avail. Today I went from my Windows XP install to a fresh install of Windows 7 x64 RC1. I literally installed the OS and then Demigod, and I'm having the exact same issues. I hate them.
I'm sorry? How about the update that they pushed out a week ago that gives you a high probability of the game locking up if a match connection fails? They pushed it out on a Friday night, and then told people to wait until Monday because the developers were at home for the weekend. Now it's the following Saturday and there is still no patch to fix the patch.
Saying I am not happy with their support is an understatement.
Have you bothered to read the studies?
That isn't helpful. What studies?
He's been perfectly obvious as to what he's talking about, and perfectly correct.
You can argue that Stardock uses permissive DRM. You can't argue that they don't use DRM if there's any product activation or authentication.
There was a study done recently that showed music pirates actually buy more music online than those that don't pirate any at all. Granted this probably does not apply as well to games, but I think stardock having some faith in the consumer base has paid of for them in more ways than one. Not having to deal with pain in the ass DRM has made me appreciate them even more.