Nintendo To Take On Piracy In 3-D

crimeandpunishment writes "Nintendo says when its new handheld game device with 3-D technology comes out, it will have beefed-up anti-piracy measures. For obvious reasons, the company is keeping tight-lipped on the specifics. Nintendo President Satoru Iwata says they're not only concerned about software piracy, but also a growing tolerance for it. He said, 'We fear a kind of thinking is become widespread that paying for software is meaningless.'"

Comments

Nail on the head

[Ginger Unicorn]

paying for copies of software is meaningless

Re:Nail on the head

[DarkKnightRadick]

Too true. Hence the movement toward SaaS (Software as a Service).

Re:Nail on the head

[sznupi]

So sell on the basis of hardware. Nintendo DS already has some examples. Though I kinda doubt they have such direction in mind, a direction of making the sofware irrelevant without customised (and enhancing the gameplay!) hardware accessory; that way I wouldn't really mind.

Re:Nail on the head

[rxan]

Care to elaborate?

Re:Nail on the head

[SpeedyDX]

I'm kind of hesitant to reply. I see a kind of discrepancy, but I'm not quite sure how to explain it, or how to rectify it. So I'm just going to do my best to describe what I see.

As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service. Why? We want to own media content, but we don't really care about owning software, just using it. But both are very similar. We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions. Same goes for games.

Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be. On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.

SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. Would the same model applied to music or games not work? Why wouldn't it work? Is it just a conceptual problem (i.e., we have this idea that we should "own" music or games that we pay for)? What if it was marketed appropriately (i.e., just honestly tell people that they're simply paying for a license to play the game or listen to music on the licenser's terms, instead of implying that paying for it = owning it), would that solve the problem?

Thinking about all of this is making my head hurt. I have no idea what the actual solution should be. There are arguments to be made on every side, and I'm not in a particularly good position to make any of those arguments. I just wanted to get the conversation started.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of SaaS? How would that be fundamentally different from MaaS or GaaS?

Re:Nail on the head

[Ginger Unicorn]

Sorry I'm too tired. The piracy argument gets played out over and over on slashdot; give it a couple of hours and everyone else will have elaborated for me.

Re:Nail on the head

[rxan]

So true, so true.

Re:Nail on the head

[Mr. Freeman]

"On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish."

The problems you describe have NOTHING to do with the creators wishing to be compensated. Payment does NOT necessitate absurd DRM.

Re:Nail on the head

[nlawalker]

That's one reason digital distribution makes sense: it pushes the value of a copy close to zero (as opposed to now, where you have to pay for packaging, shipping and shelf space), and makes payment truly represent a *license*, not a *copy*. Are licenses meaningless too? If so, how do you suggest that the people who spent time making the software be compensated?

Re:Nail on the head

[DaleGlass]

Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be. On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game.

Right. That's why I don't pay for such things.

On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.

No, there's no right to compensation for creation. The creator may set their work for sale, and I may choose to buy it, but that's it. If the creator sells their work under conditions people aren't willing to put up with the creator should go out of business.

This is why I don't support schemes like a "piracy tax".

SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. Would the same model applied to music or games not work? Why wouldn't it work?

I wouldn't go with it because I can't copy the music to whatever device I please, or use it without an internet connection. Being able to do this is a requirement for me paying for it. Either your music is sold as a plain file (preferentially lossless) with no strings attached, or I don't pay for it.

Is it just a conceptual problem (i.e., we have this idea that we should "own" music or games that we pay for)?

Right.

What if it was marketed appropriately (i.e., just honestly tell people that they're simply paying for a license to play the game or listen to music on the licenser's terms, instead of implying that paying for it = owning it),
would that solve the problem?

No, it isn't. I absolutely refuse to contribute a cent towards any such a thing, no matter how marketed or presented, or even at what price.

And since DRM-free music stores are common there's no need for me to even consider using such a service.

Re:Nail on the head

[blahplusplus]

"paying for copies of software is meaningless"

Paying for crappy game software is meaningless.

Re:Nail on the head

[lilo_booter]

Game software is - but the data which the software uses? That's worth something, sometimes.. depends on the game of course...

Re:Nail on the head

[sigma_epsilon]

While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service.

Pandora. I pay for it. Media as a service works as long as the media is actually a service, not a more obnoxious way to get something that you could store locally anyway. The whole point of SaaS is to provide added benefit at the expense of requiring an internet connection. It's why WoW works, and why Steam works, but why Ubi's DRM doesn't. With WoW, you get other players by connecting to the server. With Steam, you can host your games in the cloud. With Pandora, you can take advantage of their algorithms. With DRM, you just have to connect to the internet without any additional benefit.

Re:Nail on the head

[Theaetetus]

On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish.

No, there's no right to compensation for creation. The creator may set their work for sale, and I may choose to buy it, but that's it.

And if you choose not to buy it, you should not be able to use it. The use and the compensation are thus linked.

Re:Nail on the head

[metamatic]

While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service.

Funny, I'm exactly the opposite.

I want to control when I get software upgrades, and not be reliant on someone for access to my data, so software as a service is extremely unappealing to me.

However, if I could get access to an infinite jukebox with a superset of my music collection for a monthly fee, I'd definitely go for that.

Re:Nail on the head

[blahplusplus]

Your post demonstrates why copyright needs to be abolished, it is nothing more then illegitimate monopoly.

Re:Nail on the head

[DaleGlass]

And if you choose not to buy it, you should not be able to use it. The use and the compensation are thus linked.

Sure. I don't advocate piracy. I just don't think it's such a big deal.

As I said earlier, I very prefentially pay for things whose creators aren't obsessed with control. The more controlling, the harder I will try to find an unrestricted alternative (or just go without).

And then of course I get added to the piracy statistics anyway, because people can't possibly be refusing to buy things with DRM, it has to be because it's getting pirated.

Re:Nail on the head

[ShogunTux]

Music as a service would be called concert venues. Basically, the bands would distribute their music in a recorded form as a way of advertisement over the net, and use it as a way to try to attract people to attend their live performances. They could then also attempt to sell other merchandise options, including CDs, if they still have value to their particular audience. Many smaller groups have had decent success this route, and it also gets rid of the need for middlemen like the RIAA. What we are seeing today is the music industry trying to fight tooth and nail to not be made irrelevant, even though they don't really add much value, if any, anymore. This sort of a model works, and there's many indie artists who have proven so. So in short, I'd say that there's plenty of people that would support that.

As for software as a service, the way you describe doing it is not software as a service, persay. I'd describe software as a service being done successfully as utilizing parts or all of a few different models. The first is cloud type services, like MMORPGs, or other online apps. These make it irrelevant as to whether you own the software or not, since what is really being sold is a subscription service (much like rentals). The other model, which I haven't seen a lot outside of the business world (which is a shame, really), is ticket based release. This is a lot like setting a bounty up on different targets, then being able to cash in on those bounties when those targets are acheived. So, developers can place down target features on a site, and let users invest in what they want to see done. Then, the company is more likely to chase after tickets which have higher bounties on them. The last way that I can think of that can be rather successful would be to sell support contracts. This is a lot like the last suggestion, but which is instead a flat fee paid monthly, yearly, etc. in which you're guaranteed that if you happen to have a problem with the software, that you will be able to have someone be able to resolve your issue, and will work to make custom patches especially for you if needed (or for your own software running on theirs, if needed).

Is it as much of a cash cow as the current way of doing things? Well, it depends. What these sort of models force you to do is to think smarter, not harder, which scares a lot of people. However, I think that it's inevitable that we will eventually arrive at a point where this will be the way in which media is handled. You can only keep fake barriers going for so long before you're just hurting yourselves by doing so (for instance, living off of a lie). I think that industries which are trying to uphold the old way of doing things are eventually going to either die off like the buggy whip makers or embrace and utilize alternative revenue streams that don't rely on them inflating an artificial market. We've seen this time and again throughout history, and we've always killed off leech or dead industries. The arguments that we see now were said about just about every technological advance that has ever been made. The difference is that now we seem to be paying them far more attention than they have gotten before.

In any case, if any industry really cares about adding value for their products, all they really need to do is to continue to do things for consumers that they can't do for themselves. If they fail to do this, then they should rightfully die off. If copying is at a point where any consumer can do so with ease (and it is), the answer is not to cut into your own profits by trying to kill that, the real answer is to change your business model to be able to acknowledge that your copying is no longer providing any value to the consumer. The sooner businesses realize this, and stop treating consumers as guilty until proven innocent, the healthier of a marketplace we can have.

Re:Nail on the head

[xtracto]

Of course these issues are very subjective. So I will just add my personal opinion:

I think the problem a lot of people have with SaaS is not with the *software* itself, but with the *data*.

For me, I would have no problem with the following framework:
1. SaaS prodcut to say, manage all my daily tasks (kind of what Google does), but with...
2. A personal place where I could save my data, say from my HDD or from another service like drop-box. The SaaS product would only be able to pull and process my data when *I* decide so. In addition ...
3. The data would be stored on an open format (say, some kind of well documented XML) which I can migrate to any other software or service whenever I want.

Re:Nail on the head

[MeNeXT]

I pay for music so I ca listen to it when and how I choose otherwise I turn on the radio.

I pay for software so I can use it when and how I choose otherwise I have now use for it. If software is tied into a service then I will pay for the service and not for the software.

The value that you perceive is not the value that I perceive. If I own a business and say I chose Win 95 as a platform. I invested a lot of resources to implement a custom business tool. Now 15 years later Win 95 has little/less value for Microsoft but my custom solution which runs my business has considerable value to me. Modifying the software brings no advantage to me all it adds is cost. Since MS decided to no longer support Win95 I have no options but to move forward.

I have music from the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's .... Now the plastic that this music resides on has very little value. The money which I paid to acquire this music was not for the plastic but for the songs which reside on the plastic. My collection contains music which cannot be acquired in digital format. Now if I decide to digitize my collection so I can continue to listen to it will cost me time. If I were to repurchase all the music It would cost me more than a years salary. I can convert it in a month or two. Trust me I did not spend to reacquire the music. I paid the artist in the original purchase and have not required any involvement on his part for my conversion.

SaaS has a limitation. If my business or use requires a longer commitment than the service provider is willing to offer then I may be risking more than the cost of the software. I may be risking my business.

MaaS is available right now. It's called radio. It has the same limitation as SaaS. If the radio station stops playing the song I like, I no longer have a need for the station.

SaaS and MaaS is not a solution for the consumer as purchase, it's a rental and should be sold as such.

Re:Nail on the head

[Urza9814]

While a lot of slashdotters support Software as a Service, very few, if any, would support Music as a Service.

The problem with music as a service is either it doesn't work for the customer or it doesn't work for the business. Either you can't get the music on all your devices, or it's easy to copy and therefore you don't really need to pay for it.

Compare it to subscription software like MMORPGs. When you pay for World of Warcraft, you aren't paying for the software. Software's free. You can load it on as many computers as you want, as many times as you want. Yes, they change for it in stores, but those also come with a free subscription, so really you're paying for the subscription, and happen to get the program on plastic discs along with it. But anyway, the reason it works as a service is because you need Blizzard's servers. That's what you're paying for. If you want to go use some third-party servers, they aren't going to stop you and they aren't going to try to change you for that. That doesn't work with music. You don't need a third party server to play your music.

Now, the alternative is software as a service as in a support contract. But music has no support, either. In this scenario, you would get the music for free and pay the artists to fix any problems you have with it. It's absurd. Music doesn't have tech support. It doesn't have patches.

People support SaaS but not MaaS because with music, there is no service to provide. With SaaS, the service is not actually the software itself, it's some related component that has some very visible cost.

Re:Nail on the head

[Bert64]

Music as a service is actually well established and significantly predates music being sold as recorded media... Someone who plays live music for you is providing that music as a service, as is music which is broadcast on the radio...

Personally, i have no issue paying for someone who is providing a service, be it software based, music or whatever...
And i have no problem paying for goods where the price is reasonable...

However, i STRONGLY object to being charged a ridiculous amount for something that was trivially duplicated, and then to add insult to injury - being inconvenienced by some draconian drm scheme. I find it a gross corruption of the free market concept that someone is able to get away with selling a good with extortionate profit margins disproportionate to the amount of work involved.

Re:Nail on the head

[psnyder]

I strongly disagree with trying to turn a "Public Good" into a "Club Good". I do not believe innovation on public goods (such as artistic endeavors) will stop if the artificial scarcity created by IP law is lifted. Others may disagree with me, but the experiment is being done on the internet right now with movies, music, literature, and software. Quality work is being done by people that are not given monetary incentives. The easier it gets to create and distribute, the less current IP law can be justified (since its purpose is to give incentives to create and distribute by restricting what other people can do with the work).

I think the misconception comes from being able to distinguish between things that require maintenance (ex: internet lines) and things which do not (ex: the patterns being transmitted by the internet lines).

Re:Nail on the head

[Kjella]

As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. (...) Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be.

Principally, it is not necessary that we have to have "sales" of anything. I could lease everything right down to the shirt on my back, it'd all be under the EULA (End User Lease Agreement) which gives me a perpetual, irrevocable lease under this and those conditions. Why then do we want sales? Because sales are simple and practical terms, you give me the product, I give you the money and we each walk our separate ways. For the most part, I can do whatever the hell I want with it and it's none of your business.

Licensing is the way to get around all those pesky rights you are given by a sale. There's is no doubt about this, making something a license instead of a sale is exclusively to the advantage of the licensor and to the disadvantage of the licensee. Software should not be licensed, I should be able to buy a copy equally well if it's a Toyota Prius, a Harry Potter book or Microsoft Office 2010 without any additional strings attached. No reading of a 50-page EULA to see if I can wear this shirt of a demonstration or whether it'll need reactivation if I change my pants.

On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish. SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. (...) would that solve the problem?

It'd certainly stop the "problem" of anything ever being yours, even in the license-crippled state. Except I don't see that as a problem. People don't see that as a problem. In fact, they very much like to own things. In fact, it's whenever they realize they didn't really get to buy it despite handing over the cash that they get pissed at DRM and licensing and activations and live internet connection required. Many people on slashdot support the "service and support" business model of open source, which is way different than SaaS. Software leasing has mostly been a flop, as companies realize the only point is to extort a continuous money stream whether you want to upgrade or not.

iTunes did not die when they dropped DRM, the better question is if there's a problem here that needs solving or are there just some executives looking at some highly imaginary number of sales they didn't get? Is there any real evidence of a mass death of games/TV series/movies/bands? I think the only thing pushing for even more SaaS will do is more people pushing back. More people that think pirating is the closest thing they'll come to owning anything, it's after all the only thing that'll run on their computers alone without linking with the mothership.

Re:Nail on the head

[mmortal03]

There is one thing that MaaS, VaaS, and GaaS can have that SaaS doesn't. For example, I didn't use to think I would want it, but MaaS is great for someone like me who likes to listen to and explore lot of varieties of music, but can't afford to buy ALL of it (nor would I necessarily want to, and that's the point). Video as a Service (e.g. Video on Demand) works the same way. I'd rather pay a monthly rate and be able to watch or listen to whatever I want. When there is tons of content, it makes sense. Now, I happen to subscribe to Napster, and unfortunately I can't listen to it streaming on my phone because my phone isn't supported, but I don't see why they won't eventually open this kind of feature up to a lot of phone networks once the bandwidth is there.

Re:Nail on the head

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it a gross corruption of the free market concept that someone is able to get away with selling a good with extortionate profit margins disproportionate to the amount of work involved.

Right you are. That definitely sounds like the corruption of the free market. The free market should really operate on the theory of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Only then would it truly be free.

&sarcmark;

Re:Nail on the head

[DarkKnightRadick]

MaaS and GaaS already exist. See radio and arcades. There is a reason why entertainment and productivity tools are looked upon differently. They provide different needs. I use OOo so infrequently as to not care if I have it installed or use Google Docs instead (actually, not entirely true, I like being able to export to PDF). OTOH, you made the argument for music (being able to transfer it across devices you own without restriction, listen to it whenever). Arcades seem to be a niche market, but it does exist, that doesn't necessarily have to do with having to pay for the games and more to do with the increased power a PC offers in order to play better games. Also, MMORPGs such as Warhammer Online, WoW, and others already treat their games as GaaS. I do think subscription based games should top out at $25 at the store. After all, you are only purchasing the installer, a fancy box, and maybe a manual that's useful. Aside from that, you have to subscribe to do any sort of playing. Most of the money made on those games is at the subscriber level.

Of course I say all this without reading the other comments first.

Re:Nail on the head

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to let you in on a little-known secret (ssh! don't tell!) The cost of software creation is principally in its development, not in its duplication, or its distribution. You're not paying for the DVD mastering process. You're paying for the three years of work - for the thousands or hundred-thousands of human-hours - of which the duplication was only the final, trivial step. In essence, you are making a retroactive investment in the company's venture. By the time a piece of software hits the market, it is an actual financial loss to the developer or its backers. Sales defray that loss. Ideally, enough sales are made to turn a profit, in which case the developer may have enough capital or investor confidence to work on another project. How is paying for copies of software meaningless?

Re:Nail on the head

[CAIMLAS]

To explain it logically: software is the only thing you can buy which has no inherent value and can not be quantified. A "new version" usually isn't - it's something entirely different, more often than not. Unlike physical devices, the release of a newer version makes the older version actually less functional and useful.

Compare it to a physical device like, say, an ammunition loading press. You buy it once and you'll usually get a warranty against defects. Many of them offer free updates/fixes for an extended period of time, sometimes perpetually. Automobiles are the same way. Where, in software, are you going to find an update (ie product recall or whatever) 3+ years out from the point of initial release when multiple releases have been made since?

You won't, in all likelihood: the majority of software is just major releases, not fixes. Software is disposable. If physical devices were to do this, EVERYTHING would be a "dumb consumer device" with no replaceable parts. Even if someone wanted to, there would be no parts available due to intellectual/legal restrictions.

So unless when you pay you get free updates/upgrades to the latest version, there seems no point in paying. The cost to the software company is only in providing a download point for the functionality fixes and minimal R&D into problems. Yet they don't usually provide such services: they just release a new version for more money.

Re:Nail on the head

[DarkKnightRadick]

???

I'm not sure what point you are responding to. I was only discussing software as a service, not commenting on gross copyright infringement.

Re:Nail on the head

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Software as a service is more useful than music as a service if only because buying and maintaining a computer costs a lot of money. The less expense and trouble involved in the process, the more valuable SaaS is compared to "owning" your software--as with a lot of open source software, where it's yours, now YOU make it work.

Today, playing media is something that can be done anywhere on extremely cheap hardware with lots of storage, and many of the devices that play it have no OS maintenance overhead--any updates at all would just be pushed over the net or done with a quick update. Owning your own music has no additional overhead the way owning software does, and in fact as DRM is showing clearly, leasing content DOES have overhead.

Re:Nail on the head

[Zaphod The 42nd]

uh, WoW doesn't count as GaaS. If it does, then just say ALL MMORPGs becasue they all use the exact same business model. But you're definitely still have to "buy" the game first before you can use it, so I don't think that counts as a service. you still have to initially purchase the licence, you're just ALSO paying supporting fees. GaaS would be more like GameTap, where you pay monthly and can just play all the games you want. No ownership involved.

MaaS I guess pandora and Last.fm count, you can't download any of the songs, but you can listen to them in a service-like manner.

but still, they both seemed off.

Re:Nail on the head

[binarylarry]

Steve,

It's dead. Just let it go.

Yours Truly,
binarylarry Esq.

Re:Nail on the head

[el3mentary]

Piracy of Nintendo products amounts to 1/10 of 1%. A website may broadcast success in homebrew operations but how many hits to that web site result into actually copying titles and comprimises to hardware measures?

0, 10, 5?

1 in 1,000,000 individuals possess the knowledge to mod a nintendo DS. 1 in 200,000,000 can possibly comprimise a nintendo Wii.

I'm sorry there's no way those figure are even close, that would imply that worldwide there are only 30-35 people capable of modding a Wii

Re:Nail on the head

[b4dc0d3r]

Philosophically you are correct. Economically you're missing the point. The creators wishing to be compensated does necessitate absurd DRM. Why? Because they see their product as no different from a tangible good. If I sell you a lump of gold, you can't make a copy and sell it to someone else. You can't make a copy and give it away. You can't deprive me of future sales or profits except by buying my gold from me and then underselling me, at a loss to yourself.

Every time someone uses a digital good, the creators wish to be paid. They want to make it impossible for you to copy something while sending you the locked product and the key in the same box, which I think you'll agree is absurd. The difference between philosophic and economic analysis is that wishing for payment in return for use is independent of the economic reality that if you don't protect something, there will be people who abuse the freedom.

So to paraphrase what you said, fair use should be independent of protection method. But it can't be, because protection pretty much guarantees you don't get fair use, they are mutually exclusive. If I protect something so that no one can break it, no one can get fair use.

People wishing to be compensated is the cause of DRM. Philosophically there is nothing inherent to a wish which requires DRM, unless you are the creator, know about DRM, and wish to protect your creation. In that case it is essential.

I'm not defending DRM, but it's hard to argue when people argue from so many different perspectives. You want to counter a current economic reality by suggesting that the cause and the effect have nothing to do with each other. Your last sentence is more accurate than your penultimate one. Economic reality shows that the desire for compensation is related to DRM, just not intrinsically or inherently so.

Payment does not necessitate absurd DRM, that is a concept which most people would agree with, but no one has found an acceptable method of selling a product with zero protection. We do have DRM-free MP3 sales possible, but things like iTunes have their own implicit DRM. You buy through iTunes music store, it sends to your iPod, it's a closed circle for most people. Not every label is going DRM free on all sites.

Your post should have read "You're making a false dichotomoy - there is middle ground between wishing to be compensated and using DRM as a solution." But the problem with that is you're reading the comment literally. Implicit in the second half is the idea "...therefore people should be allowed to protect their content, in contrast to what I just said," which is kinda taken care of by the phrase "on the other hand". No one has solved the problem of selling an easily copyable product without DRM. The funny thing of course is that people sell DVDs with essentially meaningless CSS encryption, but they won't break down and skip the CSS. DVD players will play plaintext content, and just about anyone who buys a DVD drive gets software that can copy or back up DVDs. There is literally no point to the DRM, but they will never let it go. Blu-Ray keeps adding encryption, which breaks older players, making it actually counterproductive in all of the complaints and returns. DRM makes customers frustrated and less likely to buy legit, but it's already in the loop - we can't break out without someone making a workable business model out of plaintext content. Streaming video is popular, and it works by providing little bits at a time and people are happy. I can't use it on 768k DSL, so I let bittorrent buffer the movie before playing. If netflix paid my broadband bill I'd upgrade. There are kinks in the business models, and until they are worked out the only answer for someone wishing to be compensated is DRM, even though lots of other industries get by perfectly fine without DRM making it *apparently* unnecessary.

Re:Nail on the head

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't ever actually own either. Other people own copyrights or patents on them. In both cases, when we "buy" the product, we're actually just buying a license to use that product. We don't own the product, we just have a license to use it under certain conditions.

No! No, no, no! Please, stop perpetrating this dangerous myth.

When you buy a CD, what you have bought is a physical object. The physical object is yours to do with as you see fit: you can give it away, destroy it, put it on your shelf, whatever.

The physical object also happens to contain music. You can listen to this music, and you do NOT need a license for this, and neither do you have one. Rather, putting the physical object - the CD - into a CD player and pressing "Play" is one of the things that you are naturally allowed to do with a physical object that you *OWN*.

There are a few restrictions now: a blacklist of things you are not allowed to do after all, if you will. These restrictions are codified in copyright law; for example, depending on your jurisdiction, you may not be able to make copies of your CD and give them away.

Copyright holders can grant you the right to do these things after all (this is what a license would do). Copyright holders can NOT take away rights that copyright law itself doesn't restrict without your consent.

In theory, copyright holders of course could enter a contract with you where you voluntarily sign away some rights. I'm not gonna ask "why would you do that"; instead, I'll point out that you DON'T. If you buy a CD, you do not have a contract with anyone except for the store that sold it to you, and that contract is a standard sales contract.

Re:Nail on the head

[jesset77]

@SpeedyDX

I can't find a simple quote, so I'll sum up. You're saying "I've noticed slashdotters like Saas as a possible copyright sidestep for Software, but seem to enjoy having offline, bit-level (or nysquist-sampling-level) control over their music. Is this a double standard?"

Firstly, thank you for the astute observation. I don't believe this is a double standard, however. The mechanics of playing a game or using software vs listening to music are very different. In order to use software you must be at a computer, in order to play a game you must be at a game console, and in all of these scenarios we normally also want internet access. We appreciate the realtime connectedness (both social and infrastructural) online infrastructure allows us in virtually all software/game settings.

For example, rare is the time you want to work on a document or spreadsheet that you won't show it to someone when you are finished, so Google Docs (one example) beats Word/XL because the person (or more tellingly, the people) you will show it to can view it while you are working on it, make changes, version control is baked in for you, the social element is integral to that application. MMorpg players must be online, both to collaborate with other players and to interact with a realtime, globally persistent environment. Even puzzle gamers enjoy competing against one another, posting high scores, easy access to forums to get them unstuck, etc.

This is a generalization. I don't want all my software in the cloud, there are many swiss army knives (for example) I just want on my machine. I am a network engineer, so there are times I want bit-level control over a certain toolkit of software: where by definition I have no access to the internet. The generalization does cover a vast majority of todays profit centers in software however.

Finally, at issue with software is that the customer is not really interested in the bits, but in the service provided. One drawback to owning the bits is the administrative hassles of bit-rot: your software needs security updates, feature additions to remain competitive, UI improvements, etc over time. All things equal, the less you as a consumer have to do stay on this treadmill the better.

The contrast to music is that music (again, generalization..) represents a static piece of artwork. I want to hear that one song. I do not need to socialize to hear it, I do not need access to anything that changes in realtime, there is no bitrot or administrative updates required, a static string of bits will continue representing that song (assuming I either always know how to decode the bits, or else assuming I can transcode them over time) for perpetuity. I am not limited to experiencing this media on equipment where I already want interent connectivity, either. Sometimes I want to hear it in my car. Sometimes to lul me to sleep. Sometimes as I'm jogging, and I don't want the song interrupted by "dead zones". For music, it is virtually always advantageous to have the bits, and always relatively disadvantageous to tether to the net.

The important illumination here is that these are two invaluable data points in understanding consumer expectations. They are not at odds with one another, and both serve to demonstrate the disruptive role of copyright in a consumer's relationship with creative works. In short, it is sane to sell me software as a service. That provides me value which cannot easily be duplicated. It is sane to offer bits for sale, and people will still buy them without DRM. It is not sane to pitch a fit that those bits will then be freely shared, and so try to ruin the experience for your customers. After all, I am not really paying you for the bits, am I? I am paying for you to conveniently provide me with the media I want. I am buying a satisfaction guarantee. I am funding your continued efforts. I am seriously not going to do that if you treat me like a criminal.

@b4dc0d3r

no one has found an acceptable method of selling a product with z

Re:Nail on the head

[dougisfunny]

Not quite all MMORPGs, Guild Wars for example, you buy once and don't pay monthly fees.

Some MMOs offer 'demos' for free, and then to keep playing after the demo is over you simply start paying the monthly fee.

Re:Nail on the head

[DI4BL0S]

I totally agree with you on this, monthly fee to unlimited music playing is much more apealing

Re:Nail on the head

[mjwx]

"On the one hand, I hate not being able to copy my music across devices. I hate having to be connected to the internet to be able to play a certain game. On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish."

So Mr Freeman, DRM puts you in the position of having to choose one or the other.

The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Ceiynt]

Well, if they keep allowing the release of 40 different versions of Imagine Babysitter and Pony Lover DS and whatever else crap takes up 90% of the Nintendo sections in stores, they won't have to worry about piracy, cause no one will want the crap. Push Squenix for a FFVI 3D remake and how about a new Kid Icuras, or New Super Mario Bros. 2 with bigger worlds and the racoon suit from SMB3?

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Duradin]

Some people will (still) use the " 40 different versions of Imagine Babysitter and Pony Lover DS and whatever else crap takes up 90% of the Nintendo sections in stores" as a reason to justify pirating "a FFVI 3D remake and how about a new Kid Icuras, or New Super Mario Bros. 2 with bigger worlds and the racoon suit from SMB3".

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[mister_playboy]

Interestingly, the game released in the US as SMB2 wasn't a "real" Mario game, but a mod of a game called Yume Kj: Doki Doki Panic with Mario characters thrown in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros_2

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[thetoadwarrior]

The NIntendo DS has some of the best selection of games. It also has sold more hardware units than the population of Japan and is probably the biggest system ever. That means, like books, movies, etc it caters to everyone and there is a ton of stuff I and most gamers would consider crap along with the the quality titles like Grand Theft Auto, Advance Wars, Mario RPG, Dragon's Quest, Ninja Gaiden, Mario Kart, Another Code, Hotel Dusk, Metroid, Zelda, etc.

The reason it is so successful is that it does cater to everyone and not just a small group of gamers.

The DS (and all Gameboy portables) were always region free. That made it great for travel and if you just wanted games not sold in your country. Thanks to all the ungrateful cheap pricks who wouldn't buy games Nintendo is apparently now going to tighten up security on their portables and the tight-wads ruined it for everyone as usual.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[rxan]

If the games are so bad then there's no reason to pirate them, let alone buy them. Or does a product being "low quality" give you the right to steal it?

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Jer]

Well, if they keep allowing the release of 40 different versions of Imagine Babysitter and Pony Lover DS and whatever else crap takes up 90% of the Nintendo sections in stores, they won't have to worry about piracy, cause no one will want the crap.

Ah yes - that's exactly how retail works. You stock your shelves with crap no one buys, and when no one buys it you buy more crap no one buys. That's the way to be a successful retailer!

Have you thought that perhaps, just perhaps, those games might just sell really well for the retailers and that's why they have them on the shelves, and restock them when they sell out? Just because you don't want to buy it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lot of people out there who do.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[hackwrench]

He didn't mean a remake of Super Mario Bros 2. There is a game out for the Wii called "New Super Mario Bros." and he meant a sequel to that.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Jer]

And interestingly enough, if the folks who are playing "Imagine Babysitter" and "Pony Lover DS" are paying customers and the folks who are playing "FFVI" or "Kid Icarus" are pirating it, that gives the company an incentive to produce more "Imagine Babysitter"-type games and fewer of the games pirates like. Especially if the games that people are paying for are cheaper to develop and produce than the games that pirates like.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[nlawalker]

Mod parent up.

"Hardcore" gamers bitching about shovelware and casual games should realize that rampant piracy makes developing a multimillion dollar blockbuster look a lot less attractive. It's a much better financial proposition to create low-budget games that cater to people who are less likely to pirate them.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[jparker]

Posting anon since I probably shouldn't be this specific, but the market for DS software has totally collapsed in Europe, particularly in Spain and Italy, where you sell virtually nothing. Titles in Europe are moving literally 10% of of what they do in NA. Many, if not most, major publishers are currently abandoning the DS completely, since the loss of Europe knocks out a huge chunk of their projected ROI.

Now, I'm in the radical camp that actually reads scientific studies and approaches new phenomena with an eye to determine how they work, rather than shut them down, so I think a lot of the focus on piracy as theft is misplaced. An R40, or similar "piracy" device, also makes your DS dramatically more useful since you can carry around a large library of titles at once. Even better for kids, obviously a key demographic, it prevents the tiny cartridges getting lost or destroyed. When they came out, probably 50% of the people I knew immediately got them, and many for their kids as well. (Note that this is a very skewed sample: I work at a game development company, so we're all pretty hardcore, often each of our kids has their own DS, things like that.) Many of these people started off determined not to pirate and just use it for the convenience. (again, skewed sample - we're voracious, hardcore gamers, but we make them for a living, so we take piracy a little more seriously. Doesn't mean we don't do it, but it often does mean we try not to.) Then they were just downloading the titles to try them out. And so on.

I think piracy is usually as much about convenience as free product. It's just like prohibition: if you try to prevent behavior that everyone sees as reasonable, people will ignore those rules and proceed to behavior they wouldn't have considered reasonable before. The best way to fight piracy on the DS is to give us an easy way to store games on the device digitally. You'll probably want to pair this with a digital distribution scheme, which is fine, and gives you a nice place to ensure that we get free demos of all games. Yes, this will mean that people won't buy the crappy games, which leads to lower licensing revenues for Nintendo, but the DS badly needs to have the wheat cut from the chaff to restore confidence in the platform.

These are just two examples, and more than this is needed to defeat the piracy problem, but the key is the strategy. Don't focus on preventing piracy, focus on your products delivering the real value that your customers want better than the pirates can. You've got economies of scale all over them, and if you don't know your own products and consumers better than the pirates do, you don't deserve either.

tl;dr
Massive piracy on DS ensures fewer risky, expensive titles like The World Ends With You and more of the easy, safe, "40 different versions of Imagine Babysitter and Pony Lover DS". The best way to fix the piracy problem is to give people what they want, which isn't really games for free.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[jparker]

Or not posting anon, since the box got unchecked somewhere along the line. Oh well.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[JohnG]

Yep. Piracy advocates like to holler "vote with your dollars." Well, the dollars have been voted with and Imagine Babysitter and Pony Lover DS won.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[metamatic]

The best way to fight piracy on the DS is to give us an easy way to store games on the device digitally. You'll probably want to pair this with a digital distribution scheme, which is fine, and gives you a nice place to ensure that we get free demos of all games.

I assume that's what they were trying to do with the DSi and DSiware. The trouble is, like Sony they've discovered that download-only games you can't sell second hand have a lower value than regular games, so the people who do pay for games (like me) aren't willing to pay as much for them. That in turn has meant that DSiware has been filled with crappy minigames.

To put numbers to it, If I can buy Zelda on the DS for $29.99 and sell it used for $20, you need to sell me the full Zelda as a download for less than $10. I don't think Nintendo are willing to do that, which means the digital distribution scheme is a non-starter.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[del_diablo]

Bah, i got a better suggestion: Make a good game
If we are pirating it too make sure its not total crap, or that the demo is not fake THEN what are we really doing? :P
We are getting the demo they refuse to give out, we do NOT wan't to pay for crappy games or shovelware.... :(

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[nstlgc]

I'm quite sure he meant "New Super Mario Bros" 2, not New "Super Mario Bros 2" :-) That being said, SMB2 never really felt like a true Mario game.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

Because...Sims 2 wasn't exactly what the users wanted? Because Modern Warfare 2 totally sucked? Peruse the torrent sites. Go on, I'll wait.

No really, check them and come back.

Oh, what's that? The crappy games aren't being pirated to the extent that the amazing ones are? What are the user reviews on the most popular pirated games? 7/10 or higher, usually. What about My Little Pony: The Farm 19? That being torrented AT ALL? No?

Sorry, but pirates aren't pirating games that are 'total crap'. Why the hell would they waste their time on a game that sucked? No; they're pirating the fun games that they want to play, not that boring games they hate.

Usually I am on the side of piracy, but this is not justifiable. Plain and simple: they don't want people playing their game that they spent 50 million making for free. When they see that a large quantity of people are pirating their game, they'll balance their options: lose money on a blockbuster, or gain money on shovelware. The only gamers losing out are the ones that complain when you can't see the nose hairs on the guy you shot through a scope; and if their asses didn't pirate in the first place they wouldn't be losing.

While I'm on the subject, I may as well go all out.

Pirates don't pirate lousy games. Why? Because no one wants to play that game. The games being pirated the most are fun games. So, what message are you really sending the game companies? They see a heavy amount of pirating on their top games, and not as high revenues as there should be to offset it. Greed or not, would you exactly be happy if someone trimmed off even a few dollars from your paycheck? Hell, the average adult bitched when their taxes go up 7%; how would you feel if you saw that several thousand people weren't paying you $60?

But wait, they can't count piracy as a lost sale! Maybe not. There's no way to tell if that person downloaded it and then immediately deleted it. However, if they pirate a game and then play it for 60-70 hours, I'd sure as hell consider that a loss. Stores like Target offer full refund returns if you come back in 30 days with the receipt. If pirates bought the game and returned it, they wouldn't technically be paying. Yet they pirate.

Are they pirating out of protest? What a ridiculous notion. Don't play the game if you don't like it! If you're complaining about a companies evil tactics, you prove nothing by continuing to use their product! That'd be like bitching about McDonalds whilst stealing burgers from them.

They spent several years working on a game, based on reactions from the gaming community. Trends and the like. They spent millions on the tech needed to make it look cool enough for people to buy, because regardless of what the /. community says, the bulk of gamers do want insanely good graphics on top of good gameplay. At the end, they spend millions on advertisements to pump up the hype for a game. But wait! They notice that their previous game had a high piracy rate. So, they spend millions more on DRM in hopes that it will stop piracy.

Well, the gamers see the DRM and freak out! Clearly they must boycott this game! So, they "boycott"; as soon as it's released, the legit players buy it while the pirates crack it and play it. The game companies lose money, and determine stronger DRM is needed.

So, yeah...wow, I had a good karma run. I think I just defended game companies for installing DRM. Pretty sure that means I'm doomed.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[theheadlessrabbit]

...piracy is usually as much about convenience as free product....The best way to fight piracy on the DS is to give us an easy way to store games on the device digitally.

That hits it pretty much right on the head. People talk of piracy like pirates are a bunch of cheap buggers who just don't want to pay for anything, but often, they pirate because it offers something that is not offered through official channels.

I bough the M3DS so I can use my NDS as an mp3 player (moonshine has a much nicer interface than my cheap dedicated mp3 player does) the sketchpad of DS organize also came in handy. At first, I was using the M3DS to get those features that I felt should have been build in to the device, but weren't.

Then the convenience factor kicks in: why carry around 10 individual cartridges, when I can load all my games on one micro SD card and carry them all with me? so much easier.
Then, I quickly get used to that level of convenience, and when a new game comes out, I tell myself I will 'try before I buy' If the game is bad, it is promptly deleted. If the game is good, I purchase a physical copy, but keep it in the box, and continue playing the downloaded version. (sadly, I've yet to find 'the world ends with you' for sale in Canada)
So now I'm in the habit of downloading for convenience, and not being able to find the legitimate copies to purchase, so I stop looking for legit copies.

If is their were a legitimate service that offered the level of convenience offered by piracy, I doubt piracy would be the problem it is today.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Jer]

Spore is probably a bit of an outlier, though, for a variety of reasons. First, EA hyped that game for a good while before it was released, so you're going to get more people wanting to see what all of the fuss was about than you might have otherwise (EA's advertising did the job it's supposed to, in other words). Then EA decided to poke people in the eye with their copy protection for it. Which meant that you had people who wanted to break it because it was a challenge and people who wanted to break it to make a statement and people who just wanted to break it to flip the bird to EA on general principles.

But I think you're right that if a game is popular enough the pirates will take interest in it, if only to make it available to others even if they're no interested in it themselves. Amusingly, it would seem like games that get that popular are the games that the industry really has to worry the least about in terms of piracy - if it's gotten that popular and if you've done your jobs right, it has probably made you a ton of money through the legit channels and you should be moving on to worry about secondary licensing deals for your new "hot" property. It's the games that appeal to the hard core gamers but never get out of that hard core demographic that seem like piracy would be a pain in the neck for publishers - the game is popular in the demographic you set out to appeal to, but you're not making money on it despite its popularity. That's got to sting - and eventually lead to publishers looking for some other group to target with their games if it gets bad enough. (Like dropping hard core PC gamers and targeting hard core console gamers instead.)

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Jer]

I wish I had mod points:

To put numbers to it, If I can buy Zelda on the DS for $29.99 and sell it used for $20, you need to sell me the full Zelda as a download for less than $10. I don't think Nintendo are willing to do that, which means the digital distribution scheme is a non-starter.

This isn't restricted to video game companies - ALL content publishing companies underestimate the lure of "right of first sale" has on a good-sized portion of their customer base. The ability to turn around and re-sell a book, game, movie, TV boxed set, comic book, whatever is built into some of their customers' purchase plans right from the beginning. So they don't view that $50 purchase as a $50 expenditure - they see it as maybe a $35 expense and they're going to get back $15 when they eventually sell it. If they can't re-sell it then it isn't worth $50 to them because it was never worth $50 to them in the first place. It was always a $35 purchase in their eyes.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[DaAdder]

Pricing might have a little something to do with it as well.

I believe titles are quite a bit more expensive in at least parts of Europe.
Picking up one of the latest Pokemons here in Sweden will set me back about $55.
At those prices I expect a pretty fantastic game as it's more than I've spent on any game in the last 10 years.
Normally I pick up bargains on Steam or one or two almost-launch titles at just below $50.

I own a DS and I'd like to sample and play quite a number of games, but the DS for me is a much more casual platform and something I'll mostly use when I travel.
I gave up sampling games at $55 and gave up the DS altogether, quite a few others went with pirating instead.

I have no clue why Nintendo thinks this sort of pricing is actually anywhere near the perceived worth for these games.
We have less disposable income than the average American.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[sixsixtysix]

of course, they could just let people re-sell their download-only purchases.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Windwraith]

I am Spanish and I can see why so little sales.
Games here are way more expensive than in the US, arrive very late (if at all, even before R4 was available), and at times have features removed (slot machines in pokemon titles is a very irritating example).
I import several games that aren't available here, and at times I need to hunt titles I enjoyed for months to purchase them legally (The World Ends With You is a good example, I needed months to track it up since the release was like one unit per gaming shop).
Continuing the example of TWEWY, I pirated the game first and then once released here, I had to be quite persistent to purchase it. I really would have disregarded the game as garbage if I didn't try it out first, actually. The designs made the game seem poor to me, but it actually is engaging and fresh.
Bangaioh Spirits, another one I pirated, was given an European release, and for that it was worth purchasing.

Seriously, gamers from the US complain a lot when a title comes first in Europe (Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow comes to mind) but we get most titles late, more expensive, and at times we don't. (Serious PSX classics such as Final Fantasy Tactics never got a release here, or stuff like Chrono Trigger. DS's release was the first chance to purchase it without ebay). Not to mention removed content or mangled translations (Lufia 2, simply called "Lufia" here, is a perfect example, they destroy the ending several times...and you thought Final Fantasy VI = Final Fantasy III was bad!).

I can easily prove I own a lot of games even if I pirate them first, I just need to take a photo of my games shelf, so don't think I am lying to save face. Expensive and late releases are a pretty good reason to pirate for those without the collector's enthusiasm though.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Blakey Rat]

Dude you have to put the "too long, didn't read" version at the *top*. Otherwise the people who didn't read the wall of text won't read the tl;dr either.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Arctic Dragon]

But the shovelware titles are the best-selling. According to VGChartz.com, Imagine: Babyz and Imagine: Fashion Designer have each sold nearly 3 million copies each. Compare that to the sales of some of the highest-rated DS games:

Fire Emblem - Shadow Dragon: 480,000
Final Fantasy Tactics A2 - Grimoire of the Rift: 640,000
Castlevania - Dawn of Sorrow: 340,000

Store shelves are stocked with shovelware for one reason: they sell. Heck, for years people were whining about the lack of 'adult' games for the DS, then Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars (excellent game, BTW) was finally released. The game sold so poorly it's been ported to the iPhone and PSP to help recoup development costs.

The Final Fantasy IV DS remake only sold 1.04 million copies. If more people actually bought the quality DS titles, we would see more of them. Vote with your wallet!

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[wertigon]

You make a compelling argument, but how do you then explain several modern independent research papers providing evidence of two things:

1. The biggest pirates are also the biggest legal consumers
2. Most people pirating would gladly fork over a few bucks if the digital store was as easy as bittorrent + a payment option.

Because, let's face it; people are happy to pay for good games.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[DI4BL0S]

not for the pirates... something to consider, who are they really punishing

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Ostracus]

I've pointed this out in another forum, but piracy is basically one big social experiment. Look and I mean really look at people's behaviors and what they're passing on. Doesn't really bode well does it?

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[BenoitRen]

Picking up one of the latest Pokemons here in Sweden will set me back about $55.

Did you get that number by using the current exchange rate? Because we all know that the euro is currently stronger than the US dollar. DS games don't cost 55 euros here. They cost at the very most 45 euros. Often they're 40 euros.

We have less disposable income than the average American.

Why do you think that we do? We don't. We have more because, for example, we don't have to drive long distances just to get to the store.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[vuffi_raa]

But I think you're right that if a game is popular enough the pirates will take interest in it, if only to make it available to others even if they're no interested in it themselves.

actually though it is kind of the opposite, shovelware makes it more desirable to pirate since if you have a small but powerful catalog of games the large scale development of alternative firmwares and/or flashcarts is less likely to happen since the attraction of having x amount of games for free is actually a big draw. You don't see people buying flashcarts for say, puzzlequest but you do for puzzlequest + hundreds of others even if the others are crap

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

Being available and being downloaded are two very different things. How many copies of shovelware are being downloaded instead of purchased? Their demographic for those games happens to be the sort of demographic that barely understands how e-mail works, let alone how to get a proper emulator and ROM.

They don't pirate crappy games; as I said, just check the torrents. How many seeds/leeches/downloads on those Pony DS games? How about Pokemon DS games? See a -slight- difference there?

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

Judging from people I've spoken to, they feel entitled to get the game for free. Makes me a little sad, because the software, man hours, and sheer talent poured into every game that isn't some dinky flash game costs a whole hell of a lot more than $0.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

It's difficult to accurately prove someone is pirating and purchasing. Most of those research papers are done by survey alone, and most people would prefer to skew the data by making themselves sound better.

Unless, of course, the research papers were actively snooping on their torrent downloads and then checking their purchase history on all of their cards, as well as examining their receipts for cash transactions.

The problem with your second statement is that most digital stores are mind numbingly easy to use. They show a pretty picture of what you wanna purchase, you click it, you sign in, you pay. Done and done. That's a few clicks. Piracy, in the mean time, requires searching through several sites for a legitimate, working copy whilst praying someone didn't decide to be a dick and embed a trojan in it, then going out and pirating a copy of the proper iso tools to install the game, then dealing with any glitches or hiccups caused by the torrent itself, all while waiting weeks for seeds.

Let's face it: pirates aren't happy to pay for good games. I again turn to Sims 2. That was a physical store game, no digital downloads. That was before the boom of digital stores. Majorly pirated game. Hell, if you think good digital stores stop piracy, I invite you to browse the torrent sites for Left 4 Dead. Way more than 0, eh? But, that's odd; isn't /. always going on about how amazing their online store is? How they're happy to pay for it? How is it, then, that L4D is being pirated at all?

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[soppsa]

Judging from people I've spoken to, they feel entitled to get the game for free. Makes me a little sad, because the software, man hours, and sheer talent poured into every game that isn't some dinky flash game costs a whole hell of a lot more than $0.

I've really noticed this too, not just on the slashdot crowd, but with this generation of highschool/college kids today. They grew up getting * games, music, movies for free, they expect to continue doing so...

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[Ostracus]

Humble Bundle gives pirates what they want, gets ripped off

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

It's a general sense of entitlement, really. I'm part of the highschool/college kid demographic, but even I can see that it's bullshit to demand people give away something for free.

We wouldn't dream of telling a painter to just give their paintings away for free, would we? Yet once their art is digital, I've seen people blatantly ignore the copyright on it and the artist's protest in the name of slapping the image on a youtube video. No one wants to go in to a store and physically steal a copy of a game or steal a CD, but they have absolutely no problem with downloading the same thing without ever intending to pay the creator. There's this common belief that we need to treat digital products differently, and it's frankly based on the idea that creative works should never be sold.

I can't think of an easier way to destroy any hope of brilliant creativity, then for everyone to vote with their wallet and spend their money elsewhere. Because I can tell you this: it takes a ton of effort to make something well. Watch a SyFy original movie, then watch Bladerunner. Listen to Nsync, then listen to Gorillaz El Manana. Play a free Flash game, then play Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. The differences are massive, every nuanced part of the latter options is exponentially better than the crap that was tossed out in a fraction of the time. So people don't want to pay? Alright; we'll just take away the option that in no way can be made for $0 profit. We'll make creative works cost people money and time to do, with no promise of payment. We'll make books free, movies free, games free, music free, and all other art free.

After all, if it isn't business, it isn't worth it...

I honestly thought people cared about entertainment, I truly did. Even when I graduated, after watching the music and art classes get cut in favor of more math and science. It looks like the population has been brainwashed to treat creativity as a tinker-job; something that should never make money. Guess it sucks for people who are creative but not good at anything else...

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

That's just....outrageous...

I actually met with the artist on Machinarium. Very nice guy, you could tell from his voice that he put a lot of love into it...

And yet, even in the comments on that article, there are people justifying the piracy! They could have paid a single penny for the whole package, for infinite downloading rights, and yet still people are defending the piracy!

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[wertigon]

Yeah, wait, you're talking about Sims 2, the *most widely bought* computer game ever? Yeah, lots of people pirated it. Lots more bought it, enough that they turned a handsome profit. I'd reckon atleast half of those people who bought it lost their discs in some way (dog chewed on it, it was forgotten at Uncle Bobs house, etc) and thus got another copy... On the internet.

We can take something even more recent, the Humble Indie Bundle released last week [1]. Now, six games cost a penny, so money isn't an issue here. But let's look at facts. About 25% of the downloads there are illegal. But the reasons for it are several;

1. Someone made a direct link to the download in a forum somewhere and people are too lazy to go back and fill in the form
2. No means of paying in your country and/or no access to a credit card
3. You already paid for it once and wants to download it again on your spare computer or monitor
4. You're a thievin' moneygrubbing pirate

Now, I'd consider 2 and 3 to be entirerly valid reasons, 1 a dumb excuse and 4 isn't very common. If this bundle had DRM and a set price, I'd add two more items on the list:

5. The DRM screwed the customer over so they said "fuck it" and found a torrent instead
6. The game cost too much for your average teenager to afford

So what does this tell us? That most people pirate because they:

a) Find the price too high
b) The pirated product is superior to the bought product (pirated product lets me play my game, bought doesn't)
c) The product is not available in your country (yet), and might never be
d) The product requires you to pay for it with means that are not available to you

Solving these four points is the key to win over piracy. That is my firm belief.

[1] http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-when-even-a-penny-is-too-much-100510/

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[nicky_d]

Agree. I've got an R4 equivalent DS card. It has some pirated stuff on it, but the fact is (in my case) it just doesn't get played. There's too much of it, and no sense of investment. I try things out of curiosity and I do buy what I want to play, because I like games. I bought Warioware DIY at the weekend and I'm pleased to be able to support great releases like that. But even then, a single 2gb flash card beats the hey out of carrying a pile of official cards on trips, even given their size. And while I can now grab DS demos from the Nintendo Channel on my Wii, it's less hassle to grab a torrent of the full game. Why I can't download demos directly onto my DS I've no idea (as far as I can tell, the demos work the same way that multiplayer-from-one-card works - the DS receives the demo data into its live memory, and it's lost when you exit or power down. But the DSi has an SD card slot, so downloadable demos ought to be an option.).

DSiWare (and the SD card slot) is a move in the right direction. But then I'm hampered by Nintendo's single-unit lock-in. If I want to upgrade to a DSi XL, I've no way to carry my purchased games across. They could fix that the iTunes way, by allowing me to switch my games to another unit, say, three times a year. Or my tying purchases to my Club Nintendo account and letting me authorise a new unit. These things may well come in time, but until they do an R4 card or equivalent is arguably the best way to use a DS, whether you're interested in piracy or not.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

Yeah, but regardless of what you believe...there isn't some set amount of money to be made that excuses people not paying for their copy.

As an anecdote, I once lost my Wii Fit disk; but since I registered my game with them they verified it was mine and sent me another copy, free of charge. My hard drive failed before I could de-authorize my CS2, but Adobe took all of five minutes to give me another authorization when I asked.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it is highly unlikely that every pirate tried to contact said company and was rejected. No; there's a better chance that they lost it and then decided to pirate it instead of talking to the company. What information does that give the company? If a large portion of users were losing their copy instead of just being pirates, the companies would add in extra measures to ensure they didn't lose money on incidents like that. Lack of communication with the company just means that buyers look like pirates.

Now, here's the problem with using the Humble Bundle to try and somehow justify piracy:

1. They put 0 DRM on it.
2. They made it absurdly easy to download: fill out the form, pay, done.
3. You could pay them .01. To put it in perspective, most people don't even pick up pennies they find on the ground.
4. They actually paid for some people's copies when they couldn't figure out how to use the form.

Now, let's look at your reasons for why piracy happened.

1. Someone made a direct link to the download in a forum somewhere and people are too lazy to go back and fill in the form.

That sounds about right.

2. No means of paying in your country and/or no access to a credit card.

That sounds about right, too. However, that is no justification for piracy. If you can't pay, you can't have it. It's sad that their country doesn't have paypal, but the 'no access to a credit card' bit is absurd. No parent or friend could really afford a .01 transaction? Really?

3. You already paid for it once and wants to download it again on your spare computer or monitor.

Cute. Except that they offered you infinite downloads after paying!

4. You're a thievin' moneygrubbing pirate.

Yes, yes you are.

Most people don't pirate because the price is too high. They pirate because there's too many game they want, and they can't afford them all. So, they pay for some, then pirate the rest. Or, in the case of the Humble Bundle, they pirate because they are flaming hypocrites. Humble Bundle listened to pirate complaints: DRM, difficulty of download, cost. What did they get? Piracy.

Point B is, again, not true when pointed to the Humble Bundle. Furthermore, most pirate products are inferior. Only a very small handful of games have crippling DRM, and by very small, I mean maybe ten. I tried pirating Silent Hill 4 once, and the end result was a whole slew of minor issues that weren't present in the official version. I also required ISO mount software; unless I also chose to pirate it once the demon was finished, I'd be out money on that, and there is no justification for the piracy of it!

This is, again, tough shit. There's a very fine type of pork only made in Spain that costs $100 an ounce; I'll never be able to taste that because of the country I live in, unless I go over there, and I damn well won't be able to take it back with me. That does not mean that I should get someone to grab me a full ounce and bring it to me so I can enjoy it. It's not some absurd God given right that we have, to be able to use everything in the world. We need to stop acting like it's our right.

And finally, tough shit. What do you ask them to do? Mail their pennies to the company selling the Humble Bundle? People would pirate it because they were too lazy to send it! Blaming a company for offering every means possible for online transaction is just plain pathetic. Suck it up and stop being so damn entitled!

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[wertigon]

With regards to b), sorry. Generally speaking from experience:

* Pirated copy does not require me to input any product key
* Pirated copy does not require me to have the CD in the tray (thus wearing on the CD, thus making it die)
* Pirated copy does not mysteriously "not work" if I happen to have daemon tools installed (a tool I use for legitimate purposes)
* Pirated copy is, in general, much less hassle than the real product

Thus, I draw the conclusion that the pirated copy is superior. I'm only speaking for personal experience however, so YMMV.

With regards to c) and d): Why am I supposed to wait two years for a TV show to hit the European networks when I can enjoy it, now? Why am I supposed to wait for six months for a movie to come out in Europe when I can see it today? Who are you to tell me what information I can and cannot access? And what makes gaming any different from movies, when it comes to distribution?

Face it. Internet made information global. When it comes to nation borders, they don't exist anymore. It's not a question of entitlement. I don't have a god-given right to enjoy all this information for free. But if the information already exists, for free, and that is the only way to get it, then I will not feel guilty.

To use your analogy: If I'm hungry, and you won't accept perfectly good cash for your fine roast beef, then screw you. I'll go eat at my mom's place where I can have roast beef for free, which is my god given right. That is to say, if you won't let me buy your roast beef I'll just go to your competitor which just so happens to provide roast beef for free. Maybe she won't always provide it, like you will, and maybe she won't always have the best quality, like you will, but hey, atleast I won't be hungry. And I might just discover some other kind of beef as well that I even might like better, making me realise that I don't need roast beef in the first place. And THAT is the biggest mistake any business could make.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

But your use of my analogy is wrong! You're not going to a competitor; you're staying right where you are while paying no one. So the competitor never gets a dime from you, and the company you're shafting beefs up security to try and stop you from shafting them.

I don't agree with everything the media outlets do. Forcing delays for no reason whatsoever in a connected world like the one we have is unacceptable. It still doesn't justify taking it for free, because you know what? It detracts from their profits when they do release it in your country, meaning that they see less profits there than normal. Ergo, no incentive to release earlier without first seeing if it's successful in the US.

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[wertigon]

The torrent sites are competitors, no question about that. Denying it is like saying "Oh, automobiles aren't competing with horses. Why is that? Becuase I have this law that outlaws automobiles." And as soon as intellectual property laws gets reformed (they will, it's only a matter of time), they'll compete legally.

And, why limit yourself to a single region, when you can have the entire world for a market? Sure, if you're say, a producer focusing in Swedish music, your customer base will be limited to mostly people understanding Swedish. But that's not an excuse to limit yourself to only Sweden. By letting people abroad buy your music, you lose nothing and gain a few more dollars in the process. It's not exactly as if you have to cater extra to those people; just give them a means to purchase your product, and they will be more than happy to. It's marketing 101 stuff here...

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[ZekoMal]

They're not competitors. Wanna know why? It's literally impossible to compete with free. People will wait for 87 days for their torrent downloading at 1 kb/s to complete long before they'll take a ten minute drive to the game shop to pay $50. Forcing media companies to 'just accept' that at least 1/4 of their customer base will never pay so much as a penny for years of development work is entitlement, and is disgusting.

This isn't like what you stated at all. It's more like "Oh, automobiles aren't competing with the automobile black market. Why is that? Because they never pay us, but opened up a shop giving away our automobiles." This isn't two different products. It's the same damn product, just with one person taking it without permission and then redistributing it as they see fit.

True, they can gain more money if they move to the global market. But it is their right and their choice to do so. If they don't, it is not your right to take what they have for free. This is entitlement that really needs to be stamped out. You don't deserve the moon just because you can see it for Christ's sakes!

Re:The trend on Nintendo Consoles

[wertigon]

I only have to look at the product of bottled water to prove that, yes, there is a way to compete with free. You can get tap water for free (or next to it), can you not? So yes, you can and *have to* compete with free. How to do it? Brand value, quality downloads, there are quite a few ways to do it actually. So I stand by my belief; the media companies have to start looking at TPB as competitors if they want to survive. However they are too blinded by greed to see this.

And, sure, it's their right not to go global. It's also their right to charge $500 for every song. But will a consumer buy a song for 500 USD? No. No they won't. Will a consumer sit idly and wait for a movie for six months, a movie that their oversea friends say is all the rage, when they can get it from the bittorrent sites today? No they won't. Entitlement? No. Market forces and basic economics, definitely.

E.O.D, and thanks. I fear we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Sounds like the next Summer blockbuster

[Laser_iCE]

Nintendo Takes On Pirates: IN 3D!

Re:Sounds like the next Summer blockbuster

[skine]

I'll only go see it if it was FILMED in 3D, and not just converted from 2D like Clash of the Titans.

Re:Sounds like the next Summer blockbuster

[__aatirs3925]

oh god, i lol'd hard at your comment for some reason... Anyway, I don't care about pirates as much as I do with GameStop. They need to stop with their whole "used games are better than new ones" motto because developers aren't seeing a dime from their sales. Truth be told, I think buying used games is the same as pirating it, and at the same time it should be outlawed. (millions of gamestop fans gathers their pitchforks and torches and comes around to kill me)

Re:Sounds like the next Summer blockbuster

[syousef]

Nintendo Takes On Pirates: IN 3D!

Will they be employing Ninjas? Because recent slashdot stories indicate there are a lot of unemployed Ninjas out there.

Pirates?

[Nidi62]

So, does this mean their next device will have a lot of games where you get to kill pirates in 3D? Sounds like fun.

Re:Pirates?

[Spatial]

Space Pirates, to be precise.

Re:Pirates?

[tonique]

Space Pirate Amazon Ninja Catgirls, to be even more precise!

Q U A L I T Y

[Max Romantschuk]

I don't mind paying for games. I mind paying for crappy games.

I might pirate a game to try it for five minutes out of curiosity. (Assuming there's no demo.) But I'll gladly pay for games that are high quality and original.

That being said, I buy only 3-5 games a year. But I'd rather see the industry doing fewer games and putting more effort into them. One great option is downloadable games in episodic format. The recent Tales of Monkey Island for the Wii are a good example. Lessens the risk both for the game developer and myself as a consumer.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[hedwards]

There's also the problem of Nintendo expecting people to buy new copies of games they've already purchased because there's a new console out that doesn't support the old copies. When they've chosen to add additional content to the older games it hasn't been so bad, but expecting people to shell out for a new copy of content they already own is just disgusting.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[Duradin]

So keep the old console and don't buy the new version.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[Opportunist]

I won't even pirate it. There's no demo? Next! If you're not sure enough of your game to hand me a brief demo to play, it probably sucks so badly that it's not even fun for the 5 minutes I could play your demo.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[rxan]

I agree. Though I think services like Virtual Console are targeting people who have never played those classic titles, it's a shame that they won't give it to you for free if you own the original.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[Posting=!Working]

No, Nintendo offers the old titles on systems that no longer have the capability of playing the old cartridges. You are free to play the old version you own on the old system as long as you like. You bought a cartridge/disc of software. If you want it on a different format of cartridge/disc/download that plays on a completely different device, buy the new cartridge/disc/download. If you want to build a converter to play the old software on the new system, go right ahead. Most people will just buy the new one, it's simpler, easier and cheaper for them to not spend their time converting it.

The Gameboy line has always been compatible with their last generation games. They kept the GB Advance cartridge slot on all DS models for 5 years before releasing the DSi without it, and they still sell the DS Lite with it. The Advance was only 4 years old when they released the DS, they've been backwards compatibile for over 6 years. Do they need to keep that slot forever?

Expecting a company to have to squeeze 4 different cartridge slots on a handheld system or to give you the software in the new format for free when they come out with a new system is more disgusting. The former wouldn't sell, and the latter would result in new systems being prohibitively expensive to produce.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[KDR_11k]

The DS has practically no demos so the lack of a demo for a game is rarely quality based.

Re:Q U A L I T Y

[KDR_11k]

Considering the Wii has 100% backwards compatibility with the Gamecube I don't think that's a fair criticism (only the PSP Go might deserve it). Yes, you have to rebuy NES games if you want to play them on the Wii but really, do you expect them to slap 8 cartridge slots and a 1541 disk drive on the system? The Virtual Console is for those among us who don't own the original releases. The NES and SNES ports for the GBA are also of games that were at least a decade old and for a device that couldn't feasibly have had a cartridge slot for those formats (my GBASP is smaller than a SNES cart).

That's nice

[TheSpoom]

Pirates will still figure it out. And all it takes is one person to crack it on their system and post the method, and the jig is up.

Obfuscate it all you want, but in order to let people play the software, Nintendo has to let them decrypt it at some point in the chain, which means there's always a weakness, no matter what.

Re:That's nice

[thetoadwarrior]

They know they won't stop everyone but it is dead easy to pirate DS games. Most people probably wouldn't bother if it required a bit of effort and Nintendo would be happy in just cutting the numbers in half. It's a shame too that people have ruined one of the most open gaming consoles ever.

Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

See this for an explanation why.

Short explanation of the link: Since pirates do not pay, they can download more than they could ever afford. So for a large part of what's pirated you couldn't force payment in any manner, since the money to do so simply doesn't exist.

I know of people who have enormous collections spanning thousands of movies, games, and music CDs, most of which they haven't even tried once. It seems that once somebody gets into that particular mindset they operate on a "Oh, this sounds interesting. *Adds to queue*" basis, and by the time it's done downloading they often don't remember what it was and why they have it.

Those people are largely unaffected by all this. If they can't get a copy of Nintendo's latest game, oh well, they have downloaded 20 others last week. And what they download is all pre-cracked already.

The people who it does affect though are the legitimate customers. I remember getting very angry (which doesn't happen very often to me), when I purchased Neverwinter Nights, and couldn't use it. Turns out the morons printed the CD key in a font that made B/8, O/0 and such indistinguishable. After 15 minutes I finally figured out one that worked, and I still don't know if that's the one I was supposed to use, or just a similar key that happened to work, and that will prevent somebody else from playing. I bet the pirates don't need to put up with that.

So don't buy into this protection nonsense, and support few people who view this sanely.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully. They simply don't have the right to play a game that they are not authorized to. I believe that game companies are implementing DRM not just to help their bottom line but also on principle.

You're right that most pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway. But you can't deny that SOME sales are lost due to piracy.

Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[__aasqbs9791]

That makes sense. I do the same thing with free programming tool/IDE/languages/etc. I was looking through an old box the other day to see what I could get rid of (small hard drive that I will eventually upgrade everything in, but not yet) and I didn't remember installing half of the things that I'm sure I installed (my wife isn't a programmer). If they had even a nominal charge I'd have next to nothing installed on that machine.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[sznupi]

The way you got at Neverwinter Nights (and surely generally at DRM, "The people who it does affect though are the legitimate customers") doesn't apply in this case. Nintendo DRM doesn't really get in the way...

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully.

So?

The way I see it, businesses don't make games because of a principle. They do so because you want to make money. And, annoying your customers with DRM might well make you less money.

I stick to one principle: If you make things available under conditions I like (no DRM) I will preferentailly buy it and recommend to other people. On the other hand, the more control the owner attempts to exercise, the more effort I will expend to avoid paying a cent for it.

Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.

Cory Doctorow seems to be doing fine. I bought a physical copy of the Mercurial book, though it's all right there, in the link. With source available. I also paid for the games linked above.

I work as a programmer and stand by my opinion.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Well, since I object to the entire concept of letting some external force decide what I can or can't do with my hardware, and what I can or can't play, I don't own any consoles at all, or any similarly restricted equipment (like anything made by Apple for instance).

So for me it's PC gaming only, very preferentially on Linux.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[sznupi]

But it's very frank in the case of Nintendo, you know exactly what you're getting into. No unpleasant surprises as with too large part of PC DRM...so the case is not really comparable.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully. They simply don't have the right to play a game that they are not authorized to.

Throughout most of video game history you are/were not able to return a game you did not like. This is called the "Open Your Mouth and Close Your Eyes" business model.

I believe that game companies are implementing DRM not just to help their bottom line but also on principle.

The do it because they think you, personally, are a thief.

But you can't deny that SOME sales are lost due to piracy.

That was directed at the other guy, but I'd like to answer this: 'Some' just means 'greater than two'. The sheer existence of it does not justify DRM for the simple reason that the legit customers are paying for it. Their approach has lowered the value of the software, but they have not lowered the price. By doing so they have increased the value of the pirated software... which is what they claim they're trying to reduce. It's like being really really thirsty and then drinking whiskey. It makes no sense.

Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.

I have software on the market today. It has been for sale for years now and I'm still collecting a pretty steady amount of money from it. It doesn't use DRM, meaning it doesn't call home. It doesn't really use copy protection, either. It's a serial number and activation code. Not *one* of our customers has called in with an activation problem. Literally. 0. I have spent zero man-hours doing technical support or even bug-fixes on that part of the software. That's a good thing because it wouldn't take very long with a customer for our profit on that copy to dissolve into nothing. On the other hand, if we had gone stronger with the unlock scheme, we would have lost customers. We work in a market where people move from computer to computer. Software activation is a huge pain and it is the sort of thing that gives people a reason to not need our software.

So what about piracy? Our software was in an interesting position. It wasn't widely known because it solves a niche problem. But for what it did, it was popular amongst the small population it was catered to. As a result a cracked copy didn't show up for it for months. And you know what? If you were to look at a graph of our sales over the course of four or five years you could NOT pinpoint when the crack came out. That's interesting considering the price of the software was not within impulse range. I am not convinced that piracy hurt us. I'm not convinced that copy protection/DRM/authentication etc would have done anything but lower our profits. My livelihood isn't in danger until I start pissing off the people handing me money.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

Uh, maybe I misread, but wasn't his conclusion that 10% of piracy is probably completely genuine?

Look, Wolfire doesn't care about piracy because they're a tiny indie studio and they care a lot more about getting their games into people's hands than anything else. That's true of pretty much every tiny indie studio. While it's great that he's running the numbers and figuring out a better estimate for the piracy rate, his opinion on DRM is *not relevant* to studios like, for example, Nintendo.

And that's assuming you agree with his conclusion. I also think his argument is completely flawed. Whether you could have otherwise afforded the game or not, the fact is you still pirated it. I mean, there's no "oh well he couldn't afford it anyway" clause to any other kind of theft, right? Why should there be one for IP theft?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[JMZero]

Well, it's not exactly the same - but the pirates still get a better deal. A pirate DS card can store like 40 games, meaning you don't have to carry around 40 fiddly little cartridges. Plus you can run homebrew/misc apps/watch movies.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[icebraining]

if Nintendo makes a "unhackable device" and no one would be able to pirate the game their profit from game sales will always be bigger than with pirating.

Except draconian copy protection systems not only are NEVER uncrackable (merely very hard to crack) and they more often than not annoy paying customers, which may leave because of it. How many people skipped AC2 after they found out they couldn't play it at any time with their non-existant or flakky internet connection?
How many people who bought it and then told themselves "never more" after they couldn't play because the DRM servers were down?

They *may* get some net benefit, but it's not that clear.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Uh, maybe I misread, but wasn't his conclusion that 10% of piracy is probably completely genuine?

Yes, meaning it's not a very big deal.

10% is certainly money, but it's not the huge amounts being implied in various press releases. It's also an amount that can be easily made or lost through other decisions.

No company makes 100% of the money it could potentially make. Some potential customers don't know about the product, some are on the wrong platform, some are annoyed by DRM, some are unwilling to pay the price but would buy if it was cheaper, some pay but would be willing to pay more. You can't please absolutely everyone, or make everybody pay precisely the amount they're willing to pay, so you're always missing on some money you could possibly have if everything was ideal.

And according to their numbers, their time is much better spent on Linux and Mac support.

Look, Wolfire doesn't care about piracy because they're a tiny indie studio and they care a lot more about getting their games into people's hands than anything else. That's true of pretty much every tiny indie studio. While it's great that he's running the numbers and figuring out a better estimate for the piracy rate, his opinion on DRM is *not relevant* to studios like, for example, Nintendo.

Don't think it's completely irrelevant. I follow the same logic when buying the games from any studio. DRM will ensure I will not buy it, and that's a guaranteed lost sale right there.

After getting burned, I got much more careful. So, for me personally:

• Required internet connection when not required for multiplayer and such: no sale
• Activation and such schemes: no sale
• Limited installation attempts: no sale
• Calling home: no sale
• Refusal to work with software like Daemon Tools installed: no sale
• Checking if the hardware changed: no sale
• Requirement for CD key: Will be treated with extreme suspicion, likely no sale.
• CD check: Likely no sale
• Console game only: no sale, I only buy PC games

If any of the above sneaks through because it wasn't properly disclosed before I bought it: I will call your tech support and complain for as long as possible, after that guaranteed no sale for anything else you make. You can bet I will make every effort possible to return it, as well.

Things that make it more likely I will buy your stuff:

• Lack of the things mentioned above.
• Linux support
• Buying by downloading an installer.
• Direct sale without middlemen
• Ability to make mods

And that's assuming you agree with his conclusion. I also think his argument is completely flawed. Whether you could have otherwise afforded the game or not, the fact is you still pirated it.

Sure. And what about it?

I mean, there's no "oh well he couldn't afford it anyway" clause to any other kind of theft, right?

Because it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. And unlike with theft, where something is permanently removed, in copyright infringement nothing disappears. The maker possibly fails to gain money, in some cases of it. But doesn't lose it.

Why should there be one for IP theft?

First, there's no "IP". There is copyright, trademarks and patents, all of which work differently. In this case we're exclusively discussing copyright, so no need to muddle the issue.

Second, it's not theft but copyright infringement.

Third, where did you get that I'm advocating piracy?

I repeat: I just think it's not a very big deal. It may be illegal, but so is jaywalking. I think a disproportionate amount of time and resources are spent on trying to prevent it, which can be counterproductive when overdone, because it loses more than it gains back.

If somehow piracy could be entirely prevented, it'd gain mayb

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[grumbel]

Why should there be one for IP theft?

Why should we restrict freedom when there is no harm?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[manicb]

The way I see it, businesses don't make games because of a principle. They do so because you want to make money.

Corporations as a whole, maybe. But how many programmers and artists are only in it for the money?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Corporations as a whole, maybe. But how many programmers and artists are only in it for the money?

Quite a few. Never ran into one of those "I'm here for the $$$!" people at school?

But yes, some are motivated by principles. My current job is what it is in large part because it involves working with and contributing to open source software. Some people get jobs because they get to work with Macs, Sun hardware, etc.

But, I've not yet met anybody who writes DRM software out of principle. The reasons I've seen are:

1. Believing that doing so will make more money.
2. The publisher/investor/etc demands it
3. To get revenge on those they believe are using their software unlawfully.

These both things are not a case of something done out of a principle. The first comes out of a belief of necessity, the second because other people mandate it, and the third out of anger.

The third reason is often a bad idea, as it's done under the wrong state of mind for good coding. It goes wrong especially when a bug backfires in a bad way, or when the developer decides to get "REVENGE!" and comes up with some crazy scheme like deleting the user's home directory. This of course ensures many people decide they won't touch their software with a 10 foot pole.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

I'm saying companies would make more money if they spent less time on DRM, and more time on making their customers happy.

You haven't shown that at all. Unless you're taking your personal opinion, and extrapolating it to the entire rest of the planet.

If you want to prove a point, you have to get around to actually providing some evidence to prove the point. You haven't done that at all.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

You haven't shown that at all. Unless you're taking your personal opinion, and extrapolating it to the entire rest of the planet.

Start from Wolfire's own numbers.

1. Of all of piracy, maybe 10% could be paid for.

2. If those people were prevented from using the game without paying, it still doesn't mean they will pay. I have the ability to say, go and and buy an iPad right now. I can afford it, but I still don't. So just plain having enough money isn't enough, and that reduces the percentage further.

3. Any gains may be offset by people who were formerly willing to pay, and now may not be. See my requirements from earlier, they're pretty tight. Any customer that you anger by locking them out of a legitimately paid game is potentially several lost sales, due to them ranting on any medium available to anybody who cares to listen. The more people run into issues, the more the amount of these people grows.

4. This stuff isn't free. It needs to be licensed/programmed and tested. You need to spend more time on support for people who run into issues caused by it.

5. Perfect DRM doesn't exist anyway. No matter how fancy it is, if it's something wanted enough, somebody's going to crack it, and that only needs to happen once. Then all the others just copy the crack around.

6. Once you're done with that, in the absolute best case you gain some fraction of the 10%. In the absolute worst case it backfires on you so badly that bankrupt yourself. It has happened. IIRC it was the guy who said the program would delete the user's home folder if a pirated key was used. There was such a firestorm that several days later the program was pulled from sale entirely, probably due to the threats of lawsuits. Though that's a rather extreme example.

7. Since you're trying to make a profit, and all this costs time and money, it's very possibly not the most cost effective way to earn money, especially when considering the risk involved.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

You haven't provided a *single number* to back up your point. Look, to make a case, you need at least:

1) A good estimate of the number people who pirate the title
2) A good estimate of the number of people who would not buy the title had it DRM (which, contrary to Slashdot's estimation, is extremely tiny)
3) An estimate of the cost of developing adequate DRM policies and code

You haven't provided any of those numbers. Not even rough estimates. You have absolutely no case here, none at all.

Instead of providing figures to back-up your assertion, you throw in shit like your point 5 which is completely irrelevant to the problem, and point 6 which appears to be a scaremongering urban legend at best.

And then to really make it all come together, you back away from your original assertion by adding weasel words (very possibly) to it when you re-state it in point 7. I seriously don't know why you even bothered replying, since you'd added nothing to the conversation.

Is it possible you're correct? Yes, I concede that. Is it likely? No-- if it was, then you'd see major studios ditching DRM as quickly as possible. The "Law Of Look In A Goddamned Gaming Store" says that your assertion is wrong, and I see no reason to believe that all game studios are somehow insane and you're not.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully. They simply don't have the right to play a game that they are not authorized to.

Throughout most of video game history you are/were not able to return a game you did not like. This is called the "Open Your Mouth and Close Your Eyes" business model.

I don't see how this applies to what I said. I'm talking about people using a whole product and not paying for it. You're talking about using part of the product and taking it back.

Your software may happen to not get pirated enough to hurt your bottom line. There are probably many reasons that it isn't getting pirated very much. You noted that it isn't very popular and it fills a niche market. Those are some huge factors right there. You also seem to be OK with the fact that a crack has come out. Meaning that more likely than not there are lost sales and that there's money missing from your pockets.

But take products are popular and fill a large market. Look up Assassins Creed 2 and Call of Duty Modern Warefare 2 on thepiratebay.org. I can count over 3000 seeds alone. Look for music and you'll find much larger numbers. Companies see those numbers and count how much cash they would have gotten if those were sales -- why wouldn't you expect them to try? It's stupid not to.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

Piracy is not meaningless. People are still using your product unlawfully.

So? The way I see it, businesses don't make games because of a principle. They do so because you want to make money. And, annoying your customers with DRM might well make you less money.

Of course they make games to make money, I wasn't saying they make games on principle. I was saying they implement DRM on the principle that people should use their product only when authorized to.

Why don't you try hinging your livelihood on writing a book and then have people photocopy it instead of buying it? We'll see how you feel about piracy then.

Cory Doctorow seems to be doing fine. I bought a physical copy of the Mercurial book [red-bean.com], though it's all right there, in the link. With source available. I also paid for the games linked above.

Although you bought a copy not everyone will. Clearly Cory Doctorow has the ability to not get as much revenue from this product and still get by. It would be wonderful if this was the case for every content producer. Sadly it is not. Other content producers may be able to get by but still want to get revenue for every use of their product. Are you going to hold that against them? Are you OK with going into work and having your employer just decide not to pay you for the last X amount of hours you put in?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

My current job is what it is in large part because it involves working with and contributing to open source software.

I'm going to guess that you get paid for your job.

Don't get into semantics here about the principle thing. You're taking it way too far.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

1) A good estimate of the number people who pirate the title

A hard to get number, especially with the existence of offline distribution.

And also not the number you want. What you want is the number of people who pirated it, but who would have paid for it if they couldn't. The rest aren't losing you money.

2) A good estimate of the number of people who would not buy the title had it DRM (which, contrary to Slashdot's estimation, is extremely tiny)

I'm probably rather extreme in my tastes, but I make an effort to make as much effect as possible. For something I really support, like Wolfire's initiative, I'll make sure to plug it everywhere posible. If I'm especially annoyed I'll make sure to get the company to lose at least a couple of sales.

Considering the amount of noise about Starforce, I do think it has to lose quite a few sales.

3) An estimate of the cost of developing adequate DRM policies and code

Hard to get an estimate, companies don't seem to publish prices on this. But doubt it's very cheap.

You haven't provided any of those numbers. Not even rough estimates. You have absolutely no case here, none at all.

Well, provide your numbers then. Real numbers I mean, because the "1 pirated copy=1 lost sale" is nonsense.

Instead of providing figures to back-up your assertion, you throw in shit like your point 5 which is completely irrelevant to the problem

It's very much relevant. I don't know of a single game that hasn't been cracked. No matter what you do, no matter how you try to stop it, eventually I can get a copy from bittorrent. So you'd be wasting money.

There's a Spore torrent on the pirate bay right now. In exchange for the DRM they got a lot of annoyed people who mounted a campaign against it, and went to the point of a class action lawsuit and it still was pointless because it still got cracked before the release and is still right there.

They also ended up relaxing the restrictions, so evidently it had to be losing them money, because otherwise, why would they have done it?

Point 6 which appears to be a scaremongering urban legend at best.

It did happen

Is it possible you're correct? Yes, I concede that. Is it likely? No-- if it was, then you'd see major studios ditching DRM as quickly as possible.

Online music stores have ditched it, which seems to point to something.

Also, it's very attractive to blame every loss of sales on piracy. It's something external you can blame and avoid ever blaming yourself for anything. Many claims not to buy a game because of DRM are met with disbelief.

The "Law Of Look In A Goddamned Gaming Store" says that your assertion is wrong, and I see no reason to believe that all game studios are somehow insane and you're not.

It wouldn't be the first time an ineffective measure was adopted even though it miserably failed to work. See also the war on drugs that keeps their merchants in business, and the prohibition that miserably failed to do anything useful, and still took a long time to get rid of.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

It's very much relevant. I don't know of a single game that hasn't been cracked. No matter what you do, no matter how you try to stop it, eventually I can get a copy from bittorrent. So you'd be wasting money.

Point A doesn't lead to point B here. If DRM is effective at reducing casual piracy, then it's not wasting money.

It did happen

Holy fuck, a cite!? It's almost as if you're not spewing nothing but ignorance! Of course, it's a cite of The Inquirer. Better than nothing, I guess... slightly.

Online music stores have ditched it, which seems to point to something.

Possibly, and yet games are not music.

Also, it's very attractive to blame every loss of sales on piracy. It's something external you can blame and avoid ever blaming yourself for anything.

Ok, but it's simultaneously true that massive amounts of loss is due to piracy. Again, you're writing irrelevance here... that paragraph has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

Many claims not to buy a game because of DRM are met with disbelief.

That's because a lot of people:
1) Bitch about DRM, then buy the game anyway.
2) Bitch about DRM, but they really weren't your customers in the first place.

In the same way a lot of people who pirate weren't your customers, a lot of people who bitch about DRM aren't your customers. That doesn't stop them from bitching. Hell, Slashdot Games seems to be read entirely by people who, by and large, do not actually buy video games. But they sure as hell bitch about DRM.

So, yes, when people lie or are hypocrites, their claims are met with disbelief. Incredible, huh?

It wouldn't be the first time an ineffective measure was adopted even though it miserably failed to work. See also the war on drugs that keeps their merchants in business, and the prohibition that miserably failed to do anything useful, and still took a long time to get rid of.

Except that it's not illegal to publish a game with no DRM. You're talking about legislation, we're talking about the voluntary actions of game publishers. Once again, you're verging on "completely irrelevant" here.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I don't see how this applies to what I said....

Really? Well, that's my bad, I didn't quote your entire post. I apologize for my brevity making things unclear. You said you thought they were using DRM on principle. I was trying to show you why it's for greed.

Your software may happen to not get pirated enough to hurt your bottom line. There are probably many reasons that it isn't getting pirated very much.

I didn't say it wasn't getting pirated very much. I said it wasn't affecting our sales. I'm sure if I went and looked I could find seeds and other indicators that there might be people who have it that didn't pay for it. But the whole point is that piracy is costing me money, right? I can't prove that I lost one dime to piracy. I could see what sites have cracks. I could count seeds. I could do a lot of things and go "Yup, somebody probably stole mah software." But I cannot show a vacancy in my wallet. I'm not going to call anybody a thief if nothing is missing and I'm certainly not going to make my paying customers' lives harder because of some statistic that doesn't reflect reality.

Companies see those numbers and count how much cash they would have gotten if those were sales -- why wouldn't you expect them to try? It's stupid not to.

They're making up numbers, claiming that's what's missing, then increasing the value of pirated software by making the paying customers jump through more hoops to use it. What part of that is not stupid?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[manicb]

Never ran into one of those "I'm here for the $$$!" people at school?

Of course. They were planning to be lawyers, accountants and investment bankers. Only idiots go into a creative job simply in order to get rich.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

When you quote text and place your own after it you should try to respond directly to it. Otherwise it's just confusing. You don't make a good case for brevity either.

But the whole point is that piracy is costing me money, right?

That's what I'm getting at. You're OK with people using your software and not paying. Others are not.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Point A doesn't lead to point B here. If DRM is effective at reducing casual piracy, then it's not wasting money.

How would it?

There you have an example with Spore. Please explain where the effect was. It still got released on BT before the official release. It's entirely trivial to "casually pirate" it. Wikipedia says it was the "most pirated game of 2008".

So was all the drama really worth it? I really doubt it, because that HAD to lose sales, while it obviously completely failed to prevent any piracy.

Once I heard of the DRM I decided not to buy it, and until that point I was quite interested.

Holy fuck, a cite!? It's almost as if you're not spewing nothing but ignorance! Of course, it's a cite of The Inquirer. Better than nothing, I guess... slightly.

It was discussed extensively back then on different sites, but this was some years ago so probably a few links disapeared. I think it was discussed on Slashdot at some point as well.

Possibly, and yet games are not music.

Please explain where the difference is. Music should be even worse, as it's contained in small files that are useful on their own. Music is even more trivial to swap than games. I have a "send over bluetooth" option on my phone, for the currently playing song.

Yet, it sells just fine.

Ok, but it's simultaneously true that massive amounts of loss is due to piracy.

Proof please. All instances of "massive loss" I've seen assume that 1 copy=1 lost sale. But that's clearly bullshit.

That's because a lot of people:
1) Bitch about DRM, then buy the game anyway.

Possibly, but people do have a breaking point, and some do indeed end up not buying it, or not buying the next game from that company.

And I do indeed not buy games with DRM, but you can bet there are people who don't believe it.

2) Bitch about DRM, but they really weren't your customers in the first place.
In the same way a lot of people who pirate weren't your customers, a lot of people who bitch about DRM aren't your customers. That doesn't stop them from bitching. Hell, Slashdot Games seems to be read entirely by people who, by and large, do not actually buy video games. But they sure as hell bitch about DRM.

Why would they bitch about it? Those people who are not your customers don't have DRM! They got their copy from BitTorrent pre-cracked, and it installed without asking any questions. It doesn't do CD checks, doesn't have activation, doesn't refuse to work with DaemonTools, and has no installation limits. Besides, it often starts faster and crashes less. They have absolutely nothing to bitch about.

That's the funny thing about DRM -- the people it annoys are the customers. Every Spore pirate out there has no clue what the hoopla is all about, because for them it works perfectly fine, and they can install it anywhere they want as many times as they want.

Same as with the NWN case: the one doing the bitching was I, the customer. Anybody with a pirated copy either didn't need to enter a serial number at all, or it came in a "serial.txt" file they could copy and paste from.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

(This one gets flame-y.)

How would it?

How would what? Your question doesn't make sense. What are you asking?

There you have an example with Spore. Please explain where the effect was. It still got released on BT before the official release. It's entirely trivial to "casually pirate" it. Wikipedia says it was the "most pirated game of 2008".

Ok, so these three points translate as:
1) Not relevant to my point
2) Not relevant to my point (also incorrect)
3) Not relevant to my point

So was all the drama really worth it? I really doubt it, because that HAD to lose sales, while it obviously completely failed to prevent any piracy.

You can doubt all you want, but EA hasn't gotten rid of DRM on any of their titles.

Once I heard of the DRM I decided not to buy it, and until that point I was quite interested.

Yes, and let me try this one more time:

The World Does Not Fucking Revolve Around You

Please explain where the difference is. Music should be even worse, as it's contained in small files that are useful on their own.

Well, the difference is music "is contained in small files that are useful on their own." That's the fucking difference. You typed it in the same paragraph where you asked what the difference was, idiot.

The cost of producing a song (the smallest unit of "music") is orders of magnitude less than the cost of producing an entire video game (the smallest unit of "video game"). That *is* the difference. The economics are all out-of-whack from that alone.

Proof please. All instances of "massive loss" I've seen assume that 1 copy=1 lost sale. But that's clearly bullshit.

Ok then let's go by Wolfire's numbers-- 10% is still massive loss. Christ. Am I debating with a kindergartner or something?

In any case, it's not "clearly bullshit." There are two components to piracy:
A) People who pirate the game who would have bought it anyway
B) People who pirate the game with no intention of buying it

See what they have in common? BOTH OF THEM ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FUCKING LAW YOU FUCKING DOUCHE.

Whatever the percentage of A compared to B is, you're arguing in favor of assholes who have zero respect for the time and effort of game creators.

Your argument, in short, is: "hey games industry, FUCK YOU."

I'm NEVER going to agree with that, whether the number in A is 100%, 10% or 0.01%.

If you don't like the law, then try to change the law. But you don't just go around breaking it at a whim because it's hard to get caught. Seriously, the rest of us are trying to run a fucking civilization here.

Why would they bitch about it? Those people who are not your customers don't have DRM! They got their copy from BitTorrent pre-cracked, and it installed without asking any questions. It doesn't do CD checks, doesn't have activation, doesn't refuse to work with DaemonTools, and has no installation limits. Besides, it often starts faster and crashes less. They have absolutely nothing to bitch about.

Then explain Slashdot. Are you brand-new here?

That's the funny thing about DRM -- the people it annoys are the customers.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. You haven't acknowledged that it's possible to have DRM and not annoy customers. Of course, since you have an apparent IQ of 75, I guess I wouldn't have expected you to examine the problem from all angles.

Every Spore pirate out there has no clue what the hoopla is all about, because for them it works perfectly fine, and they can install it anywhere they want as many times as they want.

Yes, but Spore is an EA game. EA.

The shittiness is due to it being EA, not due to it having DRM. (At best, you can say that it's due to it having EA DRM.) Look, EA hates their customers. EA makes buggy, shitty games. EA engages in anti-competitive practices and is actively trying to become a monopoly in the gaming space. EA IS SHIT. EA HATES YOU

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

When you quote text and place your own after it you should try to respond directly to it. Otherwise it's just confusing. You don't make a good case for brevity either.

I did apologize for that. Although I have to admit I am regretting actually taking time to acknowledge that mistake given that you've clearly ignored my entire post.... again.

That's what I'm getting at. You're OK with people using your software and not paying. Others are not.

That is not at all what I'm saying or have said. I guess I'll have to repeat it... again. I have no actual proof any piracy has happened. I could find cracks. I could find seeds. I could probably even find cases of people downloading it and getting it running. But I can't actually find one case of anybody, at all, using it without paying for it. That is not 'okay with it'. That's "I need evidence, please."

Since my posts are obviously way too long for you to read, I'll give you a nice handy dandy summary:

"Q. Why isn't your copy protection heavy handed?" "A. I have no lost sales. Even if I did, it's stupid to lower the value of what the paying people get to try to get more sales."

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

How would what? Your question doesn't make sense. What are you asking?

Reduce casual piracy. How is it supposed to be doing that, given the miserable failure that it is? I give Spore as an example as how it's completely failing to do that.

Ok, so these three points translate as:
1) Not relevant to my point
2) Not relevant to my point (also incorrect)
3) Not relevant to my point

1. Why? It clearly failed to prevent any piracy.
2. Why? What do you mean it's not trivial? Go look on the pirate bay. Download, install a while later. My grandma could do it.
3. Why? Isn't it supposed to be preventing something? Given that it was the "most pirated game of the year" it clearly didn't do what it was supposed to.

You can doubt all you want, but EA hasn't gotten rid of DRM on any of their titles.

They did do some changes. Spore got the activation limit bumped, then released on Steam without the original DRM. Now I wonder, why would they relax those restrictions, if it wasn't losing them sales?

The World Does Not Fucking Revolve Around You

So? All I'm saying, I'm a potential customer, and one that they lost due to DRM. Can't be the only one. So any company doing it has to have in mind that it's going to lose them some sales.

Well, the difference is music "is contained in small files that are useful on their own." That's the fucking difference. You typed it in the same paragraph where you asked what the difference was, idiot.

Well, exactly. Music is much, much easier to pirate. So by all logic, un-DRMed music should be suicide. But hey, what you know, it's selling, and stores are dropping the DRM.

The cost of producing a song (the smallest unit of "music") is orders of magnitude less than the cost of producing an entire video game (the smallest unit of "video game"). That *is* the difference. The economics are all out-of-whack from that alone.

I don't think that has much to do with it. Making music is very risky. Record companies drive a hard bargain and many popular artists end up not earning much, or in debt. Really music artists are probably nervous as heck at the prospect of their game not selling.

Ok then let's go by Wolfire's numbers-- 10% is still massive loss. Christ. Am I debating with a kindergartner or something?

I disagree with the "massive" part. The numbers normally discussed suggest a 90% loss or something equally gigantic. This is peanuts in comparison. And again, the stats show that if you want 10% more, make a Mac version.

See what they have in common? BOTH OF THEM ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FUCKING LAW YOU FUCKING DOUCHE.

I'm sorry, the "THE FUCKING LAW" argument never impressed me much. Some things are legal and shouldn't be, and some aren't and should be. Repeat after me: law doesn't equal morality.

Not that it's my argument anyway, but that point seemed to be worth making.

Whatever the percentage of A compared to B is, you're arguing in favor of assholes who have zero respect for the time and effort of game creators.

No, I'm arguing a very simple thing: ignore the assholes, and make your customers happy, because you know, those are the ones that actually pay you the money, and may choose not to.

Your argument, in short, is: "hey games industry, FUCK YOU."

No, it's "hey games industry, make games without DRM and I will buy them"

I'm NEVER going to agree with that, whether the number in A is 100%, 10% or 0.01%.

Then you have no business sense. Every retail business has to contend with things like product breakage, employees stealing the product, etc. The sane ones recognize that piss

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

That is not at all what I'm saying or have said. I guess I'll have to repeat it... again. I have no actual proof any piracy has happened.

I did read your post. If cracks, seeds, and other records aren't enough to prove that piracy has happened then I don't know what is. Your inability to find that piracy has happened because of these facts is both naive and irrelevant. People are using your software without being authorized to. I don't care if they are lost sales or not. I'm just saying what's obvious.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

Reduce casual piracy. How is it supposed to be doing that, given the miserable failure that it is? I give Spore as an example as how it's completely failing to do that.

Nooooo, you said that Wikipedia said that it's the most pirated game of 2008. It's possible for it to simultaneously:
1) Be defeating casual piracy efforts with DRM
2) Be the most pirated game of 2008

Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive. Once again, you've shown absolutely nothing.

They did do some changes. Spore got the activation limit bumped, then released on Steam without the original DRM. Now I wonder, why would they relax those restrictions, if it wasn't losing them sales?

Because DRM systems are often made less restrictive after the title is released; I can think of a dozen games where this has happened. It has nothing to do with the success of the DRM system, it only has to do with the vast majority of the game income coming in the first few months of sales.

Well, exactly. Music is much, much easier to pirate. So by all logic, un-DRMed music should be suicide. But hey, what you know, it's selling, and stores are dropping the DRM.

No it's not. The only way I can think of that it's easier is that the download size is smaller... other than that, it's exactly the same.

Really music artists are probably nervous as heck at the prospect of their game not selling.

Wha-huh? Are you talking about the composer of the video game soundtrack? You lost me.

I disagree with the "massive" part. The numbers normally discussed suggest a 90% loss or something equally gigantic. This is peanuts in comparison. And again, the stats show that if you want 10% more, make a Mac version.

It takes more than 10% additional effort to produce a version for another platform. I hate to break this to you, buddy, but we're in a world where game makers are contemplating not even making *Windows* versions in favor of consoles... I recall (and I'm not going to cite this, because you're an idiot) the makers of Modern Warfare 2 saying that even with the reduced feature-set, and piracy completely aside, the Windows version of the game barely broke even.

Mac has no chance at all in this market, unless you're a small-fry like Wolfire.

I'm sorry, the "THE FUCKING LAW" argument never impressed me much. Some things are legal and shouldn't be, and some aren't and should be. Repeat after me: law doesn't equal morality.

Not that it's my argument anyway, but that point seemed to be worth making.

If you think the law is not moral, then work to change the law. Don't just break it!

No, I'm arguing a very simple thing: ignore the assholes, and make your customers happy, because you know, those are the ones that actually pay you the money, and may choose not to.

Yeah, but they're already doing that... so you're really saying nothing!

Oh wait, once again you're equating "your customers" with DaleGlass (1068434). Let's try this yet again:

The World Does Not Fucking Revolve Around You!

Maybe it'll sink in this time.

Then you have no business sense. Every retail business has to contend with things like product breakage, employees stealing the product, etc. The sane ones recognize that pissing off 20% of the customer base to stop 10% loss doesn't make financial sense, so while they do work against it, they avoid going completely nuts and having military security on the premises.

Yes, but you haven't shown that's what the game industry is doing. I under-fucking-stand your fucking assertion here, what I want is proof that the games industry actually is alienating 20% of their customers to combat 10% loss. Because the "Look In A Fucking Gaming Store" law says that ain't happening, and you've provided jack to back it up. And conversation is going in circles.

The same thing here. Too much DRM, and it annoys customers who decide not to buy, tell everybody around why they didn't, and in extre

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

Nooooo, you said that Wikipedia said that it's the most pirated game of 2008. It's possible for it to simultaneously:
1) Be defeating casual piracy efforts with DRM
2) Be the most pirated game of 2008
Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive. Once again, you've shown absolutely nothing.

How come they aren't? What is your definition of "casual piracy"?

Mine is that you can easily grab it from BitTorrent. That's how the vast majority of it works.

Because DRM systems are often made less restrictive after the title is released; I can think of a dozen games where this has happened. It has nothing to do with the success of the DRM system, it only has to do with the vast majority of the game income coming in the first few months of sales.

So again, if it was working perfectly fine, why change it? To reduce the amount of DRM you need to pay programmers to do the work, make a new release, get it through QA, get it to various distribution points, etc. It's very real work and it costs money. So why on earth would they do it, if things were perfectly fine in the state it was released?

No it's not. The only way I can think of that it's easier is that the download size is smaller... other than that, it's exactly the same.

I already gave you an example: I have a "send by bluetooth" option on my phone, for any song. If somebody says "I want that one!" it's all of 5 seconds to start a transfer to their phone/laptop.

Game piracy is more involved, you need a suitable network, or to burn a CD, or to find a flash drive, or some such thing. In comparison, music piracy is so easy I can send songs to any random person anywhere. I could do it while standing in a train in the underground. No wifi, no wires, no messing with networking.

And it's also small enough to be emailed.

Wha-huh? Are you talking about the composer of the video game soundtrack? You lost me.

My mistake. Should have been "Really music artists are probably nervous as heck at the prospect of their music not selling"

It takes more than 10% additional effort to produce a version for another platform. I hate to break this to you, buddy, but we're in a world where game makers are contemplating not even making *Windows* versions in favor of consoles... I recall (and I'm not going to cite this, because you're an idiot) the makers of Modern Warfare 2 saying that even with the reduced feature-set, and piracy completely aside, the Windows version of the game barely broke even.

Wait, wait. They removed functionality and are suprised it's not selling? Well, duh.

"Dedicated server support is removed, eliminating the ability for mods or user-created maps to be incorporated. This removal has created anger among many PC gamers." -- well there you have the reason it didn't sell.

As a PC user, I don't want a crippled console game, I want a fully featured PC game.

Also, reduced feature sets in software don't actually save money. You have to code the feature anyway, it costs you extra money to make sure it can be left out and everything works without it. Software removes features for market segmentation, not because it somehow makes things cheaper.

If you think the law is not moral, then work to change the law. Don't just break it!

I'm sorry, do you have problems with reading comprehension? I never spoke of breaking the law. I repeat:

1. I buy games without DRM.
2. I don't buy those that have it (but don't pirate them).
3. I work to change the law, by for instance belonging to the Pirate Party and donating to the EFF, among other things.

Need me to repeat it another time?

Yeah, but they're already doing that... so you're really saying nothing!

Well, count me as one that's not satisfied then.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[Blakey Rat]

I'm not going to reply to your whole post, because this conversation is tiring me, and it's now MORE than obviously you're never going to even attempt to support your initial statement no matter how long this goes on.

Also, reduced feature sets in software don't actually save money. You have to code the feature anyway, it costs you extra money to make sure it can be left out and everything works without it. Software removes features for market segmentation, not because it somehow makes things cheaper.

That is complete nonsense.

No, it hasn't, it's been completely pointless for the last 25 years, because anybody who wanted to pirate the game did anyway. Piracy existed back when I was in primary school, and still exists now. Various anti-copy mechanisms didn't stop anything back then, and still don't. DRM is pointless.

You missed the point. You said it was suicide, I said if it was suicide, then after 25 years of it they'd probably be dead and they aren't. You then wrote this response which has absolutely nothing to do with your initial statement (that DRM is suicide.)

Not only can you not debate, you can't even keep a single thread of conversation in your brain longer than 5 minutes, apparently. You're the enemy of rational thought and civil debate.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[DaleGlass]

I'm not going to reply to your whole post, because this conversation is tiring me, and it's now MORE than obviously you're never going to even attempt to support your initial statement no matter how long this goes on.

Disappointing. I was looking forwards to more of those "The World Does Not Fucking Revolve Around You" ;-)

Did you at least get that I don't pirate and that I actually do pay for stuff I like?

That is complete nonsense.

Explain why then.

Software isn't a physical product. More bits don't weigh more or take more to manufacture. If you did a full version already, you don't save money by stripping features, you spend it.

You missed the point. You said it was suicide, I said if it was suicide, then after 25 years of it they'd probably be dead and they aren't. You then wrote this response which has absolutely nothing to do with your initial statement (that DRM is suicide.)

I said "Fighting your own customer base is suicidal". There are degrees of that, some worse than others. The Mac guy did an extreme version, Games Workshop seems to be intent on achieving the same result in another way, and the rest are for the most part just screwing up enough to lose money.

Not only can you not debate, you can't even keep a single thread of conversation in your brain longer than 5 minutes, apparently. You're the enemy of rational thought and civil debate.

Heh, how dramatic.

Please take your own advice and reply to the whole post, then.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If cracks, seeds, and other records aren't enough to prove that piracy has happened then I don't know what is.

Sales going down after the crack is released would prove it. If that's not happening, then all I'm doing is going on a witch hunt.

People are using your software without being authorized to. ... I'm just saying what's obvious.

It is not obvious. It is an assumption you are making. I think you wear glasses, but if I'm right it's not because it's because I actually know.

I don't care if they are lost sales or not.

Facts are something you should care about, dude. Whether or not they are lost sales is of critical importance. That would be the only real indicator anybody would have of actual unauthorized usage. There are a ton of reasons somebody would have for downloading the software wouldn't end in me not getting money I should have. It would be really stupid of me to cry 'thief!' when nothing missing.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

It's nice to see a calm response from you after you trolling so much.

Seeds, cracks, it's all facts.

I'm making an assumption. You are also making an assumption. We know the crack is out there. You are making the assumption that nobody used it to pirate your software. Or you are making the assumption that it has been used to pirate your software and you don't care. Boy would I hate to be your shareholder.

Lost sales aren't the only thing that matter to some people. Unauthorized use may matter whether or not sales have been lost. The facts are good enough indicators of unauthorized use.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It's nice to see a calm response from you after you trolling so much.

It's sad that you see my point of view as trolling. I would have expected you to have more respect for somebody who actually has a lifestyle that depends on people paying for content. I am disappointed in you.

Seeds, cracks, it's all facts.

Not one of those contains a 'fact' that anybody that should have paid me hasn't.

You are making the assumption that nobody used it to pirate your software.

No. What I'm doing is not making the assumption that they are. There's a difference that, frankly, isn't very subtle. If I acted on your suggestion I would almost certainly nail an innocent person. That is not good for business, ask EA.

Boy would I hate to be your shareholder.

I agree, it wouldn't be a good partnership. I don't believe that reducing the value of software or calling my customers thieves will increase sales. I also don't think you and I would get along if I'm showing you a graph of steady income and you're saying "there's a crack on-line so we're missing eleventy million dollars!!!@!@!" I also don't think I could tolerate the brain-damaged point of view that extra effort should be put into restricting the software so it'd take more man-hours to develop, maintain, and support the customer on. It's amazing to think that a shareholder would want to cut profits in half just to be more comfortable with the perception that the software is 'protected'.

Lost sales aren't the only thing that matter to some people. Unauthorized use may matter whether or not sales have been lost. The facts are good enough indicators of unauthorized use.

Yeah, I've purchased software from idiots that fixate on that, and I've suffered as a result. I paid $400 for some specialized software to do a rather important job for a client. I used it, all was good, the project wrapped and I moved on. Six months later another potential project came up. I fired up the app and... it asked for an unlock code. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why it suddenly forgot it was registered. So I sent in a submission for a new unlock code. Upon peeking at the data going out I realized what had happened. I upgraded my ram during that 6 months and the dweeb that wrote the software to, I guess, prevent me from copying it to another machine. Three days later I got an unlock code. Three. Days. Turns out I didn't need the software on that project, and I was lucky for it. I would have lost that gig because this guy is punishing ME for something he thinks other people are doing.

Here's the best bit: This isn't a game, this is software that's part of a living you can make. If people pirated his software and mastered it, they would get work with companies who'd buy the software just to be legit. Actually that's happening anyway, at least according to his blog. That was a fun read while I was waiting for my unlock code. I am now on the market for a replacement for his software.

How would you like to be a shareholder for this guy? He's pissing off his existing customers to the point that they're looking for alternatives. He has made his software unreliable for mission critical needs. He has a business model that means that his profits will perpetually shrink while he's spending time unlocking people's software. He's actively cutting off the avenue that would increase his marketshare. He's only successful right now because his software is so much cheaper. Now I'm willing to pay double maybe even triple the price to go with a competitor, and it wouldn't be that difficult of a sell. I really do find it difficult to believe you find this appealing. It's utterly unnecessary.

Unauthorized use. Yeesh.

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[rxan]

OK. I admit it. This time I didn't read all of your post. You love to hone on the fact that I used "DRM" in my original post when this isn't what it's about. The parent said that piracy was meaningless. I was simply telling them that it is not meaningless because when piracy happens people are using your work without paying/authorization/whatever. Am I wrong?

Re:Piracy is indeed for the most part meaningless

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're right, I got off topic, I apologize.

I was simply telling them that it is not meaningless because when piracy happens people are using your work without paying/authorization/whatever. Am I wrong?

Short version: Yes, you are wrong. He explained that, too. Actually everything I have said in this thread supports that supposition, too. You wanted to hear about somebody who has copy protection 'protecting' their livelihood and I chimed in. All of piracy's 'meaning' is theoretical. It's fear that drives people to deal with it, not fact.

Cop out

[Ironhandx]

Heres a fun fact: One of the most massive reasons for many becoming tolerant of it is the (accurate) perception that many have no choice but to pirate some software to begin with because the legal version doesn't work on their platform with the DRM installed...

I also think the president is using piracy as a cop out to explain why there aren't more games being produced for the Wii by third party developers. In reality it has more to do with the fact that the gamecube was low in horsepower for its generation and the Wii is not much of an improvement in that regard... developing for the Wii along with the PS3, Xbox360 + PC adds an entire new development line thats much much further removed from the other 3 than any of those 3 are removed from each other. I mean, the Wii is so much lower in power that you're talking new textures, new models, new physics engine... the works. This is the reason you're not seeing the big titles for it even though technically its market penetration is greater. It also doesn't help that its market penetration is almost entirely the very casual gamer... people that may buy 2-3 games a year at birthday/christmas and not buy any others. Theres outstanding sales for the Wii itself and the mario/wii fit games but the other titles that come to the platform have mostly languished despite the overall console ownership numbers.

Case in point: I own a wii, I have Wii sports and Wii fit, and likely will never buy another game for the thing. I know at least 4 other people that are in the same boat.

Re:Cop out

[Opportunist]

I own a Wii. For one single reason: To crack it open. Toying with the Wii is heaps of fun. It has a lot of very interesting hardware, not to mention the controller which by itself is a font of inspiration for projects.

I don't really know whether I actually played a game on it, though.

Re:Cop out

[sznupi]

...because the legal version doesn't work on their platform with the DRM installed...

That's not the case with Nintendo though, or pretty much any console... (yes, there's still some region coding here and there; but it was always upfront)

Re:Cop out

[damnbunni]

Wait, what? The GameCube was low in power for its generation? It wasn't as powerful as the Xbox, but it's easily more so than the Playstation 2. I've got a few games on both the PS2 and Cube, and the Cube version always looks better. Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance and Serious Sam: The Next Generation spring to mind.

Nintendo isn't really all that worried about Wii piracy. It's out there, but their main problem is DS piracy. Pirating DS games is trivial; it takes a $25 custom cartridge, and an SDHC card to load the copied games onto. Add in that DS games are all under 256 megs, most under 128, and they're easy to download even on a slow internet connection.

I have one of those pirate carts; all the games on it are ones I legally own. I use it because it lets me carry around all my games on one cartridge. And I can watch movies on it.

But most people with one just download the torrents of every single DS game ever, and don't buy games.

THAT's what Nintendo wants to stop.

Re:Cop out

[CastrTroy]

Why not have a system with no cartridge or disk slot on it? That would probably be quite a good way to stop piracy. Assign a public key to each device, and have it so that it will only play games signed with the device's private key, which is kept secure at Nintendo headquarters. You buy games by downloading the over the internet, either through the built in web browser, or by some program you install on your computer, and it connects via WiFi to your computer. There could be hardware hacks, requiring that you open up the device, but that will stop a lot of piraters. Sony has already gone in this direction with the PSP Go. I think this is eventually where all consoles are headed. Download only, you can't plug anything in, and eventually encase the electronics in epoxy, so you can't add mod chips either.

Re:Cop out

[LoverOfJoy]

How well is the PSP Go selling?

Re:Cop out

[Ironhandx]

No, I agree, thats not the case with the Wii et al, however it is affecting the mentality of a lot of people in regards to all software.

Re:Cop out

[Ironhandx]

Very true, however the DS game sales have been doing much better than the Wii from what I understand.

Also: Yes, you're correct about the Gamecube. It was a bit more powerful in raw hardware but in the end not as much could be pushed from it(I think it had something to do with vector units iirc) I know I've seen PS2 games that blow anything on the Gamecube out of the water... then again that may not be a symptom of the game system itself but more a cause of Nintendo not attracting the kind of developers that will go to those lengths to push a system to its max.

Re:Cop out

[KDR_11k]

Actually their piracy complaints are about the DS, not the Wii. The DS has less than half the tie-ratio (games sold per system) of the Wii.

Re:Cop out

[Ironhandx]

Yes, the Wii was simply a more convenient example for me to use.

The DS suffers from some of the same problems in that it also targets a more casual gaming audience. Its the old 80/20 rule of thumb for many things like that. 80% of your sales come from 20% of your target group. In the land of Video games at least the top 10% would be your hardcore gamers, which aren't all that terribly interested in the Wii/DS. People that spend upwards of $1000/year on video games(I'm in this bracket) rather than the $100-$150 average. Though with the rising price of video games (I was marking that at 20+ games vs 2-3 games) it could be more like $150-200 vs $1200+

Re:Cop out

[KDR_11k]

But that doesn't explain why the Wii doesn't have the same problems.

Re:Cop out

[Ironhandx]

To be honest, for my part, the Wii simply doesn't have any games worth pirating. I mentioned I have one, and I have 2 games for it and am never likely to get more... the reason isn't because its too difficult, its because the Wii doesn't have any games that I want.

I've been tempted to get a DS, but I would have to pirate certain games for it. I'd like to have Breath of Fire II and Final Fantasy VI on a new handheld system sure, but I already bought those games once(twice already in the case of FF VI) I'm not spending another $40 now just to get them again.

Actually, I'd be really happy if they had a $5 service or something to swap in your old copy for a new one for the new system should you choose to do so.

As another point I think another part of the reason that the DS piracy is so rampant is that the DS is made for portability... all those cards flopping around isn't exactly very portable. You need a good case so you don't lose any, and then you've got to swap them out to swap between games all the time... a lot of people (and some have already mentioned this) are going to be attracted to the pirate cards simply for convenience. Once they've gone through the trouble of getting what they needed to pirate games anyways for a different reason... more of them would be inclined to pirate than if this wasn't a factor.

For obvious reasons?

[Opportunist]

If you're tight lipped about the nature of your security, you have lost already. Best security is still one where the procedure itself is well known but it's still secure. If you rely on obscurity, you're prone to lose. Especially if you have no option but to give your "enemy" the secured device.

Re:For obvious reasons?

[Imrik]

No, the best security is one where people don't know which procedure you're using AND the procedure itself is well known and still secure. Security through obscurity isn't the best form of security, but it does add an extra layer of strength.

Re:For obvious reasons?

[noidentity]

They just want to be sure it's cracked one day after the release, rather than a week before. Makes sense.

Re:For obvious reasons?

[chgros]

And you do realize that "obscure" and "secret" have different meanings, right?
In a usual encryption scheme, the algorithm is public (or possibly obscure) and the key is secret.
With physical access to the device however, you can't really do better than obscurity, although some physical devices are really well protected.

Re:For obvious reasons?

[Hurricane78]

And the key. Don’t forget the key.

No?

Ok, Tommy, go get the baseball bat!

Quit spending money on DRM

[KarlIsNotMyName]

You lose more to that than you ever did on piracy.

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[miknix]

TFA: 'We fear a kind of thinking is become widespread that paying for software is meaningless.'

Of course it is! On my GNU/Linux laptop everything was provided royalty free. With exception of Matlab which is payed by my laboratory.

When better alternatives (IMHO, obviously) exists, it is indeed stupid to pay for software. It is also true that I spend some time helping development here and there (time is money) but that is not really the same, is it?

Re:Well what did you expect?

[Bazar]

There are so many threads attempting to justify copyright infringement that its just sickening.

If you "pirate" a game which you didn't pay for, you've done a bad thing.
Stop trying to justify your actions. You CAN"T

You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game, so you could profit.

End of story.

You can talk all about the ideas of DRM, or how you wouldn't of purchased it anyway, or how you advertise by word of mouth. But its all excuses.
You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.

I have far more respect for people who purchase games, or refuse to buy when a publisher goes too far. ("I won't buy a game i can't install more then 3 times")
People who are at least honest about how they break the law often aren't too bad. ("I shouldn't of, but i couldn't afford it")

But people who think its their right to take what other people make for free are dicks. And people who then promote it as their right to "pirate", are scum. ("I'm only willing to pay $5, but since the publishers have no idea how to price, i'll just steal it $0)

Seems to me, the younger the person, the more likely they are to think anything on the internet is a free.

I think the end result of their DRM might hurt their sales more then help, but i still can't blame nintendo for doing what they feel is best. At least at the end of the day, their cartridges are drm free (at least how i'm concerned)

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[sznupi]

And what when there's really no free alternative? (especially when looking not only at the hardware but also at huge library of fine games)

Better allow for transferring/lending of games

[HalAtWork]

This system had better allow for the borrowing and lending of games, and the transfer of games to updated hardware iterations. Imagine if you'd have to re-purchase your games for the Fat DS > DS Lite move. You already can't play the games you purchased using your DSi on your DSi XL.

I've got all my old games and systems since the NES days. I like to know that if my system breaks down, all I have to do is buy a new system (or one off eBay if I can't find a new one) and I can still play all of my games. If they're tied to some network service where you have to sign in to authorize, or if they're tied with DRM to the physical hardware unit, then I may not be able to enjoy what I had payed for and kept.

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[nlawalker]

When better alternatives (IMHO, obviously) exist

Well, of course it's stupid to pay if that's the case, but it's not really the case for Nintendo. I'm assuming that "better alternative" refers to free software, as opposed to piracy of software that is not free.

Re:Well what did you expect?

[Phanominon]

Wow thats a close minded attitude. I have pirated music, after which I found I really like some artists and so I bought the cd. == sales$! but I also found I hated some of the new music and deleted it. You will never stop piracy nor should you. It's free advertising. You will always have a few who will never buy anything, and if they can't get it because of DRM they move on. But you will also have those of us that find we love a product and go buy it. Being right or wrong is merly your perception of this issue. It's your morals and it may differ if you were in a different society. I'm not saying its right or wrong just that you have a very close minded view on the subject.

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[miknix]

Well, of course it's stupid to pay if that's the case, but it's not really the case for Nintendo. I'm assuming that "better alternative" refers to free software, as opposed to piracy of software that is not free.

In the case of Nintendo there are a lot of "better alternatives". If we are talking about the Wii Tenis game, why one wouldn't just buy some rackets (for cheap) and play (for free) with friends?

OK OK. This is /. after all - I'm just trolling.

paying for software is meaningless?

[nurb432]

No, its obscene.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[ZekoMal]

Where's the money come from to pay the game programmers, the game artists, the designers? The music makers, the script writers, the voice actors? The concept artists, the factory workers, the advertisers?

Yeah, free flash games are free. But they're usually made by one person, or a small group, in their free time. And no free game is as massive as, say, Bioshock.

I mean, who's going to pay the team that makes the software? Or the team that made the software that the team used to make the software? If not the person using their software, than who? The government?

If you're anti-shovelware, then you damn well aren't considering paying for software obscene.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[nurb432]

Value added services. Such as:

Network play
Consulting ( support )
Concerts ( branching out here a little, into music )

I have made a living most of my professional life supporting others people garbage. ( and a short stint producing in-house code ). Its a model that does work. Even have supported OSS code for profit, so don't tell me it only works with 'pay' applications.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[ZekoMal]

Network play: certainly a cash cow for multiplayer games that are online, but has nothing to do with offline games.
Support: ....yeah. Unless they make their games prohibitively challenging in such a way that the user is inclined to get help before just giving up, this won't rake in much cash. I've been gaming for 12 years, and I haven't called for support on any of my 500 games.
Concerts: this works for musicians. It's not exactly fair, though.

Yes, support works well...for NON entertainment. When someone wants to be entertained, they don't want to have to spend several hours trying to sort out a problem with the help of some stranger.

Since you branched out to music, I'll branch that way too.

I know an Indie band's drummer. He spent every weekend doing a concert. Well, at the end of a college year of playing every weekend, he came out....in the red. They'd needed equipment upgrades, which unfortunately clashed with what little profit they made. Whenever someone says musician, they think of the millionaires in their mansions who throw tantrums and close Napster. The sad fact is that 1% of the music market is successful in such a way; the rest break even or make a bit of a profit. If we assume that paying for music is a travesty if it isn't live, a musician would need to play live at as many venues as possible all over the country, if not the world, to even hope to achieve the profits they could have achieved if they could only sell their albums.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[nurb432]

Most bands i know of never produce an album at all and make their money playing local gigs so i disagree that its 1% that 'make it'. True, they don't make millions, but they make a living. ( unless i misunderstood your point, just waking up :) )

Sure, some marginal in talent bands cant make it live and rely on the sale of ( overly produced ) record sales, but perhaps those should dry up anyway?

On software, i do admit i don't do games, and all my consulting time has gone to business applications.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[ZekoMal]

The point I was making was that less than 1% make millions, with the rest scraping it together :P

I guess, what I'm ultimately trying to say is that a large chunk of their revenue, the part that lets them comfortably, relies on the sale of software. Demanding that they give it away for free because it suits us better would be about as silly as a game company demanding Adobe Photoshop for free because it's just software. A lot of man hours go into producing software; I'll stick to music and games for the examples.

CD: Finding the right recording studio, hiring any backup musicians needed (see: Gorillaz), all while spending months recording it just right, erasing entire songs for having so much as a single note out of tune.

Game: Finding the right company to pay for the costs of the game, hiring the artists, programmers, sound engineers, voice actors, and everyone else involved, purchasing the licenses for the equipment (some game engines cost 20 mil to make, but sell licenses to game companies for $11k per head using the software), purchasing state of the art equipment (mo cap, for example), all while spending three years from start to finish making the game itself.

The average AAA game costs 50 mil to make; if they just set that out for free and hoped they'd get a few support phonecalls, that would be a gamble to even make the stock market blush.

Entertainment industries cannot be treated the same as all other industries. Their products are used for fun only, but require immense amounts of creativity. Just look at a "game" like Second Life; the average user has about the creativity of a drooling ape, especially when compared to actual game designers. I guess I just don't understand why there's so much hostility towards paying game makers strictly on the basis of the medium they use. No one here would raise argument to paying for a tabletop game, and the production cost of that is significantly less than what goes into a video game.

Re:paying for software is meaningless?

[soppsa]

Yes, we should all work for free. I'll feed my kids with the donations button on the webpage of my FOSS game that took years of my life to make. Sounds like a plan! I love slashdot 3

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[JohnG]

And instead of Manhunt for Wii, why not just buy a lead pipe and run around bashing peoples heads in?

Re:Well what did you expect?

[Travelsonic]

End of story nothing you arrogant shit, especially since you mis-characterize everybody not supporting this as justifiers / promoters of piracy. Especially since you choose to impose your views on others- here's a hint: morals vary, and law is not black and white. Especially since piracy by the average user - as you are addressing - IS NOT FORPROFIT.

For-profit piracy is scum, but make sure you have your facts straight and can tell the difference between opinion and fact bwefore imposing your views on others.

A plea

[MasterPatricko]

Please please don't go all Apple on us Nintendo

DSiware is a step in the right direction

[spyrochaete]

I stopped pirating PC games when Steam came out. The convenience of ownership outweighed the convenience of piracy.

I have a few pirated games on my DSi XL because I hate lugging cartridges around. I own several DSiware titles because shopping was convenient and I don't need cartridges. Beef up the DS's storage and make games intangible and they'll have sold me.

Re:DSiware is a step in the right direction

[citizenr]

I stopped pirating PC games when Steam came out. The convenience of ownership outweighed the convenience of piracy.

This is double plus funny as Steam doesnt let you own anything, you merely borrow software and Steam can take it away at any moment.

Re:DSiware is a step in the right direction

[spyrochaete]

This is double plus funny as Steam doesnt let you own anything, you merely borrow software and Steam can take it away at any moment.

Yeah, I know. The Steam EULA refers to me as a "subscriber" not a "customer". Goes to show how good Steam is, since I'd rather be one of their subscribers than an owner of a physical medium.

Re:DSiware is a step in the right direction

[Stray7Xi]

This is double plus funny as Steam doesnt let you own anything, you merely borrow software and Steam can take it away at any moment.

His point is clear, convenience is king. Steam is more convenient then pirating (oh a new patch, uncrack, patch, find new crack two weeks later). Steam is more convenient then media (now where did I put that disc). How long do you expect your games to work before the authentication servers go down or it's not compatible with modern OS. So does owning even matter? If you want to go back you have a lot of work in front of you anyways (dosbox is still awesome).

If steam ever stops working then I'll just pirate (the games will be there) but until then Steam's more convenient. Money isn't the issue, I don't pirate to save money, I pirate when it's more convenient. Nintendo should learn from the flashcarts.

Re:Oh Nintendo

[MasterPatricko]

Hmmm ... was the "much touted unbreakable copy protection" the fact that the discs were a different size?
Cause once that hardware became the Wii, it was shockingly easy to get stuff running on it.

Re:Well what did you expect?

[Omestes]

I agree with you, piracy, for the most part, is wrong. But, on the other hand, DRM, for the most part, is also wrong. If a signinifgant portion of pirates wouldn't have purchased the product in the first place, then DRM is only punishment for those who DO buy the product, it is treating EVERYONE as guilty. The cure is worse than the disease.

I can easily argue that DRM is wrong, without ever touching on the idea that piracy is fine and dandy.

I also find it odd that these companies with draconian DRM, and large rants about how piracy is killing the industry are still making money hand over fist (I'm guessing that most of the gaming industry are making record profits right now, inspite of piracy). They are just mad that they aren't making as much money as they like. This springs from a mindset that they are entitled to my money, which isn't correct.

You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game... You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.

This is where your diatribe breaks down. I have no obligation whatsoever to respect the wishes of the people who produce a product. I don't give one crap about what you, as a producer, want. I have no reason to. If I was to use your product in a way against your wishes, tough. I bought it, it is mine, I can do what I want with it. If I want to hack it so all of your carefully designed characters are naked Hillary Clintons, sobeit. If I want to hack it so I can play it on unsupported hardware, sobeit. If I want to use it to go skeet shooting, sobeit.

Imagine buying a book with a EULA saying you can only read it in a darkly lit room, past 7pm, and only while listening to Pink Floyd. Absurd, correct? Why isn't it equally absurd for software companies to have such silly restrictions?

Your hopes, dreams, and wishes are completely inconsequential to me.

As for piracy, I admit to being guilty of it from time to time. I use piracy (not so much anymore since there are relatively few things even worth that amount of effort) to try before I buy. My laptop had a strange GPU, so it was very hard to know whether any game in particular would work on it, and pretty much no stores allow returns. Thus I either pirated the game on a limited basis, or didn't buy at all. If the game ran, and was actually worth the money, I would give them cash, and generally keep the pirated copy since it was stripped (against someones silly wishes) of DRM and other flaws.

Did I do anything wrong? Legally, perhaps, ethically, though, I have no problem sleeping at night.

Lately I pirated Torchlight and Audiosurf, to see if they were worth forking over money for. I bought them both roughly a week later. Still not losing much sleep. If your game is crap, I might not buy it in the end. Which is fine by me too.

I personally don't give a crap if anyone makes money off of me. They have to work for it. I am not obligated to give anyone anything. If the full software industry died tomorrow, I wouldn't lose a tiny bit of sleep. Though I'm pretty sure that will never happen, no matter how bad piracy is.

Re:Stupid, of course it is!

[tofubeer]

I use free software all the time. If there is a free alternative to something that is for profit I use it (usually). However if I want to use something that is being charged for I pay for it. Nintendo is not talking about free software - they are talking about software that is for profit that people do not pay for. Intentionally missing their point doesn't help your argument.

Re:Well what did you expect?

[Jaime2]

You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.

You're entire argument rests on the idea that ownership of intellectual property isn't a highly controversial issue. Many people speak out against DRM because it is currently being used as a lever to take our culture out of the control of the people. Many products that every "house of the future" seems to have don't exist solely because none of the IP owners are willing to work together and the laws don't allow us or a third party to force them to. DVRs not tied to a content provider are almost dead. Video library system don't exist (at least not without circumventing DRM). The whole idea of recording something and bringing it to a friend's house to watch is almost dead. Whole home video distribution has taken huge steps backwards.

If casual piracy cannot be stopped without giving immense amounts of control to a small group of people, then I'm OK with not stopping it. Make those with the content and the technology figure out a way to make a living or withdraw from the market. If we start to lose content due to nobody making any money, then we can talk about toughening up the laws. It seems we are handing over power just to appease the fears of a few.

If the DMCA had never been passed and DRM was only an issue between the consumer and the company, then I'd have the attitude that anything Nintendo wants to do to protect themselves is their own business. However, now that circumventing DRM is a federal crime, I'm going to bitch about every single use of it.

Dear Nintendo,

[maugle]

Dear Nintendo,

I am a paying customer. I do not pirate DS games. But I do transfer my legally-purchased games to my CycloDS Evolution because there's no way in hell I'm going to carry around 40 different cartridges when I can just carry one (and the ability to use cheat codes comes in handy occasionally, too). Recently, however, I was tempted to just start pirating games again. Do you know why? Because your God damn copy protection on the latest Zelda game left it unplayable on the CycloDS, while the cracked version available online was fine!

You ridiculous attempt at stopping piracy didn't turn any pirates into customers, it just made your existing customers start considering piracy! Thankfully, the CycloDS team has since released an update to evade your stupid piracy-detecting-game-breaker. But please, Nintendo, don't fall into a situation where the pirated product is better than the legitimate one. Because if you dick me around to the point where I still have to search through the Internet to get the product I bought to actually work, I might just start skipping the step where I buy the game in the first place!

Oh, and I might as well mention that the only reason I haven't bought your DSi is because the CycloDS won't run on it.

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[satoshi1]

So, buy the real one like you do and instead of ripping it on your own, download the cracked one. I'm not sure if fair use law says you must make your own backup for it to be a vaid backup, but, personally, if I already own a copy or two of the game, I'll pirate the roms for those versions. Especially in cases where it'll cost too much to replace the disc if it's already broken/scratched, but I would really like to finish the game or something.

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[satoshi1]

Or if the game got lost somehow, too. DS cartdridges are tiny and I seem to have lost Mario Kart DS somewhere between my home in Detroit and my apartments and the dorms in Chicago.

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[sixsixtysix]

I'm not sure if fair use law says you must make your own backup for it to be a valid backup

this makes me wonder. in a sane world, anything you can do on your own, you should also be able to have someone else do for you (even for money). it'd be a sweet job making back-ups of people's legally owned goods for them, but, of course, that will never happen.

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[satoshi1]

Yeah, as long as they don't acquire a copy of it in the process, it should be alright. But of course, companies don't like you having legal backups of things you own as it is.

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[soppsa]

The problem is for the 10% of people doing legit personal backups, 90% are just stealing *....

Re:Dear Nintendo,

[sixsixtysix]

that shouldn't even factor in. even if it is just one person doing the legit thing, fair use rights should trump profit protection 100% of the time.

Re:DRM and Sales

[Technician]

They have not learned from the music industry. The music industry was all about having audio in locked down DRM protected formats. This was rejected by consumers who found the high loss MP3 format good enough for sound and just worked. Now if you want to sell audio in downloads, you either have to support MP3 or Apple's iTunes format which permits burning to unprotected CD or as an unprotected fire.

All other formats are pretty much dead. This includes Liquid Audio, Plays for Sure, Protected iTunes, Protected WMA formats, and most others.

Consumers reject broken formats that are not compatible with all their gear. I like to hear my music in my car (CD or MP3 CD), personal MP3 player (MP3 or unprotected WMA), Living room (DVD Player plays MP3 DVD's and CD's), and computer. One format MP3 is universal. Formats that will play on only one device and can't be easly converted are simply not purchased.

Re:I think the real problem is...

[nlawalker]

If the games are too expensive and don't offer enough replayability, rental is a good option. Try Gamefly.

As for a console that could download $10-$15 games: XBox Live Arcade is fantastic.

Re:Well what did you expect?

[KDR_11k]

If people judge a game's worth by its filesize maybe the solution is just to bloat the filesize to high heaven. Meanwhile I have no problem with paying 40€ for a 30MB game provided the game is good. I've certainly played 128kB games that were better than 10GB games.

How many people beat their pirated games?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I totally agree with you, Max. I have HUGE library of SNES, N64, and PSX games. My library of GCN and PS2 games is a little smaller, and my library of Wii games is less than 10. I'm tired of shelling out an increasing amount of money for ports of games (Chrono Trigger DS for $40? I bought it because I'm a fanboy, but **** you, too, Square-Enix) and increasingly shitty flagship titles (FFXIII was the my last straw for the Final Fantasy series).

I've grown cynical of anything that any of the new games that the big publishers are putting out because all they've been doing for nearly two software generations, now, is taking a formula that worked 15 years ago and applying it over, and over, and over, and over again. The last game I bought for the DS was Black Sigil from a small startup Canadian company. It was new, and it was awesome. Other games from the big publishers, I just download them. They're either rehashes or they're boring.

But you know, when you think about it, how many of you have actually beaten the games that you've pirated? For me, I play pirated games for an hour, maybe two, and then I'm done. Most people I know do the same thing with their downloaded games. Piracy is less about getting games you're interested in for free and more about basically replacing what game demos used to be. Game demos used to be long, and you could play them for a while for entertainment once, and then you'd either really like the game and buy it, or you'd have had fun wasting some time and never play it again. That's how I see the current trend of piracy. Most people who pirate play the pirated game for a short waste of time and then they're done. Without a DS flash cart, they wouldn't have instead bought the game, they'd have just instead played nothing at all.

PS3?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

The PS3 has done extremely well in the anti-piracy department. As have the newer versions of the PSP.

Of course, one could then make the argument that the PS3 is protected by an expensive media format, and both the PS3 and newer PSPs are protected by a lack of interest to hack them.

'90s, is that you?

[fishexe]

Nintendo says when its new handheld game device with 3-D technology comes out

Nobody told me they were remaking Virtual Boy!

No one wants to pay for software?

[protektor]

Ever think that it's maybe because of how software companies are treating their customers and how the legal system is screwing us over for buying software. Seems somehow the software and game industry has convinced the legal system that adding an additional legal contract after the sale to software to somehow be legal. I can't imagine that working for cars, music, movies, and it certainly didn't work for books in the past, even though they tried and were legally struck down.

Personally I am not surprised when software companies and gaming companies treat all their customers like they are going rip them off, that people start to behave that way. If you treat everyone like a criminal, then don't be surprised when everyone around you starts to act like a criminal. I personally think the software industry (and this includes gaming companies) have walked all over the legal system and their customers way too much for too long and should be seriously bitch slapped back in to line in to a more reasonable level of dealing with customers. I mean hell look at what happened in Australia recently. If you download software there you get less consumer protections than if you go in to a store to buy it? Wow! Way to push back online buying back in to the stone age, like the software companies didn't screw over their customers enough already.

Please don't give me that crap about how if you don't like it, then don't buy it. If that were the case then why not apply that type of thinking to cars, houses, food, whatever and just let the companies do whatever they want and if you don't like it then don't buy it. Let companies walk all over the public who cares, if you don't like it then don't spend your money on it, after all who needs consumer protection laws. If you don't like what a company does then don't buy it. That line of thinking is just stupid, and smacks of child like thinking. Because after all, every company would behave, since people vote with their money right? I mean we wouldn't need monopoly laws to deal with Standard Oil, Microsoft, IBM, and all the other monopolies that have existed in the past. Which is exactly where such short sighted thinking leads.

good, as long as

[sixsixtysix]

good idea, as long as the following are met:
1. all fair use rights are able to be met
2. the secondary market remains intact

i used to pay good games

[kangsterizer]

yeah.. like everyone.. used to pirate stuff i wasnt sure about and pay games i knew good or previously pirated. just cause i liked having the nice box and support devs etc.

then it changed. games were anyway downloads, so not pirating was just paying to have a quicker download, legit version and support devs...
EXCEPT!

- the game actually downloaded far slower than the pirated game
- the game actually supports LESS functionality than the pirated game (local lan games usually)
- the game was a PAIN to play or have both on my laptop and regular desktop pc (DRM hi!)
-the game updates were even more annoying, or linked to stuff like Steam (i just wanna play the game..)

so yeh.. what happens.. most of the time the game's pirated and never paid. like, why pay for a lesser, more annoying version ?
i'm going to play it 1 week max anyway if it's not an extremely good online game.

And most of the online games i play are actually free. (i pay2play from time to time, like wwiol.. yep)

oh and hey i know, this has been said thousand times. Just the obligatory gaming-pirating post was missing today.

Free software, free music, and creation as service

[FoolishOwl]

As I understand, the classic model of free and open source software development is that you pay the programmer for the service of developing software; once the software has been developed, it is made freely available to anyone who wants it.

It's often pointed out that, with few exceptions, most musicians don't make all that much money from recording contracts with major record labels -- even the big names usually make most of their money from concerts, and most musicians make what little money they make by playing in clubs and the like. That is, musicians play music as a service.

Two things related to this crossed my mind the other day: first, that with recordings, we have an odd relationship to music. I've found myself worrying about which of several versions of "The Magnificent Seven" by The Clash is the canonical version of the song. Yet this is nonsensical. The band must have played it many times, with many variations. There must be versions of the song by other bands, each with the band's particular flavor. And at different times, I might prefer a different variation. How odd that I've developed a habit of thinking there is only one true version of a song, which happens to be the one for sale.

The other is that there are a lot of musicians, and the basic fantasy of most musicians -- as I can see from ads for classes for musicians, for instance -- is of playing in front of an enthusiastic crowd of fans. I've occasionally heard newly successful musicians lament that they miss playing in small clubs, where they had a stronger connection to their audience. I don't see much expression of a longing to record a few songs in a studio, then quit. Musicians want to play music, and producing recordings is secondary. On top of that, with modern equipment, recording music and self-publishing it on the Internet isn't far out of reach of even struggling artists.

So, in general, the thing to work out is how to support a reasonable number of creators, and making what they produce freely and widely available. The publishing industry is a spectacularly inefficient way to achieve the former goal, and an outright opponent of the latter.

Paying for software is meaningless

[rastoboy29]

Please pirate my game.

Re:Paying for software is meaningless

[soppsa]

No thanks, your game looks dreadful.

Re:Paying for software is meaningless

[rastoboy29]

Yeah...not like your wedding.

ha!

Beware of this mindgames tactic:

[Hurricane78]

they're not only concerned about software piracy, but also a growing tolerance for it.

Fact is, that we started out with information being free. Because that is physical reality.
Fact is also, that only the reproduction and artist extortion industry’s recent insanity-based delusion started this “IP” bullshit. And they are ramping it up. Because it is their business that is dying more and more.

This behavior is called “projection” in psychology. And it is a staple defense of e.g. schizophrenic people that know what they do is wrong. They hate it, and want to get the hate out. So instead of hating themselves, they project their own problem upon someone else, and can then hate that one.

Which means that in their minds we have already won. And they actually would love to have a way to get out of this, without losing face. We just have to offer them a way out that makes this possible. So it’s not “You are idiots and wrong. Accept reality, dickheads!” bot “Hey, I bet you know this great way to make your great business even more successful: ...” (Who wouldn’t like that? :)
Another example of how being nice can even make your enemies your allies, if done right (= without losing power).

Foolish of Nintendo

[Schoenlepel]

Everyone is busy with stopping piracy, but nobody takes a look at why it is happening and taking away the cause of piracy.

Ofcourse free is very cheap, you'll never be able to counter that. But people will be more likely to pay for your game when it's really cheap (say in the range of €2 to €5). Providing access to additional payment methods is also a good idea, as some people become able to pay as they don't have access to a credit card.

Game quality is also important; people want value for their money... currently they can't be certain of that, so they download the game they think is interesting first, before they even think of buying it. Once downloaded, it gets a lot more difficult to buy the game in question (the user already has it).

And then there's the famous DRM. Digital Restrictions Management. Nearly every type of DRM has it's share of problems (word choice deliberate). If it doesn't cripple your computer, the game stops working after N years, because the producer decided that you should buy the next edition of the game.

And *gasp* people do not like that. Gosh. Strange. Extra reason to download a cracked version of that game.

Money poured in DRM is also money not invested in actual quality of the product.

End result: investing in DRM is actually having an effect of increasing piracy. In addition people will be less interested in buying your products, giving you less money to invest in new games.

Nintendo is investing in piracy, so they get piracy.

homebrew != piracy, no matter what Nintendo thinks

[Snorbert Xangox]

Breaking a business model is not the same as piracy.

Buying a video games device and using it as a paperweight may cost the manufacturer money, *if* their business model depends on selling lots of software per console sold to recoup the cost of the hardware. This was true for the Xbox 360 and PS3, but I doubt that Nintendo is losing money on DS sales. It is a legal use of the console in any case.

Running independently developed (i.e. not using restricted SDKs or devkits) homebrew software on a DS is not piracy. It is the same to Nintendo as if I bought the DS to hold down some paper.

I bought a Nintendo DS. I bought one cartridge: Korg Ds-10. I will probably buy another cartridge: Korg DS-10 Plus. I am not a pirate, even if I don't buy as many cartridges as Nintendo would like me to buy. I also have a DS TT cart, for if I get motivated to write or run homebrew on the DS. Again, not pirating, but not giving Nintendo a whole lot of extra dollars.

Am I stealing from Nintendo simply by not fitting their model of how somebody should use a legally bought DS? What is the difference to them between me buying it to hold down paper, and to run software that they did not license? Is it that I'm having too much fun by running homebrew on my DS instead of using it to hold down paper? How do they know how much happiness a paperweight brings to me?

As for future devices, I look forward to when there is a little more choice of general purpose, open devices in the DS form factor and with similar features. I'll be quite happy to abandon "piracy" and Nintendo's hardware platform altogether to run homebrew on something made by people who don't call me a criminal. But my moving to a different homebrew platform won't make me buy any more DS cartridges. In fact, eventually my DS might well end up (legally) holding down some paper.

Obvious reasons

[Legion303]

"For obvious reasons, the company is keeping tight-lipped on the specifics."

He really wants the one-day lead time that will give him over the first cracks.

Re:Free software, free music, and creation as serv

[witekr]

What about independent electronic musicians like myself, who want to produce refined albums and be able to sell them, either as a cd or as an online digital download. Would selling a zip of FLAC or MP3 files on my website for a nice low price even work out these days or in the future? If someone could easily throw those on a torrent site, would people still buy them enough to generate some kind of living? I doubt it, as I've talked to some fantastic independent musicians who've made wonderful albums but have struggled making any more than just some extra pocket change on places like CDBaby. If all musicians are supposed to play live to make a living in the future, it reduces the chance of artists making any career in producing/selling independent electronic music albums. Just wanted to share that viewpoint!