I've beaten it once, and I'm looking forward to doing it again! Excellent production values, solid controls, amazing performance given how good the graphics look. On my machine (MBP) CoD4 looks much better than Crysis at equal frame rates. Good job!
To a point, yes, but the shape of that curve has a lot to do with psychology of the users. I agree that we've seen correlations between piracy and value, but I would argue that in many cases, its often arbitrary price is devalued to the point of its true value. In other words, I think that when people feel cheated and/or exploited, they pirate gleefully, with a clear conscience, but when the price is perceived as fair, or sometimes even more than fair, people feel like shit when they pirate.
I paid for Orange Box. I would have felt like the second coming of Hitler if I'd grabbed those 5 magnificent games for free when they were only asking $39.95. I think I would've happily paid up to $80 for the set. If they were asking $500 and wouldn't sell them separately, I'd be bragging to my friends about how quickly I pirated all of them, even the ones I had no intention of playing, and hand out free copies.
There are some people who will pirate guiltlessly no matter what, but I think we should ignore them because they can't be converted or stopped. Others pay for everything no matter what, and are not part of the problem. Our policy should address the people who pirate when they feel exploited, and I think there are more people who work the way I described above, than people realize.
There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer.
Granted, and that's messed up, but consider how uniformly exploitive the music companies are. We (I'm 30) see little moral value in sending $14.85 to a company that hates us and $0.10 to the artist. iTMS is doing very well, due in part to two major factors: the DRM is so easily defeated (burn & rip) that they might as well be unprotected, and a perception that they're pushing for fairer prices ($1/song is cheaper than most brick-and-mortar, standing up to NBC about pricing, etc.)
There really is a sense that two wrongs may not make a right, but it's a better situation than just being bullied by rich jerks.
Guilt is a powerful motivator. It's a factor. Compensating someone fairly for something of value makes people feel righteous and noble, even if only a little, but it doesn't work if you feel like you're paying the biggest rich asshole in town. You feel like you're capitulating instead of contributing. It sucks.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with my perspective, but I do ask that you look at it with an open mind. There are a lot of problems involved in creating a system that acknowledges what I've described, and it may not even be possible. There are a number of moral inconsistencies that may make this hard for people to consider acceptable. But it's an attitude that's out there, a lot of people hold it, and if it isn't dealt with appropriately, it becomes malignant and devolves into an entitlement culture. Once that attitude becomes pervasive (and we're rapidly approaching that point) it becomes very difficult to reverse.
In conclusion, companies should not be overly hostile or exploitive if they want to survive this thing. The End.
P.S. I don't think all rich people are jerks, many are sweet and generous, but because successfully, aggressively exploitive people are often also rich, there's a correlation that could come across the wrong way.
If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales
What if the 50% who pirate it couldn't afford it in the first place? Your revenue is the same as it would be without the piracy, but you're pissed because you made someone happy without losing anything of your own.
Not that that exact scenario is terribly likely, but something like it is pretty normal.
And I'm not really taking issue with what you wrote, it's a good post that makes good points, but I always have to interject when piracy is described in terms that include implicit assumptions, which are seldom addressed directly, much less supported by fact.
The whole apps not terminating stuff annoys me intensely (I've got into the habit of going through the dock doing right click/close every hour or so, or if it's really bad simply rebooting)
Seriously? You've built up a habit of rebooting rather than a habit of hitting Cmd-Q? Well, that's not the approach I'd take, but suit yourself.
and also the complete absence of any alt-tab equivalent is horrid
Now I'm upset. For those who don't know: alt-tab works pretty much the same under OS X as it does under Windows, and if this fellow had bothered to try the keystroke, he'd know this. It takes about 1 second to hit Cmd-Tab and see this fact first-hand. You, sir, are lazy, and you spread FUD.
Full disclosure notice: I'm a Linux user since 1994 who runs XP for games only, and I have a MacBook Pro that dual-boots between Leopard and Gutsy because they are both excellent OSes.
... the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.
I thought it stood for General Infantry. Because Joe wasn't government issue, even if all his accessories were. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
I've beaten it once, and I'm looking forward to doing it again! Excellent production values, solid controls, amazing performance given how good the graphics look. On my machine (MBP) CoD4 looks much better than Crysis at equal frame rates. Good job!
To a point, yes, but the shape of that curve has a lot to do with psychology of the users. I agree that we've seen correlations between piracy and value, but I would argue that in many cases, its often arbitrary price is devalued to the point of its true value. In other words, I think that when people feel cheated and/or exploited, they pirate gleefully, with a clear conscience, but when the price is perceived as fair, or sometimes even more than fair, people feel like shit when they pirate.
I paid for Orange Box. I would have felt like the second coming of Hitler if I'd grabbed those 5 magnificent games for free when they were only asking $39.95. I think I would've happily paid up to $80 for the set. If they were asking $500 and wouldn't sell them separately, I'd be bragging to my friends about how quickly I pirated all of them, even the ones I had no intention of playing, and hand out free copies.
There are some people who will pirate guiltlessly no matter what, but I think we should ignore them because they can't be converted or stopped. Others pay for everything no matter what, and are not part of the problem. Our policy should address the people who pirate when they feel exploited, and I think there are more people who work the way I described above, than people realize.
Granted, and that's messed up, but consider how uniformly exploitive the music companies are. We (I'm 30) see little moral value in sending $14.85 to a company that hates us and $0.10 to the artist. iTMS is doing very well, due in part to two major factors: the DRM is so easily defeated (burn & rip) that they might as well be unprotected, and a perception that they're pushing for fairer prices ($1/song is cheaper than most brick-and-mortar, standing up to NBC about pricing, etc.)
There really is a sense that two wrongs may not make a right, but it's a better situation than just being bullied by rich jerks.
Guilt is a powerful motivator. It's a factor. Compensating someone fairly for something of value makes people feel righteous and noble, even if only a little, but it doesn't work if you feel like you're paying the biggest rich asshole in town. You feel like you're capitulating instead of contributing. It sucks.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with my perspective, but I do ask that you look at it with an open mind. There are a lot of problems involved in creating a system that acknowledges what I've described, and it may not even be possible. There are a number of moral inconsistencies that may make this hard for people to consider acceptable. But it's an attitude that's out there, a lot of people hold it, and if it isn't dealt with appropriately, it becomes malignant and devolves into an entitlement culture. Once that attitude becomes pervasive (and we're rapidly approaching that point) it becomes very difficult to reverse.
In conclusion, companies should not be overly hostile or exploitive if they want to survive this thing. The End.
P.S. I don't think all rich people are jerks, many are sweet and generous, but because successfully, aggressively exploitive people are often also rich, there's a correlation that could come across the wrong way.
Now I'm upset. For those who don't know: alt-tab works pretty much the same under OS X as it does under Windows, and if this fellow had bothered to try the keystroke, he'd know this. It takes about 1 second to hit Cmd-Tab and see this fact first-hand. You, sir, are lazy, and you spread FUD.
Full disclosure notice: I'm a Linux user since 1994 who runs XP for games only, and I have a MacBook Pro that dual-boots between Leopard and Gutsy because they are both excellent OSes.
"What's the old adage? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." FWIW, that's known as Hanlon's Razor.
MS didn't put support in place, Trumpet Winsock did. I remember that *distinctly.*
FTA:
I thought it stood for General Infantry. Because Joe wasn't government issue, even if all his accessories were. Right?