Mass Effect was only brought up because of the parent I was responding to. I'd be suprised if many people couldn't run something like NWN now or even the likes of Baldur's gate would be a cheap, superior option for example.
The point is that even for low end systems there are much better, much more professional, and still cheaper alternatives.
Well just fluff is all that's needed (i.e. different weapon skins, different styles of attachments such as scopes etc.), it just adds things that players can aim for and use to personalise their character and weapons a little more.
Small things like that just add more for people to aim for, and play around with to give a greater sense of being individual in the world rather than just being clone 1214251.
There are a lot of sideways enhancements games like that can have that add stuff that just make the game a little more fun without effecting balance. Even allowing guild's to have their own HQs in MMOs and stuff when they've earnt them through battle or whatever can be quite fun.
As I've said elsewhere on Slashdot in the past, people have limited pools of money to spend on entertainment, some have bigger pools than others, some have a pool that is possibly even 0 or close to - i.e. kids.
Entertainment items from DVDs to games to music have to compete for each persons' pool. People have to choose what to pay for and what not to, once their pool is spent for x period then that doesn't mean they stop wanting entertainment, it means they'll just pirate it instead.
What this guy is effectively saying is that his game deserves to be someone's purchase, rather than someone's pirate even if his product doesn't have more merit than other products that he is competing with. I think that's false, if his product doesn't have the merit of other products then I think it's unrealistic to expect that his game would be purchased rather than pirated by many people.
I do not buy into the idea that if it's worth playing then it's worth paying for anymore, I do not believe our culture follows that path anymore which is why piracy is so rampant. I believe that products compete with each other for purchase within the finite bounds of people's pool of money for entertainment. It is up to the producer of the product to work to ensure their product is the one people pay for and if they don't do that then yes I expect that they are the one's whose product should be pirated, because at a point where piracy isn't just going to vanish someone's product is going to get pirated and why should it be the one that has put the effort in to make it more attractive for purchase (i.e. sensible price, quality product) than the one that hasn't?
I think we're past the point where piracy is something that's just morally wrong because it's something so many people do. It's a fact of life that has to be accepted as part of doing business and dealt with, if it's not then yes, expect people to pirate your product instead of paying for it. Lots of industries have to deal with things that are out of their control and piracy is one that effects the software industry, being out of their control doesn't mean they can't work to minimise the problem though and doesn't give them the right to complain if they don't do anything to minimise it. Only once they've done all they can to minimise the problem and it still persists as a major issue should they start to complain- this guy hasn't done all he can, in fact, he's done things that would encourage piracy such as having a price tag too high for the quality of product yet blames them when he is at least partially to blame. He cannot be absolved of blame when he is aware the problem exists and pursues a route that would only make it worse.
I figured someone would make this point but my thinking was that something like NWN costs less and has great gameplay AND graphics. My thoughts were that even if the gameplay of his game can match that of NWN then it's still a worse product at a higher price because the graphics can't.
I do agree graphics aren't everything and gameplay matters most. For what it's worth though, I actually really enjoyed Mass Effect, and even that is cheaper now than this game. For me it wouldn't be a hard choice - Mass effect, or this game?
"I believe that ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have written a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in which they state that IT technicians investigating the matter will not be prosecuted"
Well, at least until you start demonstrating how careless the police are being with the law, suggesting that evidence of a system downloading something is evidence of a person owning the system being the one using it at that time:
Personally, whilst the idea of working for the police in the past has interested me when they've complained about a shortage of people skilled to do the job, I'd now keep well away. If they arrest you and try and label you a criminal when you're actually doing the right thing and trying to ensure justice is done then that's not somewhere I'd ever want to work. Effectively they're saying, look we wont arrest you for helping us find people loosely related to these crimes as long as you side with us against these people even if innocent.
As Slashdot likes it's car analogies, it's akin to a vehicle crash expert being arrested for pointing out the innocence of a guy who has been arrested for manslaughter because his car was stolen whilst he was at work and used to run someone over.
Yes I've seen it here before. Some indie developers aren't fussed but others seem to believe they have a god given right for their product to be immune from piracy.
I had a look at the article and saw he's selling the game for $28. When you bear in mind it's a game that looks around 15 years old in quality and style (something that's effectively admitted in the article albeit not quite so explicitly) one has to wonder why he thinks people would pay that amount for this:
When you could pay the same, or in fact, probably even less nowadays, and get a few year old yet far superior game such as say Neverwinter Nights or Oblivion?
Sometimes I believe indie developers become a little deluded as to how good their product is and for every good indie title out there there's 100 crap ones. Still, the guy made just short of $112,000 from it (spread across 3 people) and didn't even push it out to 3rd party sales channels (Xbox live, RealArcade, MSN Games, Instant Action). Frankly, for what he's peddling and the amount he's peddling it for I think he should be happy and bitching about pirates is laughable when you consider how much he's asking for something so awful looking and compared to what you could get instead. It doesn't strike me as suprising that people would pirate something like that rather than pay $28 for it. He claims including salaries the cost to make the game was $120k (but doesn't reveal individual salaries- the two staff other than him are only part time) so is implying he's only broken even, but if he's taking a $100k salary out of that for example then of course he's doing much better than makes out. As he doesn't give any break down of figures we can't be sure whether his costs really are as high as he infers (I really can't see how they could be) or if he's actually making a fairly decent wage which seems more likely.
What should really be taken from this article is that even if you make a shite unoriginal game and sell it for much more than it's worth, don't bother marketing and selling through important channels, despite piracy, you can still make a decent buck off of it.
There's a lot of good indie titles out there, Popcap was always the prime example of how good titles sell (they made millions) but indies that are failing and blaming piracy need to look at why- if even this guy with such a poor product can make a decent amount then chances are, if your product is failing, you really do have a severely crap product. Even this guy seems to believe he deserved to make more even though it's amazing the amount he did make for what he's selling.
Perhaps another piece of advice to take from this article is that indie developers need to have realistic expectations and that whilst they'll still make a decent buck, they wont necessarily become the next Popcap. If they don't make much at all then they need to have a long hard look at whether they really have the skills to be making indie games that people want for the price it's offered at.
Regarding extra weapons I was thinking more along the lines of Call of Duty 4/5 where you do level up by playing like in Planetside and unlock access to more weapons that aren't as you say necessarily more powerful.
Regarding the quests, the idea would be simply to add goals to what was otherwise a goalless game and rewards for doing so.
Dark Age of Camelot was also oriented towards PvP as it's end game, but the RPG elements meant there was still stuff to do when there was nothing going on, and eventually there were quests in the frontiers (the PvP areas) to try and rally the few people that were around into action at that point.
I get the impression they ignored additional content in Planetside because their game was just good enough to keep people subscribing but not good enough to have them playing for hours and hours a day thus saving them a fortune in bandwidth costs. The problem is I believe that cut their overall potential playerbase and cut their game's overall lifespan. It did already have some RPG elements too it of course such as levelling so it's hard to think of it as a pure FPS, again even CoD has these elements now and I think it's because the idea of persistent characters from MMORPGs (or even going back to MUDs) that can level up is an attractive one but also I don't believe it's the only element from RPG based MMOs and MUDs that's attractive and could be carried over to these types of games.
I'm not aware of any FPS that supports 11 million players?
I can only guess you're referring to WoW, but even that doesn't support 11million on one server, only around 1500 to 2000. As I mentioned before however, even this was available 11 years ago in Ultima Online, so as MMOs go it's still certainly nothing new. Whilst WoW supports 1500 - 2000, even Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest were able to handle 3000 - 3500 and Warhammer online maxed out at around 2000 - 2500 so in fact, even MMOs have seen a decrease in the players they support. AFAIK Eve online is about the only exception by using a heavily zone based system spread across multiple servers rather than a seamless universe.
On one hand you tell us you believe in letting your kids grow up and see the world as it is then you claim it's not fair that porn advertisers splash ads in her face.
What does that even mean? It's okay for other aggressive ads to be forced upon her? so your objection is actually about sex? If so then why say you have no problem with them growing up to understand it? In this case, you're after censorship and the best way is monitoring what your child does, this is often (or maybe not nowadays judging by the amount of parents who try and absolve themselves of any blame when their kids do something dumb/criminal) referred to as parenting.
If that's not what you mean and you in fact mean your problem is just with aggressive advertising in general then just use an ad/popup blocker like anyone else.
Either way, don't say you mean one thing and then do the exact other, else it's rather hard to offer answers because we can't really tell what you're actually trying to achieve.
Oh and by the way, I'm a little intrigued to know where on earth she's visiting to get such ads thrust in her face in the first place. The worst I get is ads for russian brides, and they're not even pornographic or at least are barely so. Chances are, if she's getting those ads, she's already visiting hardcore sites by choice and not by accident anyway.
Well I live in the UK and unless you live in central London then you'll get shit broadband here too sadly.
Really though even in the countries that really lead the world on broadband such as Sweden, the 100mbps connections are only available around Stockholm and such so very few countries really do have decent broadband. I'd say 20mbps should be minimum nowadays to really open the door for much more innovative online gameplay and I'm pretty sure only small amounts of the world do actually have that kind of speed in place for the majority of citizens.
I get around 1.8mbps average, it's not terrible, I can't complain too much because I think it's still far better than what I remember - dialup, but it's not enough to allow for much by way of innovation, you can't for example stream high definition content on that.
I think it's because with more players you usually end up with a better variety of tactics and aren't stuck fighting over the same bridge/building/whatever for the whole map as well as having more different players to fight. Effectively you end up with much more variation and it becomes harder for 7 players to just camp one building.
I guess basically, some people like to snipe, some people hate snipers, some people like fast paced close quarter combat, some like to camp a room in a building, some just like a mix of all of it. With a big map and lots of players chances are you can have it all whereas in a standard game with 16 players there's nearly always a map you just hate and don't want to play because you're forced into a certain playstyle you don't enjoy.
Also, more players often means more balance, because whilst awesome players (or even cheaters for that matter) can still stand out in their kill count, they can't single handedly sway the game each and every time because they're still onlyand I've been on both sides of that. I've played games where I've been on a team that just gets repeatedly slaughtered and I've been on a team and repeatedly slaughtered, both, to me, are quite boring, I'd rather have a close battle which is challenging and hence much more rewarding.
To put it into context I was playing Dark Age of Camelot and Planetside at the same time, I know some new stuff went in but compared to the likes of DAoC the amount of new content that went into Planetside truly was negligible.
It's the amount of new content I took issue with, it wasn't enough to keep the game fresh. Primarily though it was as you say, largely just changing numbers to change balance without any real actual content.
They should've developed it more like an MMO rather than just an FPS with more players but less detailed physics etc. so that the servers could handle the load. I don't mean roleplay style quests and all that, but maybe allow for better personalised vehicles that could be stored per player as a reward for x kills or whatever. Even some quests though would be doable- giving simple quests such as helping to take and hold a certain base for 24hrs and getting rewarded with uniquely styled weapons or something. Making it so you could blow up bridges and that sort of thing also.
I understand where you're coming from and agree to an extent. My point is not so much that more is better, but that more offers greater potential. As you say you can't just stick 32 players in a 16 player map and expect it be more fun but I do believe a map designed specifically for 32 or perhaps even 100 players with 32 or 100 players in it generally has greater potential to be more fun than a 16 player map with 16 players.
Implementation matters more than anything, but greater player numbers I believe opens the door for greater potential fun. I think Planetside was a good example of this, it's only downfall is they did nothing with it like most MMOs and it just became stagnant and dated. Had they kept producing new content for it and been more active in supporting it throughout I do believe it would've done much better than it did.
Your comment holds true only for consoles and ignores years of PC based gaming that had all that.
PCs were doing online gaming well before Goldeneye 64 came out and with the arrival of software like Gamespy, or formerly, Quakespy, we had software that could find games.
Even in Quake 1 people were developing clan skins for their characters and were able to share them so that their clan's players had their own skins. Modding and sharing content goes back even further with games like Doom having support (Alien Doom etc. anyone?).
The article talks about 11 years time, 11 years ago in 1998 we had Quake 2, and later that year we had Half-Life. Not long after I had a mobile phone with games, WAP support, a calendar, address book, calculator and so on.
Things haven't changed as much as you think in this time, they've just gotten more polish which wasn't in in the first place simply because computer hardware hand't shrunk enough to handle it. There's certainly been very little innovation in gaming in this time, merely doing the same, better. This is almost certainly because few companies want to take risks to try and do things different- they just want to stick with the tried and tested and do it better because it's safe money.
Quake 1 came out 13 years ago, most of what has come out since then isn't all that different. Better graphics sure, but the recipe is the same, the worlds are still 3D, multiplayer support has actually gotten worse - we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 being the average in a lot of games nowadays.
That's not to say there haven't been innovations, the Wii is a good example, but it's still only shifted around 40mill units and around 150mill games, which is great, but not enough to suggest it's killed off the classic style of games (the PS3 + 360 + PC have still shifted a lot more games than the Wii in the same period). I think if anything the Wii has just added a new style of gaming that'll sit alongside the existing style, it's certainly earned it's place, but it's also unlikely to be a killer. But even then, particularly in the case of games like duck hunt are the Wii shooters really even an innovation even if the likes of Wii sports is?
But even moving away from that and moving away from FPS, 12 years ago we had Ultima Online, nowadays we have WoW and Warhmmer and I'm not convinced they're relatively any better. Graphics are of course but certainly the time I spent playing UO I enjoyed much more than the time I spent in both WoW and Warhammer, it simply had less of the boring grind/level crap you have today and more about actually enjoying the game and having fun.
So if not much has changed in the last 12/13 years other than the obvious changes we get with more horse-power such as better graphics or in the case of duckhunt to Wii shooters, the ability to move around and shoot has much really changed to suggest that games in 2020 will necessarily be anything different again? Particularly as somethings haven't move on in the last decade- again, multiplayer player limits in FPS haven't increased.
We were always promised bigger worlds, bigger battles and so on but all the horsepower goes into better graphics, better collision detection than stuff that particularly effects gameplay. This coupled with the fact that internet connection speed improvements are pretty lacklustre in most of the world means we haven't seen what we might have envisaged a decade ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love many of the games that are out today, but I'm not getting my hopes up that games in 11 years will be anything more than to games now that games now are to what they were 11 years ago. I'd rather the next decade was spent on gameplay rather than graphics personally, but gameplay doesn't sell hardware upgrades I guess. If we start to see graphics and story telling like that in Gears of War 2 coupled with the control styles of the Wii it'd be a good start, but for this to happen either MS/Sony need to adapt to Nintendo's control style or Nintendo needs to start catering to the hardcore. I think this is more important than many realise too- I think if Nintendo's control method isn't taken to the hardcore it runs the risk of eventually being just another fad, rather than an integral part of gaming. Hell, even the joystick died out to the mouse and keyboard, which back in the joystick's prime, people would've laughed at the idea of.
There's nothing legally binding to say I'm not allowed it before that date though, if the suppliers are shipping it to them and they're shipping it to me, there's nothing illegal going on there. As a legit customer there's no legal reason I shouldn't be allowed to play this game other than a 3rd party who has no legal right to prevent me, preventing me from doing so.
As I say I've even reported it to trading standards and agree and are looking into see if they can take action. UK consumer law agrees that they are in fact in the wrong and hence they have created a problem.
They cannot give me the game and then tell me "Well actually you're not supposed to have it so we wont let you use it". The bigger issue is if the activation servers ever go down and Valve has gone bust so wont release a patch, then I'll never be able to install and play the game ever again also. I don't really know how that is in any way defensible, it's fucking the consumer entirely and for what? for Valve to get a greater stranglehold on the game publishing market whilst fucking retailers and their cusomters in the process? At this point with this tactic they're looking no better than EA.
It has another advantage, it's on the 360- the 360 doesn't have a massive amount of RTS games. LotR, C&C3, Supreme Commander, RA3 and that's about it.
So whilst it's like every other RTS, it's also worth buying if you're just a generic RTS fan and a 360 player because there isn't an awful lot of other RTS games out there on the 360 to get your fill of RTS fun with.
I got it for that reason, I love RTS games, and I spend more time on my 360 now than other systems and have played through all the other so regardless of it being Halo, it was more RTS content for me!
"(Although I can't see it working here in Finland, where people _need_ the net to do stuff like banking.)"
Exactly, as in many other countries, especially one as high-tech as South Korea where they may even use their connection for phone and TV. Finland isn't alone in that respect.
I'm not sure why you suggest it gives people a fair chance to stop though, it doesn't if they're victim to someone hacking their wireless or just using their PC and getting them banned.
"I guess it will forever remain a mystery to them why their nation isn't home to prosperous software & music industries while the status quo is free for the taking with no repurcussions."
I guess you missed the whole outsourcing thing that has been affecting the software industry in America and the West for the last decade or so then as companies move all their development jobs overseas to China/India which has allowed these two countries economy's to grow at an astounding rate?
It's not like Chinese music isn't popular and profitable in China either, sure it's not exported much but when you have 1.3billion or whatever people as a customer base, expanding it isn't too big a worry.
Saying China doesn't have a prosperous software industry is a bit odd in the face of it being one of the major drivers of their economy's growth. Saying they don't have a prosperous music industry is a little odd too.
I suppose it's the same thing as that there are more Chinese internet users than any other nation- we just don't see them because they have their own products, their own groups and so on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I think you've missed the point entirely, I didn't once state I was unhappy with GAME's service in getting me the game early and if you notice you'll see I was actually supportive of GAME's stance in getting the game to me early because I do think that's good service. It was both GAME and Valve who said that GAME was at fault for getting me the game early.
The overall point was this, I buy a game from company a) made by company b) and it's company c) with whom I have no agreement other than to register with that is preventing me activating and playing the game. As such my biggest problem is with company c) i.e. Valve because they are building a barrier they frankly have no right to build because I have no transaction with them other than the previously agreed registration and nothing more. If however I tell company a) they did a great job but that company c) is creating problems for me, their customer and that they should perhaps watch out because it's harming their image as they're the ones getting blamed and company a) then treats me like I'm stupid by telling me the DRM is for my own good and that yes they shouldn't have given me good service and that they are at fault then yes, I then struggle to support them anymore.
I like companies getting me the game early, hence why I buy all my XBox 360 games from online stores that ship as soon as they get stock so sometimes you get games as early as the Monday or Tuesday before the Friday release date. What I don't like, is a 3rd party stepping over the line of what they are allowed to do and preventing me using them and the retailer who sold me the game siding with them.
The only people who can play it early are those with pirated copies as pirated copies bypass Steam activation.
I as a legitimate customer however, who did nothing illegal and who got a legitimate copy from a supplier who did nothing illegal (even if some may disagree it's bad practice, it's not illegal) am the only one who got screwed, whilst a friend who pirated it was playing it.
I'm amazed that anyone in this day and age would be ignorant enough to believe that people who get games through illegal means are the ones that can't play it early. Hell, in your Half-Life 2 example, pirates even distributed the source code released due to Valve getting hacked months before it's release, let alone got the game early!!
It seems you do believe that though, so here's a hint as to why your understanding of the situation is completely and utterly wrong - pirates don't need to activate.
Steam and retailers
on
The Age of Steam
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's odd how different retailers are taking different stances with Steam. But also, here's why I think retailers are stupid to support Steam as is.
Gamestop in the US I believe refused to stock Dawn of War II because of the fact it forced the user to register, update, and play the game via Steam. This is understandable as they'd basically be selling a game that forces a competitors sales tool on their system.
Here in the UK though, I purchased it online from GAME. They shipped me it to arrive on the Thursday before the Friday release and although GAME got it me early, I couldn't play it because I couldn't activate it via Steam.
I still personally think Valve are in the wrong here, just because I have to register with them does not mean I should have to activate via them and activation was not mentioned on the box or GAME's website. Still, who is in the wrong is debatable, neither did anything legally wrong, but one thing is clear, you might as well just buy via Steam anyway as you can still preload it and download as many times as you want from them.
But here's the twist, I complained to GAME because I was still pretty pissed that I'd bought a GAME off them that I couldn't play until Valve decided that I could so I complained to them and oddly, rather than having Gamestop's stance, that they agree, it's bad for their customers to have to deal with Steam they actually wholeheartedly supported Steam and their DRM and actually took responsibility saying they shipped it early to ensure I got it for release but that it shouldn't have got to me before release but that if they'd shipped it a day later I might have got it after release, blah blah blah. I also made the point that their website didn't at the time mention Steam, Windows Live activation and also complained that this is important because should Steam ever go titsup and not have chance to release a patch (which wouldn't be an impossible scenario for any company as the current economic situation has taught us) that I may never be able to reinstall or play the product again after that point.
I find that stance rather interesting, it's almost as if GAME actually wants to be destroyed and replaced by the likes of Steam. So is there more to this? Do they think they can actually benefit from Steam in some way? Was it just political correctness in that they wouldn't want to slag off a company whom they sell software for or is there something else to it altogether (maybe they only care about console sales?)? I as a customer sided entirely with them stating that I felt the activation and such was stupid but rather than seize that, they turned around and agreed with their competitor (Valve) that their method of distribution and service was effectively inferior even though there's no reason they actually needed do so.
For what it's worth I also contacted trading standards who agreed that my complaint regarding the DRM was valid, and that it was not illegal for GAME to ship me the game early and as such I should've been able to play it at that point. They are looking at taking action at very least for the fact the game box and GAME didn't advertise that the game was only usable when a 3rd party (Valve) states it can (or can't) be used through activation even if it did mention registration is required.
I also pointed out that the alternative is that many may just resort to piracy if it's difficult or troublesome to play legitimately purchased games. I received a rather amusing response that contained the ultimate freudian slip (or perhaps not??) stating:
"The DRM software that must be installed is designed to prevent privacy"
I'd imagine they meant piracy, but privacy works for me too.
Still the crux of it is this, I'd like Steam a lot more if it avoided DRM. You can do preloading without DRM- just give people the entire game except the executable needed to run it. I'll also never buy from GAME again, not particularly out of spite, but more because the only feeling I got from them was one of arrogance, effectively the
It was fixed in the Falcon motherboard which was released around autumn 2007 so hasn't been an issue for around 18 months now.
Certainly systems bought before this time are prone, arguably all of them at some point in fact will possibly fail.
I've also gone through 3 RRODs but all 3 were consoles prior to the Falcon variant systems. The Falcon variant system I've received as a replacement has yet to fail, similarly I do not know anyone with a failed Falcon system. Speaking to an old school friend who is a regional manager for DSG in the UK covering quite a few major electronics retailers, he mentioned that around this time they saw a big change and in all the stores he covered have not had a single RROD Falcon based 360 returned. They have had a few failed units, but in each case the systems were either completely dead or just locking up and the numbers compared to sales were well within the expected averages for electronic goods hence my earlier comments.
This is also reflected by much fewer reports of the problem in forums compared to the early days and more importantly it's reflected by the fact that it was shortly before the release of the Falcon systems that Microsoft was able to put a figure on the amount they'd need to put aside for repairs of the RROD system. They could not have put a specific figure aside like this had they not been confident the issue was solved as they'd have no way to predict future sales and hence factor in future repair costs for this scale of problem if it was still going to be an issue.
The only advantage of the Jasper board based systems is simply that they're cheaper for MS to produce (hence the price drops) and run cooler and quieter than ever.
That's an interesting point of view, because there's no clear divide between the two and because the viewpoint seems contradictory in itself.
Planet Earth, a documentary that cost thousands to produce and involve a lot of hard work but is factual and it's primary purpose is to distribute knowledge. You said:
"Keyword is knowledge. I don't ever want to limit your knowledge or understanding of the world."
and:
"This is something someone has created in hopes that others will enjoy it and at the artists discretion would like to be compensated for that enjoyment."
So it's okay for artists to create something and let others enjoy it and be compensated for it as long as it's not factual?
Taking something based on fact, say, a film, like Hotel Rwanda which fits into both your comments, your point of view becomes rather more confusing. Can I copy it or not? If I can then why can't I copy other creative works? If I can't, then what was the point of your first comment quoted above?
Very few films, books, music don't provide some knowledge to the reader so I don't really understand how you can draw a line between the two.
Most people would draw the line between private data and commercial data which seems a pretty fair line to draw.
No one's copying a content producers diary, their personal e-mail or anything like that but content that someone has been or is intended to be released publicly for a fee.
People aren't generally copying for the sake of it and with the idea that it's because they believe they have the right to do so, they're doing it because it's more convenient and cheaper than buying it.
Nearly all people who like hunting animals aren't all going to make the jump to shooting humans because it's just that much bigger a taboo and much more illegal. There are those that do of course, but then there are already those who take our private data- identity fraudsters. One doesn't automatically lead to the other however.
There's also the argument that piracy is victimless- people would never have bought most the content in the first place anyway. Taking someone's medical records clearly isn't victimless unless the data is taken en-masse and nothing such as profiling is actually done with it in which case I'm not sure it's a big deal anyway.
Further to that there's another important point to be made, that piracy is occuring on a massive scale because a vast amount, arguably the majority of people are accepting of the idea. It's making headway and becoming more and more prominent because it has public support- do you believe sharing of personal data would have equal public support when the very people doing it equally have as much to lose?
Slashdot Mirror
Mass Effect was only brought up because of the parent I was responding to. I'd be suprised if many people couldn't run something like NWN now or even the likes of Baldur's gate would be a cheap, superior option for example.
The point is that even for low end systems there are much better, much more professional, and still cheaper alternatives.
Well just fluff is all that's needed (i.e. different weapon skins, different styles of attachments such as scopes etc.), it just adds things that players can aim for and use to personalise their character and weapons a little more.
Small things like that just add more for people to aim for, and play around with to give a greater sense of being individual in the world rather than just being clone 1214251.
There are a lot of sideways enhancements games like that can have that add stuff that just make the game a little more fun without effecting balance. Even allowing guild's to have their own HQs in MMOs and stuff when they've earnt them through battle or whatever can be quite fun.
As I've said elsewhere on Slashdot in the past, people have limited pools of money to spend on entertainment, some have bigger pools than others, some have a pool that is possibly even 0 or close to - i.e. kids.
Entertainment items from DVDs to games to music have to compete for each persons' pool. People have to choose what to pay for and what not to, once their pool is spent for x period then that doesn't mean they stop wanting entertainment, it means they'll just pirate it instead.
What this guy is effectively saying is that his game deserves to be someone's purchase, rather than someone's pirate even if his product doesn't have more merit than other products that he is competing with. I think that's false, if his product doesn't have the merit of other products then I think it's unrealistic to expect that his game would be purchased rather than pirated by many people.
I do not buy into the idea that if it's worth playing then it's worth paying for anymore, I do not believe our culture follows that path anymore which is why piracy is so rampant. I believe that products compete with each other for purchase within the finite bounds of people's pool of money for entertainment. It is up to the producer of the product to work to ensure their product is the one people pay for and if they don't do that then yes I expect that they are the one's whose product should be pirated, because at a point where piracy isn't just going to vanish someone's product is going to get pirated and why should it be the one that has put the effort in to make it more attractive for purchase (i.e. sensible price, quality product) than the one that hasn't?
I think we're past the point where piracy is something that's just morally wrong because it's something so many people do. It's a fact of life that has to be accepted as part of doing business and dealt with, if it's not then yes, expect people to pirate your product instead of paying for it. Lots of industries have to deal with things that are out of their control and piracy is one that effects the software industry, being out of their control doesn't mean they can't work to minimise the problem though and doesn't give them the right to complain if they don't do anything to minimise it. Only once they've done all they can to minimise the problem and it still persists as a major issue should they start to complain- this guy hasn't done all he can, in fact, he's done things that would encourage piracy such as having a price tag too high for the quality of product yet blames them when he is at least partially to blame. He cannot be absolved of blame when he is aware the problem exists and pursues a route that would only make it worse.
I figured someone would make this point but my thinking was that something like NWN costs less and has great gameplay AND graphics. My thoughts were that even if the gameplay of his game can match that of NWN then it's still a worse product at a higher price because the graphics can't.
I do agree graphics aren't everything and gameplay matters most. For what it's worth though, I actually really enjoyed Mass Effect, and even that is cheaper now than this game. For me it wouldn't be a hard choice - Mass effect, or this game?
"I believe that ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have written a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in which they state that IT technicians investigating the matter will not be prosecuted"
Well, at least until you start demonstrating how careless the police are being with the law, suggesting that evidence of a system downloading something is evidence of a person owning the system being the one using it at that time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/ore_bates_arrest/
Personally, whilst the idea of working for the police in the past has interested me when they've complained about a shortage of people skilled to do the job, I'd now keep well away. If they arrest you and try and label you a criminal when you're actually doing the right thing and trying to ensure justice is done then that's not somewhere I'd ever want to work. Effectively they're saying, look we wont arrest you for helping us find people loosely related to these crimes as long as you side with us against these people even if innocent.
As Slashdot likes it's car analogies, it's akin to a vehicle crash expert being arrested for pointing out the innocence of a guy who has been arrested for manslaughter because his car was stolen whilst he was at work and used to run someone over.
Yes I've seen it here before. Some indie developers aren't fussed but others seem to believe they have a god given right for their product to be immune from piracy.
I had a look at the article and saw he's selling the game for $28. When you bear in mind it's a game that looks around 15 years old in quality and style (something that's effectively admitted in the article albeit not quite so explicitly) one has to wonder why he thinks people would pay that amount for this:
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/images/geneforge4/Geneforge4SSThumb1large.gif
When you could pay the same, or in fact, probably even less nowadays, and get a few year old yet far superior game such as say Neverwinter Nights or Oblivion?
Sometimes I believe indie developers become a little deluded as to how good their product is and for every good indie title out there there's 100 crap ones. Still, the guy made just short of $112,000 from it (spread across 3 people) and didn't even push it out to 3rd party sales channels (Xbox live, RealArcade, MSN Games, Instant Action). Frankly, for what he's peddling and the amount he's peddling it for I think he should be happy and bitching about pirates is laughable when you consider how much he's asking for something so awful looking and compared to what you could get instead. It doesn't strike me as suprising that people would pirate something like that rather than pay $28 for it. He claims including salaries the cost to make the game was $120k (but doesn't reveal individual salaries- the two staff other than him are only part time) so is implying he's only broken even, but if he's taking a $100k salary out of that for example then of course he's doing much better than makes out. As he doesn't give any break down of figures we can't be sure whether his costs really are as high as he infers (I really can't see how they could be) or if he's actually making a fairly decent wage which seems more likely.
What should really be taken from this article is that even if you make a shite unoriginal game and sell it for much more than it's worth, don't bother marketing and selling through important channels, despite piracy, you can still make a decent buck off of it.
There's a lot of good indie titles out there, Popcap was always the prime example of how good titles sell (they made millions) but indies that are failing and blaming piracy need to look at why- if even this guy with such a poor product can make a decent amount then chances are, if your product is failing, you really do have a severely crap product. Even this guy seems to believe he deserved to make more even though it's amazing the amount he did make for what he's selling.
Perhaps another piece of advice to take from this article is that indie developers need to have realistic expectations and that whilst they'll still make a decent buck, they wont necessarily become the next Popcap. If they don't make much at all then they need to have a long hard look at whether they really have the skills to be making indie games that people want for the price it's offered at.
Regarding extra weapons I was thinking more along the lines of Call of Duty 4/5 where you do level up by playing like in Planetside and unlock access to more weapons that aren't as you say necessarily more powerful.
Regarding the quests, the idea would be simply to add goals to what was otherwise a goalless game and rewards for doing so.
Dark Age of Camelot was also oriented towards PvP as it's end game, but the RPG elements meant there was still stuff to do when there was nothing going on, and eventually there were quests in the frontiers (the PvP areas) to try and rally the few people that were around into action at that point.
I get the impression they ignored additional content in Planetside because their game was just good enough to keep people subscribing but not good enough to have them playing for hours and hours a day thus saving them a fortune in bandwidth costs. The problem is I believe that cut their overall potential playerbase and cut their game's overall lifespan. It did already have some RPG elements too it of course such as levelling so it's hard to think of it as a pure FPS, again even CoD has these elements now and I think it's because the idea of persistent characters from MMORPGs (or even going back to MUDs) that can level up is an attractive one but also I don't believe it's the only element from RPG based MMOs and MUDs that's attractive and could be carried over to these types of games.
I'm not aware of any FPS that supports 11 million players?
I can only guess you're referring to WoW, but even that doesn't support 11million on one server, only around 1500 to 2000. As I mentioned before however, even this was available 11 years ago in Ultima Online, so as MMOs go it's still certainly nothing new. Whilst WoW supports 1500 - 2000, even Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest were able to handle 3000 - 3500 and Warhammer online maxed out at around 2000 - 2500 so in fact, even MMOs have seen a decrease in the players they support. AFAIK Eve online is about the only exception by using a heavily zone based system spread across multiple servers rather than a seamless universe.
On one hand you tell us you believe in letting your kids grow up and see the world as it is then you claim it's not fair that porn advertisers splash ads in her face.
What does that even mean? It's okay for other aggressive ads to be forced upon her? so your objection is actually about sex? If so then why say you have no problem with them growing up to understand it? In this case, you're after censorship and the best way is monitoring what your child does, this is often (or maybe not nowadays judging by the amount of parents who try and absolve themselves of any blame when their kids do something dumb/criminal) referred to as parenting.
If that's not what you mean and you in fact mean your problem is just with aggressive advertising in general then just use an ad/popup blocker like anyone else.
Either way, don't say you mean one thing and then do the exact other, else it's rather hard to offer answers because we can't really tell what you're actually trying to achieve.
Oh and by the way, I'm a little intrigued to know where on earth she's visiting to get such ads thrust in her face in the first place. The worst I get is ads for russian brides, and they're not even pornographic or at least are barely so. Chances are, if she's getting those ads, she's already visiting hardcore sites by choice and not by accident anyway.
Well I live in the UK and unless you live in central London then you'll get shit broadband here too sadly.
Really though even in the countries that really lead the world on broadband such as Sweden, the 100mbps connections are only available around Stockholm and such so very few countries really do have decent broadband. I'd say 20mbps should be minimum nowadays to really open the door for much more innovative online gameplay and I'm pretty sure only small amounts of the world do actually have that kind of speed in place for the majority of citizens.
I get around 1.8mbps average, it's not terrible, I can't complain too much because I think it's still far better than what I remember - dialup, but it's not enough to allow for much by way of innovation, you can't for example stream high definition content on that.
I think it's because with more players you usually end up with a better variety of tactics and aren't stuck fighting over the same bridge/building/whatever for the whole map as well as having more different players to fight. Effectively you end up with much more variation and it becomes harder for 7 players to just camp one building.
I guess basically, some people like to snipe, some people hate snipers, some people like fast paced close quarter combat, some like to camp a room in a building, some just like a mix of all of it. With a big map and lots of players chances are you can have it all whereas in a standard game with 16 players there's nearly always a map you just hate and don't want to play because you're forced into a certain playstyle you don't enjoy.
Also, more players often means more balance, because whilst awesome players (or even cheaters for that matter) can still stand out in their kill count, they can't single handedly sway the game each and every time because they're still onlyand I've been on both sides of that. I've played games where I've been on a team that just gets repeatedly slaughtered and I've been on a team and repeatedly slaughtered, both, to me, are quite boring, I'd rather have a close battle which is challenging and hence much more rewarding.
To put it into context I was playing Dark Age of Camelot and Planetside at the same time, I know some new stuff went in but compared to the likes of DAoC the amount of new content that went into Planetside truly was negligible.
It's the amount of new content I took issue with, it wasn't enough to keep the game fresh. Primarily though it was as you say, largely just changing numbers to change balance without any real actual content.
They should've developed it more like an MMO rather than just an FPS with more players but less detailed physics etc. so that the servers could handle the load. I don't mean roleplay style quests and all that, but maybe allow for better personalised vehicles that could be stored per player as a reward for x kills or whatever. Even some quests though would be doable- giving simple quests such as helping to take and hold a certain base for 24hrs and getting rewarded with uniquely styled weapons or something. Making it so you could blow up bridges and that sort of thing also.
I understand where you're coming from and agree to an extent. My point is not so much that more is better, but that more offers greater potential. As you say you can't just stick 32 players in a 16 player map and expect it be more fun but I do believe a map designed specifically for 32 or perhaps even 100 players with 32 or 100 players in it generally has greater potential to be more fun than a 16 player map with 16 players.
Implementation matters more than anything, but greater player numbers I believe opens the door for greater potential fun. I think Planetside was a good example of this, it's only downfall is they did nothing with it like most MMOs and it just became stagnant and dated. Had they kept producing new content for it and been more active in supporting it throughout I do believe it would've done much better than it did.
Your comment holds true only for consoles and ignores years of PC based gaming that had all that.
PCs were doing online gaming well before Goldeneye 64 came out and with the arrival of software like Gamespy, or formerly, Quakespy, we had software that could find games.
Even in Quake 1 people were developing clan skins for their characters and were able to share them so that their clan's players had their own skins. Modding and sharing content goes back even further with games like Doom having support (Alien Doom etc. anyone?).
The article talks about 11 years time, 11 years ago in 1998 we had Quake 2, and later that year we had Half-Life. Not long after I had a mobile phone with games, WAP support, a calendar, address book, calculator and so on.
Things haven't changed as much as you think in this time, they've just gotten more polish which wasn't in in the first place simply because computer hardware hand't shrunk enough to handle it. There's certainly been very little innovation in gaming in this time, merely doing the same, better. This is almost certainly because few companies want to take risks to try and do things different- they just want to stick with the tried and tested and do it better because it's safe money.
Quake 1 came out 13 years ago, most of what has come out since then isn't all that different. Better graphics sure, but the recipe is the same, the worlds are still 3D, multiplayer support has actually gotten worse - we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 being the average in a lot of games nowadays.
That's not to say there haven't been innovations, the Wii is a good example, but it's still only shifted around 40mill units and around 150mill games, which is great, but not enough to suggest it's killed off the classic style of games (the PS3 + 360 + PC have still shifted a lot more games than the Wii in the same period). I think if anything the Wii has just added a new style of gaming that'll sit alongside the existing style, it's certainly earned it's place, but it's also unlikely to be a killer. But even then, particularly in the case of games like duck hunt are the Wii shooters really even an innovation even if the likes of Wii sports is?
But even moving away from that and moving away from FPS, 12 years ago we had Ultima Online, nowadays we have WoW and Warhmmer and I'm not convinced they're relatively any better. Graphics are of course but certainly the time I spent playing UO I enjoyed much more than the time I spent in both WoW and Warhammer, it simply had less of the boring grind/level crap you have today and more about actually enjoying the game and having fun.
So if not much has changed in the last 12/13 years other than the obvious changes we get with more horse-power such as better graphics or in the case of duckhunt to Wii shooters, the ability to move around and shoot has much really changed to suggest that games in 2020 will necessarily be anything different again? Particularly as somethings haven't move on in the last decade- again, multiplayer player limits in FPS haven't increased.
We were always promised bigger worlds, bigger battles and so on but all the horsepower goes into better graphics, better collision detection than stuff that particularly effects gameplay. This coupled with the fact that internet connection speed improvements are pretty lacklustre in most of the world means we haven't seen what we might have envisaged a decade ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love many of the games that are out today, but I'm not getting my hopes up that games in 11 years will be anything more than to games now that games now are to what they were 11 years ago. I'd rather the next decade was spent on gameplay rather than graphics personally, but gameplay doesn't sell hardware upgrades I guess. If we start to see graphics and story telling like that in Gears of War 2 coupled with the control styles of the Wii it'd be a good start, but for this to happen either MS/Sony need to adapt to Nintendo's control style or Nintendo needs to start catering to the hardcore. I think this is more important than many realise too- I think if Nintendo's control method isn't taken to the hardcore it runs the risk of eventually being just another fad, rather than an integral part of gaming. Hell, even the joystick died out to the mouse and keyboard, which back in the joystick's prime, people would've laughed at the idea of.
There's nothing legally binding to say I'm not allowed it before that date though, if the suppliers are shipping it to them and they're shipping it to me, there's nothing illegal going on there. As a legit customer there's no legal reason I shouldn't be allowed to play this game other than a 3rd party who has no legal right to prevent me, preventing me from doing so.
As I say I've even reported it to trading standards and agree and are looking into see if they can take action. UK consumer law agrees that they are in fact in the wrong and hence they have created a problem.
They cannot give me the game and then tell me "Well actually you're not supposed to have it so we wont let you use it". The bigger issue is if the activation servers ever go down and Valve has gone bust so wont release a patch, then I'll never be able to install and play the game ever again also. I don't really know how that is in any way defensible, it's fucking the consumer entirely and for what? for Valve to get a greater stranglehold on the game publishing market whilst fucking retailers and their cusomters in the process? At this point with this tactic they're looking no better than EA.
It has another advantage, it's on the 360- the 360 doesn't have a massive amount of RTS games. LotR, C&C3, Supreme Commander, RA3 and that's about it.
So whilst it's like every other RTS, it's also worth buying if you're just a generic RTS fan and a 360 player because there isn't an awful lot of other RTS games out there on the 360 to get your fill of RTS fun with.
I got it for that reason, I love RTS games, and I spend more time on my 360 now than other systems and have played through all the other so regardless of it being Halo, it was more RTS content for me!
"(Although I can't see it working here in Finland, where people _need_ the net to do stuff like banking.)"
Exactly, as in many other countries, especially one as high-tech as South Korea where they may even use their connection for phone and TV. Finland isn't alone in that respect.
I'm not sure why you suggest it gives people a fair chance to stop though, it doesn't if they're victim to someone hacking their wireless or just using their PC and getting them banned.
"I guess it will forever remain a mystery to them why their nation isn't home to prosperous software & music industries while the status quo is free for the taking with no repurcussions."
I guess you missed the whole outsourcing thing that has been affecting the software industry in America and the West for the last decade or so then as companies move all their development jobs overseas to China/India which has allowed these two countries economy's to grow at an astounding rate?
It's not like Chinese music isn't popular and profitable in China either, sure it's not exported much but when you have 1.3billion or whatever people as a customer base, expanding it isn't too big a worry.
Saying China doesn't have a prosperous software industry is a bit odd in the face of it being one of the major drivers of their economy's growth. Saying they don't have a prosperous music industry is a little odd too.
I suppose it's the same thing as that there are more Chinese internet users than any other nation- we just don't see them because they have their own products, their own groups and so on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I think you've missed the point entirely, I didn't once state I was unhappy with GAME's service in getting me the game early and if you notice you'll see I was actually supportive of GAME's stance in getting the game to me early because I do think that's good service. It was both GAME and Valve who said that GAME was at fault for getting me the game early.
The overall point was this, I buy a game from company a) made by company b) and it's company c) with whom I have no agreement other than to register with that is preventing me activating and playing the game. As such my biggest problem is with company c) i.e. Valve because they are building a barrier they frankly have no right to build because I have no transaction with them other than the previously agreed registration and nothing more. If however I tell company a) they did a great job but that company c) is creating problems for me, their customer and that they should perhaps watch out because it's harming their image as they're the ones getting blamed and company a) then treats me like I'm stupid by telling me the DRM is for my own good and that yes they shouldn't have given me good service and that they are at fault then yes, I then struggle to support them anymore.
I like companies getting me the game early, hence why I buy all my XBox 360 games from online stores that ship as soon as they get stock so sometimes you get games as early as the Monday or Tuesday before the Friday release date. What I don't like, is a 3rd party stepping over the line of what they are allowed to do and preventing me using them and the retailer who sold me the game siding with them.
Er you are kidding right?
The only people who can play it early are those with pirated copies as pirated copies bypass Steam activation.
I as a legitimate customer however, who did nothing illegal and who got a legitimate copy from a supplier who did nothing illegal (even if some may disagree it's bad practice, it's not illegal) am the only one who got screwed, whilst a friend who pirated it was playing it.
I'm amazed that anyone in this day and age would be ignorant enough to believe that people who get games through illegal means are the ones that can't play it early. Hell, in your Half-Life 2 example, pirates even distributed the source code released due to Valve getting hacked months before it's release, let alone got the game early!!
It seems you do believe that though, so here's a hint as to why your understanding of the situation is completely and utterly wrong - pirates don't need to activate.
It's odd how different retailers are taking different stances with Steam. But also, here's why I think retailers are stupid to support Steam as is.
Gamestop in the US I believe refused to stock Dawn of War II because of the fact it forced the user to register, update, and play the game via Steam. This is understandable as they'd basically be selling a game that forces a competitors sales tool on their system.
Here in the UK though, I purchased it online from GAME. They shipped me it to arrive on the Thursday before the Friday release and although GAME got it me early, I couldn't play it because I couldn't activate it via Steam.
I still personally think Valve are in the wrong here, just because I have to register with them does not mean I should have to activate via them and activation was not mentioned on the box or GAME's website. Still, who is in the wrong is debatable, neither did anything legally wrong, but one thing is clear, you might as well just buy via Steam anyway as you can still preload it and download as many times as you want from them.
But here's the twist, I complained to GAME because I was still pretty pissed that I'd bought a GAME off them that I couldn't play until Valve decided that I could so I complained to them and oddly, rather than having Gamestop's stance, that they agree, it's bad for their customers to have to deal with Steam they actually wholeheartedly supported Steam and their DRM and actually took responsibility saying they shipped it early to ensure I got it for release but that it shouldn't have got to me before release but that if they'd shipped it a day later I might have got it after release, blah blah blah. I also made the point that their website didn't at the time mention Steam, Windows Live activation and also complained that this is important because should Steam ever go titsup and not have chance to release a patch (which wouldn't be an impossible scenario for any company as the current economic situation has taught us) that I may never be able to reinstall or play the product again after that point.
I find that stance rather interesting, it's almost as if GAME actually wants to be destroyed and replaced by the likes of Steam. So is there more to this? Do they think they can actually benefit from Steam in some way? Was it just political correctness in that they wouldn't want to slag off a company whom they sell software for or is there something else to it altogether (maybe they only care about console sales?)? I as a customer sided entirely with them stating that I felt the activation and such was stupid but rather than seize that, they turned around and agreed with their competitor (Valve) that their method of distribution and service was effectively inferior even though there's no reason they actually needed do so.
For what it's worth I also contacted trading standards who agreed that my complaint regarding the DRM was valid, and that it was not illegal for GAME to ship me the game early and as such I should've been able to play it at that point. They are looking at taking action at very least for the fact the game box and GAME didn't advertise that the game was only usable when a 3rd party (Valve) states it can (or can't) be used through activation even if it did mention registration is required.
I also pointed out that the alternative is that many may just resort to piracy if it's difficult or troublesome to play legitimately purchased games. I received a rather amusing response that contained the ultimate freudian slip (or perhaps not??) stating:
"The DRM software that must be installed is designed to prevent privacy"
I'd imagine they meant piracy, but privacy works for me too.
Still the crux of it is this, I'd like Steam a lot more if it avoided DRM. You can do preloading without DRM- just give people the entire game except the executable needed to run it. I'll also never buy from GAME again, not particularly out of spite, but more because the only feeling I got from them was one of arrogance, effectively the
It was fixed in the Falcon motherboard which was released around autumn 2007 so hasn't been an issue for around 18 months now.
Certainly systems bought before this time are prone, arguably all of them at some point in fact will possibly fail.
I've also gone through 3 RRODs but all 3 were consoles prior to the Falcon variant systems. The Falcon variant system I've received as a replacement has yet to fail, similarly I do not know anyone with a failed Falcon system. Speaking to an old school friend who is a regional manager for DSG in the UK covering quite a few major electronics retailers, he mentioned that around this time they saw a big change and in all the stores he covered have not had a single RROD Falcon based 360 returned. They have had a few failed units, but in each case the systems were either completely dead or just locking up and the numbers compared to sales were well within the expected averages for electronic goods hence my earlier comments.
This is also reflected by much fewer reports of the problem in forums compared to the early days and more importantly it's reflected by the fact that it was shortly before the release of the Falcon systems that Microsoft was able to put a figure on the amount they'd need to put aside for repairs of the RROD system. They could not have put a specific figure aside like this had they not been confident the issue was solved as they'd have no way to predict future sales and hence factor in future repair costs for this scale of problem if it was still going to be an issue.
The only advantage of the Jasper board based systems is simply that they're cheaper for MS to produce (hence the price drops) and run cooler and quieter than ever.
That's an interesting point of view, because there's no clear divide between the two and because the viewpoint seems contradictory in itself.
Planet Earth, a documentary that cost thousands to produce and involve a lot of hard work but is factual and it's primary purpose is to distribute knowledge. You said:
"Keyword is knowledge. I don't ever want to limit your knowledge or understanding of the world."
and:
"This is something someone has created in hopes that others will enjoy it and at the artists discretion would like to be compensated for that enjoyment."
So it's okay for artists to create something and let others enjoy it and be compensated for it as long as it's not factual?
Taking something based on fact, say, a film, like Hotel Rwanda which fits into both your comments, your point of view becomes rather more confusing. Can I copy it or not? If I can then why can't I copy other creative works? If I can't, then what was the point of your first comment quoted above?
Very few films, books, music don't provide some knowledge to the reader so I don't really understand how you can draw a line between the two.
Most people would draw the line between private data and commercial data which seems a pretty fair line to draw.
No one's copying a content producers diary, their personal e-mail or anything like that but content that someone has been or is intended to be released publicly for a fee.
People aren't generally copying for the sake of it and with the idea that it's because they believe they have the right to do so, they're doing it because it's more convenient and cheaper than buying it.
Nearly all people who like hunting animals aren't all going to make the jump to shooting humans because it's just that much bigger a taboo and much more illegal. There are those that do of course, but then there are already those who take our private data- identity fraudsters. One doesn't automatically lead to the other however.
There's also the argument that piracy is victimless- people would never have bought most the content in the first place anyway. Taking someone's medical records clearly isn't victimless unless the data is taken en-masse and nothing such as profiling is actually done with it in which case I'm not sure it's a big deal anyway.
Further to that there's another important point to be made, that piracy is occuring on a massive scale because a vast amount, arguably the majority of people are accepting of the idea. It's making headway and becoming more and more prominent because it has public support- do you believe sharing of personal data would have equal public support when the very people doing it equally have as much to lose?