Don't laugh zasd it is coming. Also you won't have a choice to pay or not, it will auto deduct from your chip that will be forcibly implanted into everyone soon. Laugh now, pay later.
I am laughing, because the "public" which henceforth shall be called "Lemmings" will actually accept it into their lives because they will be told over and over that is is in their best interest. Because as you may very well know, Truth is just a lie that has been repeated enough times to be accepted.
Wow this is pretty sad, looks like Ubisoft is on my list of "avoid games by this company" (don't think I have played any Ubisoft games in quite some time at any rate). I honestly doubt that this strategy is going to stop pirating, it just gives the pirateers and hackers something else to work around. All this does it hurt cunsumer relations between the gamers and the game companies.This also paves the way for future limitations and restrictions on game playing in relation to security...just imagine the possibilities! Fingerprint sensors on your keyboards! Retinal scanners built into the monitor! Pretty soon games won't require a CD key to play anymore, the CD key will be replaced by S.S.N.'s...that's right someday you're gonna need to input your Social Security Number everytime you want to play the game...identity theft will reach an all new high! SHAZAM!
Another worst case scenario, single player games become "Pay to Play"...not just pay to purchase the game, but pay a fee everytime you want to start it up. Oh glorious day! :P
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't buy it.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't just take it either.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Why can we talk about one extreme and not the other? Your quote spoke to the customer entitlement and the logical flip side of that is producer entitlement. Whether or not you can be quoted as saying a producer is entitled to something is really irrelevant. However, your quote serves as a spring board for another view point. Simple as that.
The problem really down to the fact game producers really do seem to feel entitled regardless of whether they put out a decent product or not. As a result, they dream up these DRM schemes, that are effectively useless in their advertised intent, in order to protect those sales they feel so entitled to.
We certainly can talk about producer entitlement -- I just take offense to selective quoting with the intent of misrepresenting me.
Companies are not entitled to customer's money, but they are entitled to receive compensation for their work. As I said in a previous post, our society doesn't condone merely taking something from the marketplace if we don't like the price it is offered. This isn't freeware with a request for a donation that you feel is reasonable nor is it someone playing a guitar in a subway hoping for some change. Yet, this is what pirate-demo types like szax are doing.
Whether or not it is a decent product is 1 part subjective and 1 part objective which I've alluded to already. The objective part is if the game works. If it doesn't, then the consumer is entitled to a refund/replacement/fix. But if it's subjective...you didn't like ending, the game got tedious, or you just wanted dual pistols to be better...well, you played the game, sorry you didn't like it but you still indulged in their content for some amount of time.
As for DRM schemes, I'm not for them as I've posted. But companies are (futilely) scrambling for ways to protect their work. Did you see my post about Valve's research? Pirates are underserved customers....and there's opportunity to make money bringing them back into the fold and do so without punishment.
We certainly can talk about producer entitlement -- I just take offense to selective quoting with the intent of misrepresenting me. Companies are not entitled to customer's money, but they are entitled to receive compensation for their work. As I said in a previous post, our society doesn't condone merely taking something from the marketplace if we don't like the price it is offered. This isn't freeware with a request for a donation that you feel is reasonable nor is it someone playing a guitar in a subway hoping for some change. Yet, this is what pirate-demo types like szax are doing. Whether or not it is a decent product is 1 part subjective and 1 part objective which I've alluded to already. The objective part is if the game works. If it doesn't, then the consumer is entitled to a refund/replacement/fix. But if it's subjective...you didn't like ending, the game got tedious, or you just wanted dual pistols to be better...well, you played the game, sorry you didn't like it but you still indulged in their content for some amount of time. As for DRM schemes, I'm not for them as I've posted. But companies are (futilely) scrambling for ways to protect their work. Did you see my post about Valve's research? Pirates are underserved customers....and there's opportunity to make money bringing them back into the fold and do so without punishment.
Taking offense at assumed intent is a bit silly, but whatever floats a boat. As I said, the quoted piece was a spring board to further conversation. Pretty straight forward and not really much room for malice there, but not much I can do beyond explaining that.
Now, to speak to your other parts, our society has a long history of being able to inspect something before purchasing it. This is not to say someone can read a book to completion, though I suppose they could in Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or other book stores if they were so inclined. But they can certainly read the forward, a chapter, or selected excerpts and see if the book is something they would like to purchase and look into further. In a similar vein, I can take a car out on the highway before purchasing it. I can test the acceleration, braking, make a note of gas usage, or whatever I would like to do to test the product before purchasing. Now, a book might be a few dollars and a car might be a few thousand, but they both let me make a determination based on usage. Additionally, my determination is likely to be completely subjective once we get beyond the facts that the pages don't stick together or the car does actually accelerate.
The one main difference between those two scenarios and video games (or software in general) is that you do not traditionally get to leave the market place to evaluate the product further. Certainly, some vendors might make exceptions, but the general rule is, if I am in Target/Walmart and examining something, I don't get to leave with it.
Perhaps this is where the game industry is missing the boat. Instead of making single-player games require internet connections, why not provide a method for streaming the game for evaluation. Certainly it would be technologically feasible and would allow them to retain control of the gaming environment while provide a low hassle option for evaluating the game. They could go one step further and require you have a (free) Ubisoft account and offering a discount for converting to a legit purchase after playing the trial. I mean, possibilities could be discussed for days to come :P. Naturally, I consider this from a PC view. Not sure the feasibility on the console, but if netflix can work with consoles, this could probably be done as well. This approach would require infrastructure, much as this DRM solution does, but I think this would result in more actual sales (purely opinion though).
As for your Valve post, yes, I saw it and I think the part you quoted is especially worth noting. It all comes down to "why do people pirate?" which Ubisoft seems to assume is purely because someone didn't want to pay and no that there is something wrong with the sales/service approach.
In the end, the more I think about it, the more interested I am in the game resale market impact of this DRM. Since most people can agree the piracy will not be detered, regardless of personal feelings about the practice, Ubisoft must realize this and intend to make money off of this somehow. Introducing a hassle on second-hand purchases that they would otherwise not see income from seems like a way they might do this.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't buy it.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't just take it either.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't buy it.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't just take it either.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
Just because I focused on how you should be responsible with your money and respectful of other people's merchandise in the quoted posts, that's still a wide chasm you need to leap in order to paint me as a profiteer. And, unfortunately, you seem to reject those concepts too.
Forthe record, I'm sorry if you felt like I was picking on you. When possible, I always expanded my arguments to encompass like-minded individuals, but, at the same time you did author some exemplary material underscoring my points right down to the parting shot. Again, companies like ubisoft can point to people like you to justify their outlandish DRM schemes.
So when does this lead to monthly subscriptions just to play games you already paid for? These companies, like Ubisoft, understand this is not going to make a lick of difference. I am willing to bet that this is just the testing grounds for subscription based models to their single-player games.
Yes, I know, that is conspiracy theory territory, but would you really put it past these large companies who buy up all the development studios, other publishers, and merge with the others ones who are to costly to buy up? They look at WoW and start licking their chops thinking about the 'potential' money they could make from having subscription models.
Here soon you will be seeing something like "Ubisoft's excellent next generation gaming platform, only $14.95 a month, brings you the best in single-player and multi-player gaming."
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't buy it.
If you don't know enough, and you don't have the disposable income, then you shouldn't just take it either.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
Just because I focused on how you should be responsible with your money and respectful of other people's merchandise in the quoted posts, that's still a wide chasm you need to leap in order to paint me as a profiteer. And, unfortunately, you seem to reject those concepts too.
Forthe record, I'm sorry if you felt like I was picking on you. When possible, I always expanded my arguments to encompass like-minded individuals, but, at the same time you did author some exemplary material underscoring my points right down to the parting shot. Again, companies like ubisoft can point to people like you to justify their outlandish DRM schemes.
So allods was nothing special and I deleted it... maybe I should pay them $20 for a 24 slot bag just so I can sleep better....
I do not think I have ever bought an Ubisoft game and the one we are "talking about" does not interest me at all anyway....
I do not think you were picking on me... I like a good intelligent argument, alas we come to a point where we could go back and forth and never make any ground and I do not want to spend any more time with this matter.
So when does this lead to monthly subscriptions just to play games you already paid for? These companies, like Ubisoft, understand this is not going to make a lick of difference. I am willing to bet that this is just the testing grounds for subscription based models to their single-player games. Yes, I know, that is conspiracy theory territory, but would you really put it past these large companies who buy up all the development studios, other publishers, and merge with the others ones who are to costly to buy up? They look at WoW and start licking their chops thinking about the 'potential' money they could make from having subscription models. Here soon you will be seeing something like "Ubisoft's excellent next generation gaming platform, only $14.95 a month, brings you the best in single-player and multi-player gaming."
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
We certainly can talk about producer entitlement -- I just take offense to selective quoting with the intent of misrepresenting me. Companies are not entitled to customer's money, but they are entitled to receive compensation for their work. As I said in a previous post, our society doesn't condone merely taking something from the marketplace if we don't like the price it is offered. This isn't freeware with a request for a donation that you feel is reasonable nor is it someone playing a guitar in a subway hoping for some change. Yet, this is what pirate-demo types like szax are doing. Whether or not it is a decent product is 1 part subjective and 1 part objective which I've alluded to already. The objective part is if the game works. If it doesn't, then the consumer is entitled to a refund/replacement/fix. But if it's subjective...you didn't like ending, the game got tedious, or you just wanted dual pistols to be better...well, you played the game, sorry you didn't like it but you still indulged in their content for some amount of time. As for DRM schemes, I'm not for them as I've posted. But companies are (futilely) scrambling for ways to protect their work. Did you see my post about Valve's research? Pirates are underserved customers....and there's opportunity to make money bringing them back into the fold and do so without punishment.
<snip>
Now, to speak to your other parts, our society has a long history of being able to inspect something before purchasing it. This is not to say someone can read a book to completion, though I suppose they could in Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or other book stores if they were so inclined. But they can certainly read the forward, a chapter, or selected excerpts and see if the book is something they would like to purchase and look into further. In a similar vein, I can take a car out on the highway before purchasing it. I can test the acceleration, braking, make a note of gas usage, or whatever I would like to do to test the product before purchasing. Now, a book might be a few dollars and a car might be a few thousand, but they both let me make a determination based on usage. Additionally, my determination is likely to be completely subjective once we get beyond the facts that the pages don't stick together or the car does actually accelerate.
The one main difference between those two scenarios and video games (or software in general) is that you do not traditionally get to leave the market place to evaluate the product further. Certainly, some vendors might make exceptions, but the general rule is, if I am in Target/Walmart and examining something, I don't get to leave with it.
Perhaps this is where the game industry is missing the boat. Instead of making single-player games require internet connections, why not provide a method for streaming the game for evaluation. Certainly it would be technologically feasible and would allow them to retain control of the gaming environment while provide a low hassle option for evaluating the game. They could go one step further and require you have a (free) Ubisoft account and offering a discount for converting to a legit purchase after playing the trial. I mean, possibilities could be discussed for days to come :P. Naturally, I consider this from a PC view. Not sure the feasibility on the console, but if netflix can work with consoles, this could probably be done as well. This approach would require infrastructure, much as this DRM solution does, but I think this would result in more actual sales (purely opinion though).
As for your Valve post, yes, I saw it and I think the part you quoted is especially worth noting. It all comes down to "why do people pirate?" which Ubisoft seems to assume is purely because someone didn't want to pay and no that there is something wrong with the sales/service approach.
In the end, the more I think about it, the more interested I am in the game resale market impact of this DRM. Since most people can agree the piracy will not be detered, regardless of personal feelings about the practice, Ubisoft must realize this and intend to make money off of this somehow. Introducing a hassle on second-hand purchases that they would otherwise not see income from seems like a way they might do this.
I'm all for making knowledgable purchases -- reviews and demos are huge. Sometimes the best salesman is an already satisfied customer, for example, someone who loves a guitar hero game and shares it or someone who lets you drive their car. But, as you point out, most of that inspection takes place within the contraints imposed by the seller. Traditionally the boundaries were dictated by the walls of the marketplace, but demos in digital media are applicable as well and more often becoming available. You even suggest a great method that falls within the constraints of the seller, streaming a game for evaluation. Even though you aren't writing it, I think its understood that the consumer just cannot walk away with the product and use it endlessly, before deciding they might pay for it though, all the while benefitting from it.
The used market scenario is interesting -- it really deserves its own thread though. I have a conpiracy theory on how it will work (with all of the necessary plot holes) so if you start it, I'll gladly share it ( ' :
I've raged about this on a few board already...as most have noted, it's really just hurting legitmate customers in the present (no access or spotty access, whether in the military of just on a plane) and the future (both in terms of resale value as well as soon to be retro-gaming when you pick up that game 5 years from now and no server/patch is available from the company). An interesting link someone on the City of Heroes boards posted is Valve's take on "piracy": they see it as a business model issue and that pirates are underserved customers. Valve
Just wanted to say thanks for that link. Very interesting look on it.
No problem --I thought it was a good read too. For those who didn't read it, basically Valve experimented by cutting costs on a game and capturing the sales results. In the end, a 75% discount to the price resulted in a 1470% increase in sales revenue, which in turn still resulted in a 15% increase to net income over sales at the original price. A neat way to lure in those opting to go the illegal download path...
So when does this lead to monthly subscriptions just to play games you already paid for? These companies, like Ubisoft, understand this is not going to make a lick of difference. I am willing to bet that this is just the testing grounds for subscription based models to their single-player games. Yes, I know, that is conspiracy theory territory, but would you really put it past these large companies who buy up all the development studios, other publishers, and merge with the others ones who are to costly to buy up? They look at WoW and start licking their chops thinking about the 'potential' money they could make from having subscription models. Here soon you will be seeing something like "Ubisoft's excellent next generation gaming platform, only $14.95 a month, brings you the best in single-player and multi-player gaming."
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
Or Gamefly or Netflix? ( ' ;
I could possibly see Steam going this way too but not individual publishers.
Even though you aren't writing it, I think its understood that the consumer just cannot walk away with the product and use it endlessly, before deciding they might pay for it though, all the while benefitting from it. The used market scenario is interesting -- it really deserves its own thread though. I have a conpiracy theory on how it will work (with all of the necessary plot holes) so if you start it, I'll gladly share it ( ' :
Regarding the first line, I think this goes back to a comment I posted earlier labeling piracy as, more often then not, a crime of convenience. It's a simple enough thing to download something right? As such, the downloaded item, be it a song, movie, or game is perceived the same as an item sitting on a shelf. I mean, if you take an item off a shelf, there is an empty spot on the shelf right? You can see a physical result of your action and as such consequences are more noticeable.
I still believe the idea of entitlement, while certainly applicable to some, is not the best way to describe motive. I mean, that would imply there some level of conscious intent that the person was owed a 'trial' versus someone at a keyboard saying "oh look at that. I think I'll try that out".
Personally, I'm not much of a conversation starter, but it sounds like you've given your theory some thought. I would recommend getting published so I can read it, in its entirety, at my local book store, or it might be best delivered via the blog feature of the site. I'd certainly bump it after giving it a read
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
I've raged about this on a few board already...as most have noted, it's really just hurting legitmate customers in the present (no access or spotty access, whether in the military of just on a plane) and the future (both in terms of resale value as well as soon to be retro-gaming when you pick up that game 5 years from now and no server/patch is available from the company). An interesting link someone on the City of Heroes boards posted is Valve's take on "piracy": they see it as a business model issue and that pirates are underserved customers. Valve
Just wanted to say thanks for that link. Very interesting look on it.
No problem --I thought it was a good read too. For those who didn't read it, basically Valve experimented by cutting costs on a game and capturing the sales results. In the end, a 75% discount to the price resulted in a 1470% increase in sales revenue, which in turn still resulted in a 15% increase to net income over sales at the original price. A neat way to lure in those opting to go the illegal download path...
For kicks, here is how the numbers work out:
I hadn't read through the whole thread, since I don't have time to wade through 23 pages. But the point still remains that too many developers simply don't get that they are simply expecting consumers to pay too much.
I hope hackers focus on taking down the servers UBISOFT uses... This is awful. I mainly play my single player games when I'm not connected to the internet for various reasons. Why would I buy a game that required the internet to play solo? I think I'll wait for the hackers to crack it then download it from them free. Why should I pay for a limited product when I can download a superior one free? Good job Ubisoft, you just made illegal downloading more appealing.
If you're a PC owner just DONT BUY IT - Ubisoft have already shown they don't give a damn about PC owners hence the reason they delayed its release by 6 months after consoles because the figure they'll get more sales from console owners due to their inability to use pirated copies.....yet.
DEFINITION OF REALITY: Graphics ok, Sound ok, Gold drops need more work...
I wouldn't put it past Ubisoft from using the constant connection requirement as a form of sniffing to sell to advertisers. Think of it as the future of "cookies".
Here is a true story about....ummmm.... a "friend" I know.
This friend bought a game called Space Rangers 2 several years ago. Space rangers used a copy protection requiring the CD to be in the drive (the Original CD- copies do not work)- This friend had registered his game which he had PURCHASED and never pirated anything in his life (well, he did copy music tapes from friends in the 1980's lol)
This friend owned the game for approx a month when the CD was scratched by an evil Cat (cats name withheld also) who apparently had a hatred of this disk. My "friend" contacted customer support to the game company he had bought, paid and registered with and after days was told "There is nothing we can do- You must purchase this game again"- They did not even offer my "friend" a discount.
My "friend" was pretty angry that there (apparently) was no way this company would help him to play a game he had purchased only a month ago, which was on his hard drive and only required a CD to be in for "anti-piracy" reasons (not to 'run the game') so after a bit of checking and talking to people, he found that , in fact, those evil hackers had posted "no CD" keys which allowed him to play the game he had purchased.
Hackers- 1 Game Company- 0
BUT- My "friend" also saw that along with those CD Keys, were other games b the same company that he would like to play and not pay them for.
Hacker- 2 Game Company-0
NOW, this "friend" has no problem giving himself free trials of any game he wants to play- My "friend" isnt having to plunk down 50-60 dollars for a piece of shit game every couple weeks. My friend no longer has to deal with shoddy customer service, nor worry about swapping CDs for each new game he wishes to play.
These "anti-piracy" measures have really saved my friend lots of money.... He still buys games he feels are good, but no longers gambles on his purchases nor basies them on a small demo designed to make the game look good.
With measures like these coming out- I think my "friend" will have lots of company.
So when does this lead to monthly subscriptions just to play games you already paid for? These companies, like Ubisoft, understand this is not going to make a lick of difference. I am willing to bet that this is just the testing grounds for subscription based models to their single-player games. Yes, I know, that is conspiracy theory territory, but would you really put it past these large companies who buy up all the development studios, other publishers, and merge with the others ones who are to costly to buy up? They look at WoW and start licking their chops thinking about the 'potential' money they could make from having subscription models. Here soon you will be seeing something like "Ubisoft's excellent next generation gaming platform, only $14.95 a month, brings you the best in single-player and multi-player gaming."
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
What I'm saying is that they would charge you $50 for the game itself and then another fee, a monthly subscription fee, to access that game via their 'next-gen gaming platform of complete uselessness'.
Just another challenge for release groups, you can't stop piracy. Only way to stop software piracy is if computers didn't exist, good luck with that one.
Comments
I am laughing, because the "public" which henceforth shall be called "Lemmings" will actually accept it into their lives because they will be told over and over that is is in their best interest. Because as you may very well know, Truth is just a lie that has been repeated enough times to be accepted.
Wow this is pretty sad, looks like Ubisoft is on my list of "avoid games by this company" (don't think I have played any Ubisoft games in quite some time at any rate). I honestly doubt that this strategy is going to stop pirating, it just gives the pirateers and hackers something else to work around. All this does it hurt cunsumer relations between the gamers and the game companies.This also paves the way for future limitations and restrictions on game playing in relation to security...just imagine the possibilities! Fingerprint sensors on your keyboards! Retinal scanners built into the monitor! Pretty soon games won't require a CD key to play anymore, the CD key will be replaced by S.S.N.'s...that's right someday you're gonna need to input your Social Security Number everytime you want to play the game...identity theft will reach an all new high! SHAZAM!
Another worst case scenario, single player games become "Pay to Play"...not just pay to purchase the game, but pay a fee everytime you want to start it up. Oh glorious day! :P
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Why not just include an authentication dongle with games that plugs into a USB port on the computer or laptop? Problem solved.
Why can we talk about one extreme and not the other? Your quote spoke to the customer entitlement and the logical flip side of that is producer entitlement. Whether or not you can be quoted as saying a producer is entitled to something is really irrelevant. However, your quote serves as a spring board for another view point. Simple as that.
The problem really down to the fact game producers really do seem to feel entitled regardless of whether they put out a decent product or not. As a result, they dream up these DRM schemes, that are effectively useless in their advertised intent, in order to protect those sales they feel so entitled to.
We certainly can talk about producer entitlement -- I just take offense to selective quoting with the intent of misrepresenting me.
Companies are not entitled to customer's money, but they are entitled to receive compensation for their work. As I said in a previous post, our society doesn't condone merely taking something from the marketplace if we don't like the price it is offered. This isn't freeware with a request for a donation that you feel is reasonable nor is it someone playing a guitar in a subway hoping for some change. Yet, this is what pirate-demo types like szax are doing.
Whether or not it is a decent product is 1 part subjective and 1 part objective which I've alluded to already. The objective part is if the game works. If it doesn't, then the consumer is entitled to a refund/replacement/fix. But if it's subjective...you didn't like ending, the game got tedious, or you just wanted dual pistols to be better...well, you played the game, sorry you didn't like it but you still indulged in their content for some amount of time.
As for DRM schemes, I'm not for them as I've posted. But companies are (futilely) scrambling for ways to protect their work. Did you see my post about Valve's research? Pirates are underserved customers....and there's opportunity to make money bringing them back into the fold and do so without punishment.
Probably because you can still transfer the dongle, assuming part of the publisher's long term plan for this is to lock down the used-game market.
Taking offense at assumed intent is a bit silly, but whatever floats a boat. As I said, the quoted piece was a spring board to further conversation. Pretty straight forward and not really much room for malice there, but not much I can do beyond explaining that.
Now, to speak to your other parts, our society has a long history of being able to inspect something before purchasing it. This is not to say someone can read a book to completion, though I suppose they could in Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or other book stores if they were so inclined. But they can certainly read the forward, a chapter, or selected excerpts and see if the book is something they would like to purchase and look into further. In a similar vein, I can take a car out on the highway before purchasing it. I can test the acceleration, braking, make a note of gas usage, or whatever I would like to do to test the product before purchasing. Now, a book might be a few dollars and a car might be a few thousand, but they both let me make a determination based on usage. Additionally, my determination is likely to be completely subjective once we get beyond the facts that the pages don't stick together or the car does actually accelerate.
The one main difference between those two scenarios and video games (or software in general) is that you do not traditionally get to leave the market place to evaluate the product further. Certainly, some vendors might make exceptions, but the general rule is, if I am in Target/Walmart and examining something, I don't get to leave with it.
Perhaps this is where the game industry is missing the boat. Instead of making single-player games require internet connections, why not provide a method for streaming the game for evaluation. Certainly it would be technologically feasible and would allow them to retain control of the gaming environment while provide a low hassle option for evaluating the game. They could go one step further and require you have a (free) Ubisoft account and offering a discount for converting to a legit purchase after playing the trial. I mean, possibilities could be discussed for days to come :P. Naturally, I consider this from a PC view. Not sure the feasibility on the console, but if netflix can work with consoles, this could probably be done as well. This approach would require infrastructure, much as this DRM solution does, but I think this would result in more actual sales (purely opinion though).
As for your Valve post, yes, I saw it and I think the part you quoted is especially worth noting. It all comes down to "why do people pirate?" which Ubisoft seems to assume is purely because someone didn't want to pay and no that there is something wrong with the sales/service approach.
In the end, the more I think about it, the more interested I am in the game resale market impact of this DRM. Since most people can agree the piracy will not be detered, regardless of personal feelings about the practice, Ubisoft must realize this and intend to make money off of this somehow. Introducing a hassle on second-hand purchases that they would otherwise not see income from seems like a way they might do this.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
Just because I focused on how you should be responsible with your money and respectful of other people's merchandise in the quoted posts, that's still a wide chasm you need to leap in order to paint me as a profiteer. And, unfortunately, you seem to reject those concepts too.
Forthe record, I'm sorry if you felt like I was picking on you. When possible, I always expanded my arguments to encompass like-minded individuals, but, at the same time you did author some exemplary material underscoring my points right down to the parting shot. Again, companies like ubisoft can point to people like you to justify their outlandish DRM schemes.
www.techdirt.com/articles/20090219/1124433835.shtml
An excellent article about the issue abroad.
So when does this lead to monthly subscriptions just to play games you already paid for? These companies, like Ubisoft, understand this is not going to make a lick of difference. I am willing to bet that this is just the testing grounds for subscription based models to their single-player games.
Yes, I know, that is conspiracy theory territory, but would you really put it past these large companies who buy up all the development studios, other publishers, and merge with the others ones who are to costly to buy up? They look at WoW and start licking their chops thinking about the 'potential' money they could make from having subscription models.
Here soon you will be seeing something like "Ubisoft's excellent next generation gaming platform, only $14.95 a month, brings you the best in single-player and multi-player gaming."
splat
On the other hand, why is the company entitled to a customer's money just because they made a product? I mean, the fact they made a product does not take into account quality or value of said product. With many other physical items you have the opportunity to hold them in your hand and gauge the quality and perceived value before making a purchase. Digital content does not allow this manner of pre-purchase inspection by default so I can certainly understand people looking for a trial mechanism (legit or pirated).
I think I understand your overall point in that people will try to justify an activity so as not to feel they are doing something unethical/inappropriate/etc. I just don't agree with your approach as it is a very one-sided view.
I never said a company was entitled to a customer's money because they made a product. You won't find that in any of my posts that you opted to quote or...not quote.
Ok the company is not entitled to my money... and I am not entitled to try before I buy... I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment, but I am not allowed to actually touch the game until I pay for it. Then I can not return it if it was a pile of crap. I am out of $50 the company makes Millions on a pile of crap... yep its a Win-Win situation here...
If you apply your logic to pretty much anthing else on the planet you can buy it would not make sense at all, but yet for digital media its the only place where it does not make sense, but is accepted anyway....
You know what? In that mess of posts, you have actually stumbled onto the solution and now just have to live up to it.
"I shouldn't buy the game if I am unsure it is a good investment"
That is so beautifully written and it's as eloquent the saying, "a fool and his money part quickly." More gamers need to follow this. You shouldn't buy the game if you're unsure it's a good investment.
That second part is where you seem to get tripped up. Just don't do it. If You don't think crysis is worth 50 dollars, wait until it goes on sale for a price you think it will be worth or get it as a gift. But don't justify taking it because you feel the pretty graphics and 3 hours of gameplay (which required some investment by company) do not equate to the 50 dollars they're charging.
Sadly I was not the one that came up with that its in this thread somewhere... I am sorry you view is on the side of the coin that puts profit above anything else.
I am happy for you therain93, you are one of those Lemmings....
Sadly I must go play a game I did not pay one cent for, Cheers!
Just because I focused on how you should be responsible with your money and respectful of other people's merchandise in the quoted posts, that's still a wide chasm you need to leap in order to paint me as a profiteer. And, unfortunately, you seem to reject those concepts too.
Forthe record, I'm sorry if you felt like I was picking on you. When possible, I always expanded my arguments to encompass like-minded individuals, but, at the same time you did author some exemplary material underscoring my points right down to the parting shot. Again, companies like ubisoft can point to people like you to justify their outlandish DRM schemes.
So allods was nothing special and I deleted it... maybe I should pay them $20 for a 24 slot bag just so I can sleep better....
I do not think I have ever bought an Ubisoft game and the one we are "talking about" does not interest me at all anyway....
I do not think you were picking on me... I like a good intelligent argument, alas we come to a point where we could go back and forth and never make any ground and I do not want to spend any more time with this matter.
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
<snip>
Now, to speak to your other parts, our society has a long history of being able to inspect something before purchasing it. This is not to say someone can read a book to completion, though I suppose they could in Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or other book stores if they were so inclined. But they can certainly read the forward, a chapter, or selected excerpts and see if the book is something they would like to purchase and look into further. In a similar vein, I can take a car out on the highway before purchasing it. I can test the acceleration, braking, make a note of gas usage, or whatever I would like to do to test the product before purchasing. Now, a book might be a few dollars and a car might be a few thousand, but they both let me make a determination based on usage. Additionally, my determination is likely to be completely subjective once we get beyond the facts that the pages don't stick together or the car does actually accelerate.
The one main difference between those two scenarios and video games (or software in general) is that you do not traditionally get to leave the market place to evaluate the product further. Certainly, some vendors might make exceptions, but the general rule is, if I am in Target/Walmart and examining something, I don't get to leave with it.
Perhaps this is where the game industry is missing the boat. Instead of making single-player games require internet connections, why not provide a method for streaming the game for evaluation. Certainly it would be technologically feasible and would allow them to retain control of the gaming environment while provide a low hassle option for evaluating the game. They could go one step further and require you have a (free) Ubisoft account and offering a discount for converting to a legit purchase after playing the trial. I mean, possibilities could be discussed for days to come :P. Naturally, I consider this from a PC view. Not sure the feasibility on the console, but if netflix can work with consoles, this could probably be done as well. This approach would require infrastructure, much as this DRM solution does, but I think this would result in more actual sales (purely opinion though).
As for your Valve post, yes, I saw it and I think the part you quoted is especially worth noting. It all comes down to "why do people pirate?" which Ubisoft seems to assume is purely because someone didn't want to pay and no that there is something wrong with the sales/service approach.
In the end, the more I think about it, the more interested I am in the game resale market impact of this DRM. Since most people can agree the piracy will not be detered, regardless of personal feelings about the practice, Ubisoft must realize this and intend to make money off of this somehow. Introducing a hassle on second-hand purchases that they would otherwise not see income from seems like a way they might do this.
I'm all for making knowledgable purchases -- reviews and demos are huge. Sometimes the best salesman is an already satisfied customer, for example, someone who loves a guitar hero game and shares it or someone who lets you drive their car. But, as you point out, most of that inspection takes place within the contraints imposed by the seller. Traditionally the boundaries were dictated by the walls of the marketplace, but demos in digital media are applicable as well and more often becoming available. You even suggest a great method that falls within the constraints of the seller, streaming a game for evaluation. Even though you aren't writing it, I think its understood that the consumer just cannot walk away with the product and use it endlessly, before deciding they might pay for it though, all the while benefitting from it.
The used market scenario is interesting -- it really deserves its own thread though. I have a conpiracy theory on how it will work (with all of the necessary plot holes) so if you start it, I'll gladly share it ( ' :
Just wanted to say thanks for that link. Very interesting look on it.
No problem --I thought it was a good read too. For those who didn't read it, basically Valve experimented by cutting costs on a game and capturing the sales results. In the end, a 75% discount to the price resulted in a 1470% increase in sales revenue, which in turn still resulted in a 15% increase to net income over sales at the original price. A neat way to lure in those opting to go the illegal download path...
For kicks, here is how the numbers work out:
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
Or Gamefly or Netflix? ( ' ;
I could possibly see Steam going this way too but not individual publishers.
Regarding the first line, I think this goes back to a comment I posted earlier labeling piracy as, more often then not, a crime of convenience. It's a simple enough thing to download something right? As such, the downloaded item, be it a song, movie, or game is perceived the same as an item sitting on a shelf. I mean, if you take an item off a shelf, there is an empty spot on the shelf right? You can see a physical result of your action and as such consequences are more noticeable.
I still believe the idea of entitlement, while certainly applicable to some, is not the best way to describe motive. I mean, that would imply there some level of conscious intent that the person was owed a 'trial' versus someone at a keyboard saying "oh look at that. I think I'll try that out".
Personally, I'm not much of a conversation starter, but it sounds like you've given your theory some thought. I would recommend getting published so I can read it, in its entirety, at my local book store, or it might be best delivered via the blog feature of the site. I'd certainly bump it after giving it a read
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Just wanted to say thanks for that link. Very interesting look on it.
No problem --I thought it was a good read too. For those who didn't read it, basically Valve experimented by cutting costs on a game and capturing the sales results. In the end, a 75% discount to the price resulted in a 1470% increase in sales revenue, which in turn still resulted in a 15% increase to net income over sales at the original price. A neat way to lure in those opting to go the illegal download path...
For kicks, here is how the numbers work out:
I hadn't read through the whole thread, since I don't have time to wade through 23 pages. But the point still remains that too many developers simply don't get that they are simply expecting consumers to pay too much.
I hope hackers focus on taking down the servers UBISOFT uses... This is awful. I mainly play my single player games when I'm not connected to the internet for various reasons. Why would I buy a game that required the internet to play solo? I think I'll wait for the hackers to crack it then download it from them free. Why should I pay for a limited product when I can download a superior one free? Good job Ubisoft, you just made illegal downloading more appealing.
Thats why I love Steam
If you're a PC owner just DONT BUY IT - Ubisoft have already shown they don't give a damn about PC owners hence the reason they delayed its release by 6 months after consoles because the figure they'll get more sales from console owners due to their inability to use pirated copies.....yet.
DEFINITION OF REALITY: Graphics ok, Sound ok, Gold drops need more work...
There has to be more to it than just anti piracy.
I wouldn't put it past Ubisoft from using the constant connection requirement as a form of sniffing to sell to advertisers. Think of it as the future of "cookies".
Here is a true story about....ummmm.... a "friend" I know.
This friend bought a game called Space Rangers 2 several years ago. Space rangers used a copy protection requiring the CD to be in the drive (the Original CD- copies do not work)- This friend had registered his game which he had PURCHASED and never pirated anything in his life (well, he did copy music tapes from friends in the 1980's lol)
This friend owned the game for approx a month when the CD was scratched by an evil Cat (cats name withheld also) who apparently had a hatred of this disk. My "friend" contacted customer support to the game company he had bought, paid and registered with and after days was told "There is nothing we can do- You must purchase this game again"- They did not even offer my "friend" a discount.
My "friend" was pretty angry that there (apparently) was no way this company would help him to play a game he had purchased only a month ago, which was on his hard drive and only required a CD to be in for "anti-piracy" reasons (not to 'run the game') so after a bit of checking and talking to people, he found that , in fact, those evil hackers had posted "no CD" keys which allowed him to play the game he had purchased.
Hackers- 1 Game Company- 0
BUT- My "friend" also saw that along with those CD Keys, were other games b the same company that he would like to play and not pay them for.
Hacker- 2 Game Company-0
NOW, this "friend" has no problem giving himself free trials of any game he wants to play- My "friend" isnt having to plunk down 50-60 dollars for a piece of shit game every couple weeks. My friend no longer has to deal with shoddy customer service, nor worry about swapping CDs for each new game he wishes to play.
These "anti-piracy" measures have really saved my friend lots of money.... He still buys games he feels are good, but no longers gambles on his purchases nor basies them on a small demo designed to make the game look good.
With measures like these coming out- I think my "friend" will have lots of company.
seed plz.
you know I would not be against a model like this where you pay maybe 19.99 a month and have access to all of their games to play as much as you want... like Sony does with its MMO's
What I'm saying is that they would charge you $50 for the game itself and then another fee, a monthly subscription fee, to access that game via their 'next-gen gaming platform of complete uselessness'.
splat
Just another challenge for release groups, you can't stop piracy. Only way to stop software piracy is if computers didn't exist, good luck with that one.