I've always been saying every game has to have a multiplayer
Comment has been collapsed.
Best way to prevent piracy is to take the North Korean approach of restricting a nation's internet access to a handful of third rate websites.
Piracy in North Korea is practically non-existent although, admittedly, so are computers less than twenty years old...
Comment has been collapsed.
Practically... but not entirely. You should think about that. The price of being caught bypassing NK's filters is death. So people are risking far harsher penalties and going through a far harder process to get a game for free then anywhere in the world. Of course, these games arnt available to buy in NK so it changes things a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
When all's said and done, you'd still think twice about clicking on that Bad Rats torrent though :)
Personally, I think those Democratic people in North Korea have got it nailed...
Comment has been collapsed.
Preventing Piracy is like learning how to fly without wings.
Comment has been collapsed.
only cracked servers which sucks
Oh sure, nobody would make a dedicated crack servers for MP games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, my marketing plan is a bit different.
You get a simple setup, sort of like a kickstarter, where you set a minimum goal, then people who want the game can donate.
However, no one will get the game until the minimum goal is reached. Then it will be free to download for anyone. The people who donate will obviously get some sort of special treatment.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, first of all why would you want to stop piracy?
Speaking from my own experience when i was a kid without steady income i use to pirate everything. If there were no piracy back then companies wouldn't get money from me anyway since my money was very limited. I would simply found another free hobby and in long run game developers would be the one who lost money. Because without piracy i wouldn't get hooked into video games and now when I'm twenty something with good job I would be spending my money on another hobby.
its not so black and white as some publishers try to present. Just because game got pirated xxx times doesn't mean that without piracy sales would go up even 1/10 of that number.
Comment has been collapsed.
exactly and the only ones complaining about piracy are those companies with looooots of money, indie devs like the Minecraft ones say piracy is the best kind of advertising and that's true and your comment is too ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
HAHA, funny story: multiplayer can be easily pirated as well, depending on the game.
Also, wtf? You ARE aware not all games are fit for multi, right? And that it ruins the game sometimes?
There are some parts, which I prefer, like the STORY, the PLOT, the SINGLE PLAYER possibilities.
Not all games are for retarded EA/ Activision kids, you know. (no offense to mature people who actually like such games)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it is a really bad idea. True, no one will pirate anymore, because games would be half hassed and dev studios will die one by one.
Comment has been collapsed.
or maybe some fcking decent prices THAT ARE THE SAME ALL OVER THE WORLD and if the devs fix the games and add DEMOS THEN maybe piracy will drop,online verification is retarded
Comment has been collapsed.
Disagree entirely.
The way to go is staggered release dates (US should get the game a couple of months before ROW), vast differences in regional pricing, and draconian DRM which requires a constant internet connection and a DNA sample to establish valid ownership credentials.
Also, day one DLC is a must, and always a winner with the punters. Finally, release on Steam, but use at least one additional proprietory DRM system which runs concurrently, slowing even the beefiest supercomputers to a near standstill, and bristling with irrelevant and unavoidable advertisements, as a final value-adding reward for the fee-paying customer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or maybe developers can make GOOD games and people will buy them
Comment has been collapsed.
Devs and publishers just care to much about piracy anyway, instead of wasting the crapload of money on it, they should make a decent product at a reasonable price.
Sure, there will still be piracy, but as a paying customer, i demand the best possible product. Steamworks somehow pulls that off with Drm, Gog and most indies pull that of without drm. Both give me a massive value, most of the time at a reasonable price (for me).
That's the reason i don't pirate anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are good games but they still get pirated. After KrikinKaja's logic all games are bad but they still get pirated so why should good games not get pirated? And these "bad" games still sell good, so these are probably that what consumers want, when the publishers wouldn't get money from these games they wouldn't develop them. There are also many good games with a good price and they (indie games) and they also get pirated. Better and cheaper games would change nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
it did for me. only thing the industry can do is make their product sexy enough that it sells more.
Of Course good games will be pirated. And let's face it, most of CoD and Battlefield aren't bad games. they are just not very good games in the point of innovation. also, they are catered, to teenagers. from what i read by you around here, i consider you more into the late twenties and with a higher education. so CoD is not for you, Battlefield is not for you. EA Markets for churning money out of people, indie devs basically do what they want and look who does like it.
I'm side tracking. No, better games won't fight piracy. But better games will sell more.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh i am sorry if that insulted you,
i own the first battlefield and 2142 as well, there was a point i wanted to make.
weeeell. however ^^ it seems i embarrassed myself a bit here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Servers switched off (about a year after release if EA is the publisher) and no game?
Niiiice.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh wait, we're all steamusers ;)
sure, steam offers an extra value but basically it's what steam does.
Comment has been collapsed.
While EA turned off the servers for a number of games I own almost as soon as next year's shiny new copy was released, I have never had Steam pull the plug on a single one.
I'm not sure what your point is here...?
Comment has been collapsed.
the point here is they could. They don't do it. that's what makes them better than EA, but they could if they wanted.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the point is that if games relied on servers as an integral part of their gameplay, as Emre is suggesting, once the server goes down, it's "goodnight Vienna".
I wasn't the one trying to turn this into a Steam vs EA thread. I just suggested that EA were an extreme example of why this idea is so badly wrong, since they insist on turning their servers as soon as the new 201x version of a game comes out.
I'm well aware of the ownership issues with Steam, but Emre's suggestion relies on the company to continue ACTIVELY supporting the game by running servers indefinitely, otherwise your game is worthless. I can still play Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 many years after release. I have my doubts over whether Diablo 3 will be playable 15 years from now...
It's a crap idea, and gamers supporting this sort of DRM are like turkeys voting for Christmas, voluntarily lopping each others heads off when the big day comes, while merrily whistling "Jingle Bells"...
Comment has been collapsed.
i can because, if steam shut's down, the games i bought there will be un playable.
same as with this abuse drm schemes by ubisoft and EA.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Steam don't need to ACTIVELY support their games. They just store a modest amount of data for existing users to use, should they need to re-download their game.
The companies in Emre's dreamworld would need to ACTIVELY provide servers to run each game until such time as they pulled a plug, and these purchases became worthless. Frankly, it's bollocks. Unless it's a multiplayer online game, keep it offline, and allow users to play it without logging into some poxy and thoroughly unnecessary server. End of.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am on the same page with you here, just wanted to point out that Steam is a similar thing.
no need to discuss this any further :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The games are easily patched out of their DRM for steam. There is already a "fake" steam client. Only thing you lose if steam goes under is basically what makes steam great. Constant updates, able to redownload however many times you need, community.. and so on. I have more faith in steam lasting then I do in a disc lasting tbh.
You cart around a bunch of discs to a lan party and every weekend and tell me how long it takes before your game gets lost or destroyed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've copied games for 20 years, and bought 400 games during that time. I'd probably not even be a gamer now, and thus wouldn't have bought anything if I didn't copy. Easily a net gain for the industry, both hardware and software.
Try before you buy, it's the only sensible thing to do when the AAA-part of the industry makes sooo much utter garbage; buggy releases, carbon-copies, chopping content for DLC, tacked on MP for SP-games, always-online DRM, marketing budgets that are so insane that they have to sell 3+ million copies just to break even, etc.
Hopefully kickstarter's here for the long haul, so ambitious games can get made without the herpaderp publishers giving them grief if they miss 'random-arbitrary-deadline-set-by-faceless-douche-in-a-suit' by a week. Or the ever-popular "if the game doesn't reach XX on metacritic you won't get your bonus". Fuck the publishers, support the devs (in general).
Comment has been collapsed.
if you want people to respect your work and not download a illegal copy of your game do this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-26-hotline-miami-creator-helps-pirates-play-his-game
Comment has been collapsed.
No, sorry. DRM just doesn't work. It's a bad and flawed concept. When devs understand that and stop investing development time into DRM and multiplayer/social features nobody wants or needs, that is when their games will improve. People do buy good games.
Comment has been collapsed.
43 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by BorschtLover
58 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by SketCZ
85 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by WaxWorm
16,299 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Carenard
1,811 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by ngoclong19
72 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by Reidor
545 Comments - Last post 17 hours ago by UltraMaster
2,810 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by JMM72
10,788 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by JMM72
57 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Akuburanir
33 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by mashiu2000
23 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by Ad4m
151 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by TinaG
203 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by UnknownEAK
If devs want to prevent piracy they need to put multiplayer in their games. Many many people pirate games that are most single player because it's exactly identical to the retail. If people pirate multiplayer games, then they won't get the multiplayer benefits(only cracked servers which sucks). So what do you guys think?
Comment has been collapsed.