Second Take: Did Piracy Kill Iron Lore?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Chetou,

Do you have any games from 10 years ago that are actually playable without serious effort on your machine? I completely agree with you on the boxes, manuals, and other SWAG that comes with the boxed game. However, last time I moved I unearthed an ancient box of games that I thought would make for a great trip down memory lane. Getting any of them to work on a modern day operating system turned out to be quite the challenge.
 
Greetings!
So? New peers may be unable to start the torrent from that particular tracker but through PEX (available in the vast majority of BitTorrent clients) the already connected peers may be able to finish the download, as long as there are seeders with full copies.
Trackers going down and up may disturb the download but dont make it stop.
You havent been paying attention to the CoD4-PC piracy story. Almost two months ago a developer had this to say:
"On another PC related note, we pulled some disturbing numbers this past week about the amount of PC players currently playing Multiplayer (which was fantastic). What wasn't fantastic was the percentage of those numbers who were playing on stolen copies of the game on stolen / cracked CD keys of pirated copies (and that was only people playing online).
Not sure if I can share the exact numbers or percentage of PC players with you, but I'll check and see; if I can I'll update with them. As the amount of people who pirate PC games is astounding. It blows me away at the amount of people willing to steal games (or anything) simply because it's not physical or it's on the safety of the internet to do."
in, http://kotaku.com/344848/piracy-makes-call-of-duty-4-devs-sad
Do calm down and try to understand.
I am not adding numbers from different trackers, am not adding seeders numbers, am not adding leechers numbers, am not adding the same torrent.
What I am doing is adding the ".torrent" downloads from the different CoD4-PC "releases", using the statistic provided by Mininova.
Before replying to this post, go and check that statistic, you can even test for yourself how the "Downloads" number changes each time you download the little ".torrent" file. As long as there is no one else downloading it at the same time you should see a clear one up each time you refresh the page.
 
ES07_p11a.jpg


Rob, look at the ESA numbers. The number of sales in PC and Video games has been essentially stable since 2002. The market has shifted away from PC towards consoles. Where's the sudden dip in total sales due to piracy? Has everyone's disposable income increased so much that the total sales should be 2 or 3 times higher? I call bullshit on that.


 


CannedTurkey, you need to look at the breakdown between PC games and console games for 2007. Those sales figures are much more telling. Check out the NPD Group's data for retail PC game sales in the U.S. for last year -- even with WoW: Burning Crusade selling more than 2 million copies, total PC game sales (again, retail only) FELL from 2006. In fact, if memory serves, the data showed that retail sales for PC games peaked in 2004 and declined from that peak every year since then. Then look at the data for console game sales last year; they're astounding. Is piracy the only reason PC game sales are dipping? No, course not. But you'd be hard pressed to convince it hasn't had a singificant effect on the business. And I guess that's my whole point.

 
Go to half price books and check out what is there. When I see games shunted there for 8 dollars and they are less than a year old maybe it is less about piracy and a more fundamental change in gaming. Piracy is a major problem, but there is a lot more to it.
 

What? Actually it makes perfect sense and it's an accurate analogy. What's on the paper, or if it's even a piece of paper is irrelevant. If you really don't like that one, take my "car for sale" analogy instead. You're disregarding my argument without actually stating why it doesn't make sense. In this analogy, the "010101" would be the piece of software, and the piece of paper would be a hard disk/computer. I'm copying his software onto my computer, without removing the software from his own computer. It's a fairly simple concept and quite frankly I'm surprised you don't seem to understand it.

So tell me, what exactly would people do with that piece of paper with 010101 on it? What makes them even want it? Would any person on earth ever want to purchase a piece of paper that has 010101 on it? The answer is no, because it is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Good, I'm glad we agree that the "whatever it is he's selling" object in my analogy is meaningless. It could be a walrus with spraypaint on his back and the point would remain the same. Meanwhile, you're getting hung up on the analogy as if the objects are to be taken literally, rather than in context and comparison. I really can't help you any further if you don't seem to understand that, sorry.

The paper in your argument with 010101 on it has no function in your make believe world. No one, not even in your fantasy world, would ever invest time or money to create a piece of paper with 010101 written on it if it was completely meaningless.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's function is also irrelevant. For the sake of the analogy, it's to be assumed that everyone simply wants it because they enjoy having/using/looking at it. The vast majority of video games serve no purpose beyond entertainment. Again, you're getting hung up on aspects of the analogy that are actually quite irrelevant and you're missing the actual point I was making.

No one can even build a counter argument for what you just said because the magnitude nonsense is too great. It is like trying to apply logic to something completely illogical...it just isn't possible.
Click to expand...
What? You're focusing on irrelevant points in my analogy and taking them literally, and ignoring my real argument. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Answer these questions.
Click to expand...
Okay. :)

1. Would you work at a job if your employer didn't pay you in any way?
Click to expand...
Obviously not.

2. Would you feel that you deserve compensation in exchange for your labor?
Click to expand...
Yes, IF we had made a verbal or written agreement where I was told I would be compensated for my hours worked. Your analogy is broken, and unlike you, I'm actually going to explain why.

1. If there is an agreement to compensation (i.e. You interview for the job, I tell you you're hired and from this point until the end of your employment, I will compensate you for all hours worked) then all parties are entitled to what's stated in the agreement. In this case, you're entitled to being compensated for the time you work.

2. If there is no agreement to compensation, then no one is entitled to any time spent working. The only thing you're entitled to is your own work.

3. Companies are not our employees, they are making investments. When a company decides to create a product, they're making the investment of paying their programmers, marketing, production, etc. to get the products on the shelves, and they are doing so without any prior agreement to compensation. Simply put, this means that they are only entitled to their own work. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR BUSINESS. THEY MADE AN INVESTMENT.

3. On the flip side, if you were an employer, would you compensate someone who doesn't do anything for you?
Click to expand...
I would be required to compensate them based upon what our initial agreement was. If I agreed to compensate them for hours worked, I would be required to do so. If it was project based, and they didn't do any work, I wouldn't have to pay them a dime. Plus, either way I would end up firing them.

4. So in either case, if you were the employer compensating someone for nothing or the worker not getting compensation, wouldn't you feel cheated?
Click to expand...
Yes, because in both cases there would be an initial agreement between both parties. In these example (you are the employee, and I am the employer), I agree to pay you for all your hours worked, and you agree to do the work I assign you. This is our agreement. If 1) I do not pay you for your work, I have broken my end of the initial agreement, or 2) you do not follow through with the work I assigned you, you have broken your end of the agreement. HOWEVER, say you come work for me and you and I agree that you will only be paid if I'm happy with your work, then all the time you invest will be simply that, an investment, IN THE HOPES that I'm happy with your work. If you spend 40 hours working, but we have had no agreement from the beginning that I will compensate you for your hours spent, and I end up not happy with your work, you are not entitled to ANYTHING. Figure it out.

If you don't understand the concept of compensation for labor then there is no way that you would understand what you are arguing against. Or, and I think this is the real situation, you do understand the concept of compensation for labor but you are just backed in a corner and have nothing logical to say anymore so you are just making things up to have an argument.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm basing my argument entirely on logic. Everything I've said thus far has been logical, as far as I can tell, and have tried to keep emotion out of it. I'm not backed into a corner, and I'd be glad to discuss compensation labor further, as in my field, I've dealt with various different agreements of compensation. I also understand business, and the most important point I can try to emphasize to you is that these businesses are making investments, and when you invest, you're taking a risk, nothing is guaranteed.

Here. Let me give you a new analogy, elaborating on the one I made in another one of my posts.

Let's say I decide I'm going to make and sell cars. I open my own business, start making cars, and begin selling them to people. For a while, my business is successful, until one day I notice people start showing up to my car lot with weird looking devices in their hands. They begin walking up to the cars I've made, move the shiny metal devices over them, and then a few feet away on the street, a carbon copy of my cars appear out of thin air. These people walk over to these newly created cars, get in them, and drive off.

Let's break this down:

First off, there's no guarantee that these people who came to my lot with these magical devices would have purchased a car in the first place. They may have just been there to simply duplicate my cars, and wouldn't have shown up otherwise. So even though I'm not making money from these people, they're not TAKING money or property AWAY from me.

Second, I still own everything I've paid for. I initially paid the factory workers to produce these cars, and as such, these cars are now mine. They belong to me. However, the duplicated cars, although exactly the same as my own cars, didn't require any additional time, effort, or money for me to create. As such, even though I created the idea and design for these cars, those physical cars didn't cost me anything to make/produce.

Finally, my business might be failing now thanks to these magical car duplication devices. However, that doesn't mean that these people are stealing my cars, they're duplicating them. Some people might be using the duplication devices instead of purchasing cars from me, while others might simply be using them because they exist, and if they didn't have them, they still wouldn't end up purchasing a car. There's no way to tell for sure who would do what if these devices didn't exist. However, my failing business is a direct result of my investment failing to make returns in a market where my "tried n' true" business model simply does not hold water any longer. I chose to continue to pay my factory workers to produce cars, and I still own the cars they've produced for me. I'm entitled to nothing further.

Is it right what they're doing? According to the law, no it's not. However, there's a new word for what they're doing, since they're using my intellectual rights without my permission. It's called copyright violation, and it's vastly different from stealing. Say those people went out and then sold their duplicated versions of my cars, then I would be entitled to that money because someone is making a profit from my own idea. That's how it works, but please, please, PLEASE can we stop calling pirating software "stealing"?
 
How does every discussion about piracy come to this.

If no one buys your damn cars, you don't design any new cars. People with their car dupers can dupe the old boring cars that everyone has been driving for years, but no one gets anything new. With the car dupers there is no longer any return on investment and as such there is no investment, so no one is going to create new cars.

So stealing, copying, pirating, copyright infringing, or whatever you want to call it reduces profits for the original developer. This is exactly the point of copyright and patent law. It is why it exists. It exists so that advancement and originality continues to have value.

You could reverse engineer a new Porsche for a fraction of the cost it cost to originally design it. Having spent almost no money on the design aspect of it you could then reproduce your pirated version for a fraction of the cost. By your logic this is absolutely fine as Porsche has not lost anything. They still have all their original designs, they still have all of the inventory of cars that they've built. However, this is obviously not fine as the original investor has been undercut via [strike]theft[/strike] devaluation of his intellectual property.

You're proposing a model where innovation in any visible form is an investment with a guarantee of no returns. The only innovation that would exist would now be in manufacturing processes and procedures or other aspects of production that can happen completely behind closed doors.

So in that model great advances would be made in lowering costs to build something that exists. However, nothing would be done to bring anything new into existence. Without protection of our ideas and designs there is no innovation.
 

My whole argument was basically that it is NOT THE SAME AS STEALING. Does it potentially hurt the industry? Yes. No question. If people dupe the cars for themselves, and it costs me nothing and they don't resell them for money, all they're doing is not supporting my business. That sucks, but in reality, if someone can duplicate something for free you can't really blame them, and there's no guarantee that anyone getting my product for free would have paid for it. However, when you have someone copying your product and then going off and selling it to someone else, it's probably pretty likely that the person buying the copied version would have bought mine (although this can be argued as well depending on price), so I'm entitled to that money.

I'm not defending piracy in every form. As I said, my own experience with piracy has been beneficial for those who create quality products, and detrimental to those who don't. I download games and software, delete the ones I don't like, and eventually pay for the ones I do. That means if you make a **** product, you're not getting paid for it. This form of "ethical" piracy IS positive for the industry because it weeds out the crappy game companies that are only out to make a buck and don't care if you like their product. Companies like Flagship Studios that market their new game with "From the makers of Diablo!", ignoring the fact that it's actually quite different (and inferior in terms of features, playability, storyline) to Diablo. Companies like that don't deserve to be in business because their business practice is, in essence, deceptive. When you focus more on marketing your game and less on creating a real, genuine, quality product, in my opinion I don't feel you're entitled to my money, but I'm also not entitled to continue using your product for free. I will play a game, and if it bores me or I hate it, I'll delete it, never to play it again, without wasting any of my money. Some argue that this is morally wrong, I feel that it's simply leveling the playing field and taking the companies' skewed marketing campaigns out of the question. No doubt other forms of piracy (i.e. NEVER paying for things you definitely WOULD buy if you couldn't pirate them) DO hurt the industry on every level (even for the quality game developers). There's no argument there. However, the real question is: to what extent?

And by the way I always end up adding more to my posts, but here's adding to the analogy:
Obviously if no one buys your cars anymore, you stop making new cars. But maybe the duplicated cars don't have ALL the features of the original cars, so if the quality of the car is really good, it might be worth just paying for an original. That might actually work for the car lot across the street that makes great cars, but your car company has been more focused on just getting the cars off the lot at all costs, so you've cut corners. Your thought is that it doesn't matter if people hate your car once they drive it off the lot, because you don't offer refunds. In this instance, I honestly feel like you deserve to fail and SHOULD stop making cars. The awesome car lot across the street doesn't though, and that's kind of a shame if piracy hurts them.
 
As I've said, I think it would really be quite fair for companies to allow you to "pay" for the game up front, download/play it, and within a certain allotment of time you'd have the ability to say "You know what, this game just sucks and I don't feel I've gotten my money's worth", uninstall the game, and get a refund.

It would be like going to a movie theater, realizing 20 minutes into it that you've wasted your money, going up to the front desk and getting your money back. Honestly, any company that thinks this business model wouldn't work probably isn't that confident in their product in the first place (in which case they don't really deserve to be successful imo). Until companies start doing this, I'm not about to blindly drop $50 on each new release that comes out, because quite honestly, a lot of games coming out recently are just terrible. Demos are cool, and so are betas, but they usually have key features locked out (and promised in the full version), and still really only give you a glimpse of what the company wants you to see, not a real look at the final product. I'm willing to pay you for a quality product, but I'm not about to have you tell me it's great and take your word for it.

If it comes to a point where I can no longer pirate games, I still won't buy them aside from the ones I KNOW will be good. For example, I can guarantee later this year I'm going to be buying StarCraft II because I KNOW Blizzard makes quality games, and it'll be worth every penny. I won't have to waste my time downloading a pirated version to try it out. Fallout 3, however, I WILL be downloading a pirated version because I don't trust Bethesda. I love Fallout 1 and 2, probably my all time favorite games, but I think Bethesda generally makes **** games, so I'll play the cracked version. If I like it, I'll buy it, but if it sucks, then they're not getting my money. If I can't pirate games, that means that I might not ever give some games a chance, because I'd rather keep my $50 than potentially waste it on a game I'm not sure about.
 


SIGH....

That effect.. is it has increased sales for certain titles... and vaporized for others..

Usually following the good verses suck trend.. it only negatively impacts sales when a piece of software sucks...

Thats its effect.

It speeds up the success or fail of a title.

PIRATING... is the hype machine...it is the great equalizer for the consumer...and thats good... Aww the software company wants to keep slopping out uninspired bat squeeze over and over again..(Which I think calling something that is a Greek mythology version of Diablo 2 is generous)... well they can, as long as they don't project that they are going to sell millions of copies...and put them on the shelf for 10 bucks..

I for one am glad that this company is gone... I hope a bunch of them follow as well.

Piracy playing a role... perhaps.. but that role is due to Piracy pulling back the covers and flipping the light switch on the copulating partner of the night...rendering the quality of what is laying in the bed the factor in whether or not money will be left on the nightstand in an hour or so.

Last year the console market had 3 brand new systems to sell... and you bet that cut into pc game sales.. just like wow did.

And should we start talking about what the economy has been doing and will be doing..and how that impacts PC game sales?

Or do you want to keep your heads in the sand on that too??
 



Do you read the links provided .. past problem.. and steam?

Why do you dorks have such problems reading.. and then comprehending it?

You can get a CD hardcopy of your VALVE games.. as I do.

You can keep them nice and new in the box.. and DOWNLOAD the entire game...

Did I always love Steam.. NO... I actually hated it alot..

Untill I saw them constantly.. improving it.. Untill I had my CSS folder corrupted and I redownloaded the entire CSS folder and Steam patched it up and it worked fine.. I lost no skins.. no textures ... it was magic .. downloading a 900mb game (that I own) for free... at 900kb/s .. it was marvelous.

Not to mention how easy it is for you to update maps... in a game like CSS (which still to this day has over 25,000 active servers).. you can download a map that is 10+mb in at most 2 minutes..steam installs it.. and off you go playing on a new map, with only a minimal wait..and no labor to install the files in the right place on your part! (COD4 had better make updating Customs maps and so forth just as SEAMLESS and EASY.. or they are DOOMED! mark my words)

Valve going out of business??... Hmmmmm lets see... they have made some of the most successful titles ever made on the PC.. their impact is legendary... their weight is enormous.. and their fan base is millions... and they actually cater to what most gamers want..

Uh No.. Their games are also pirated.. there are cracks for their stuff.. Do we hear them crying and bitching about it???

No .. we see updates.. and updates.. and new games (that are fun!)

We see quality.. and VALUE.. not to mention re-playability

Are they perfect?..

NO.

Do they strive to be??

Fukin A they do..

They do not ABANDON their products.. I have never seen so many updates in my life compared to how much work they put into their software... Seeing that is impressive enough to establish loyalty with me until they do something so horrid and foul that I have no choice but to shun them, working with a totalitarian state selling out their users would be a way.. and I doubt they would, do you?



But me oh my.. here goes that word of mouth again.. spreading the word on good stuff...and shunning the bad!
 


Noooooooooooo

We have been waiting for too long... Don't say that game is going to suck.. noooo :cry:


Leave Fallout Alone :cry: !!


:cry: Its not HUMAN!!! :cry:


---

I know what you mean... I hope it is only half of what I think off of us have been waiting for..(we are the hardest of hardcore fans... even Hunter S Thompson feared us..)

If Bethesda fails...and midway through the game I totally lose interest.. (as I did with Morrowind and Oblivion)

But this time if they do that to us on Fallout 3.. I will 'nuke' my disks.. and put up a post on No Mutants Allowed.. then I will send the disks to Bethesda..

I want to support Interplay.. and will let them know that the money was for having their heart in the right place.. but the disks were for failing.

....Oh please don't suck Fallout 3! ... :sweat: Please Please Please...


 


Shame on you. Even if there was a playable demo available released before the game's official launch, you'd still pirate it, wouldn't you? You call yourself a Fallout fan but won't even give Fallout 3 the benefit of the doubt. If you think Bethesda is so awful and think the sequel is going suck, DON'T PLAY IT. Because let's be honest, even if the game is better than you expect, Ohhsnap, you're not going to pay for it. Ever. You'll just keep your pirated version and continue to convince yourself that it's really not that good, not good enough at least yo get YOUR $50. A game has to be a 10 out 10, right? It has to be damn near perfect for your pay your hard-earned money. Well, your standards are impossible. Your logic on copying products is flawed. Your view on piracy as being some kind of "survival of the fittest" Thunderdome-esque quality control measure is even worse. You'll even admit that piracy is perhaps hurting the PC gaming industry. You're intelligent. You make cogent points in this argument. You're not ranting and raving with ill-spoken analogies and bad grammar like a high school kid who doesn't know any better. You DO know better. Yet you're going to continue to do it. You're going to keep on pirating, and keep on blaming 99 percent of the developers out there for making crap products. You'll brazenly declare in public that, in no uncertain terms, you won't even give Fallout 3 A CHANCE before you rip it off. And that's what disturbs me the most.
 
My whole argument was basically that it is NOT THE SAME AS STEALING.
Click to expand...
I understood your argument Ohhsnap. I wasn't refuting it. I was merely trying to state that stealing or not it hurts the industry and cuts into profit margins in a real way. So to say that something isn't lost by the developers due to the pirating actions seems untrue to me.

The thing that I think gets left out a lot here is that you arn't simply copying a game for personal use in most cases on a torrent. You are copying it and then sharing it. So in effect instead of selling the copy to make money you are merely giving it away which in some ways is even worse. A torrent with thousands of seeds has more opportunities to be used without reimbursement to the developers and it looks more popular which generally means better in game terms.

A single copy for personal use would generally mean a fraction of a lost sale on average. A single copy that is then shared with others who share with others balloons into a significant amount of lost potential revenue. I doubt 70-85%, but if you read Fitch's message he makes some good points about what if it was only 10% or even 1% of actual lost sales.

As I've said, I think it would really be quite fair for companies to allow you to "pay" for the game up front, download/play it, and within a certain allotment of time you'd have the ability to say "You know what, this game just sucks and I don't feel I've gotten my money's worth", uninstall the game, and get a refund.
Click to expand...

Some companies already do something similar. Savage 2 had a trial version that lasted for 5 hours or 5 days I can't remember which. You had basically the full game to try out for a time. Then you decided if you wanted to buy it or not. Eve-Online is free for 14 days, then you can pay for continued use or ignore it.

Most game demos are pretty comparable to this though. They often cover the first act or chapter of a game or provide some segment of the game that is a pretty reasonable representation. Granted I've seen some demos that were not representative of the game, but as a whole a demo is generally a good indicator of the game. The demo for Fallout 2 was the first experience I'd ever had with the series. I immediately went out and bought the game and the first one after completing the demo. The demo showed exactly what the game was like without giving away anything in the story, which is perfect in my opinion.

What you are proposing here would be a bookkeeping nightmare. Transactions cost money. Refunds cost money. A company would eat up all of their profits paying their transaction fees and all of the manpower it would take to handle the refunds/sales. Right now they slap an MSRP on a product and ship it out to distributors. The open box policy is most likely a rule set by the selling entity as well.
 

Actually if they release a solid demo that's equivalent to the final released product, I'd probably play that. Based on the features and what's been released on Fallout 3, it's looking like it's going to be pretty terrible.

You call yourself a Fallout fan but won't even give Fallout 3 the benefit of the doubt. If you think Bethesda is so awful and think the sequel is going suck, DON'T PLAY IT. Because let's be honest, even if the game is better than you expect, Ohhsnap, you're not going to pay for it. Ever. You'll just keep your pirated version and continue to convince yourself that it's really not that good, not good enough at least yo get YOUR $50. A game has to be a 10 out 10, right? It has to be damn near perfect for your pay your hard-earned money. Well, your standards are impossible.
Click to expand...
My standards aren't impossible. Every game I play right now is purchased. My friend even pirated CoD4 and while he was helping me put together my new rig, I was playing it on his computer and I thought it was amazing. So I bought a copy for me, and I also bought a copy for him so we could play online.

I bought UT3 after I played their very decent demo and I enjoy it. I don't know of anyone who would give that a "10 out of 10", if anything it's been given very mediocre reviews.

The only pirated copies of games I have on my computer as of right now are Doom 3 (which I've actually only played about 10 minutes of, and I've yet to just uninstall it) and Heroes of Might & Magic 5(?) which I've also yet to even play. I wouldn't have ever purchased either of those games. My point however, is that my standards aren't impossible. They're actually not all that high, but I will admit are higher than the majority of games coming out as of late.

Your logic on copying products is flawed. Your view on piracy as being some kind of "survival of the fittest" Thunderdome-esque quality control measure is even worse.
Click to expand...
If you can explain to me how it's flawed I'll gladly listen. Thus far I don't think I've stated anything that could be considered "illogical" however immoral or disturbing you may find it to be. In my case, piracy really does serve as a means of sorting out the good from the bad and only rewarding those who release quality products. In general, maybe that's not the case and I won't argue that it is. It very well could be, but I don't have any kind of statistics to back that up so I won't go there.

You'll even admit that piracy is perhaps hurting the PC gaming industry. You're intelligent. You make cogent points in this argument. You're not ranting and raving with ill-spoken analogies and bad grammar like a high school kid who doesn't know any better. You DO know better. Yet you're going to continue to do it. You're going to keep on pirating, and keep on blaming 99 percent of the developers out there for making crap products.
Click to expand...
What do you call someone who doesn't purchase your product and doesn't like your product? A thief? I'm actually quite confused as to what your issue is with piracy, at least in my case. I've explained to you that if it wasn't for having the ability to pirate games, I wouldn't even consider buying games unless I knew they were from developers with great track records (Blizzard). If I don't intend on buying the game based on my current opinion, what's the harm in downloading the pirated version and actually deciding I like it. I think the real issue here is we differ on who's more important, the customer or the industry. What's good for one might not be good for the other. If every customer who wanted to try out a game ended up buying it without knowing whether they liked it, that would be great for the industry, but actually quite awful for the customer (gotta bring up Hellgate:London again). If every customer played the game first before they actually decided if it was worth purchasing, that's going to be hard on a lot of developers, but great for customers (and great for the companies who happen to be releasing the "worthy" games). I'm not saying that all piracy is playing out like this, but for folks like me and others who have replied stating that they will pirate games, and then buy the ones they actually end up playing, it does.

You'll brazenly declare in public that, in no uncertain terms, you won't even give Fallout 3 A CHANCE before you rip it off. And that's what disturbs me the most.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not going to convince you that some people who pirate software and games aren't just out to rip companies off. All I can tell you is that based on Bethesda's portfolio thus far, unless I can play a large demo with all the features promised in the final release fully working or the pirated version, I won't be buying it. I don't trust Bethesda. If it was still an Interplay/BlackIsle project, and Tim Cain was heading up the development of Fallout 3 I would gladly throw $50 at it immediately on the day of release. Any true fallout fan would probably tell you the same.

I think a lot of gamers are becoming disillusioned with the industry as a whole. The quality of game releases is slowly declining, in my opinion, because everyone's using the same ideas from 10 years ago and not really doing anything new with them. There's nothing like buying a game like Hellgate:London for $50 that's not even finished. They promised to the beta testers that there would be way more features in the release, and a lot of people took their word for it, but ended up getting the exact same beta they'd been playing. And on top of that, they tried to charge customers even more each month for content and features that should have been included in the game we all bought. Everyone complained on the forums, and the main message was: "**** you, you're not getting a refund. If you don't like this game so much, don't post here." I think customers are sick of being treated like garbage by game companies and getting half finished products. If pirating games means companies like that will go out of business, I'm fine with that. I'd just hate to see great developers like Blizzard go out of business, although I honestly don't see that happening.
 
🙁 🙁 I know... It is just painful... actually if it pans out to be totally true.. I will be deeply hurt... 🙁 🙁

I am just trying to be optimistic... can't fault me for dreaming.
 
Piracy to review is one thing, but if there is a demo then there is no excuse for piracy. If the developer hasn't given enough reason for you to buy the game after playing the demo then it probably isn't worth playing.

Demos are definitely must haves for games. If a demo can't work cleanly or effectively then I assume the game has the same problems. If the demo isn't for me I won't ever play the game again.

Quality first and while players may whine and get mad about the "When it is done" philosophy of Blizzard it sure as hell get me to buy their games. Blizzard is how the games industry should be run. No more Daikatanas, Ultima9s or Hellsgates.
 


Really? Have you seen VATS in action? I have, actually. But have you? Or seen ANY part of Fallout 3 other than a trailer? How can make such a definitive statement? How do you KNOW it's going to be bad?
 
Can we agree first off that piracy had nothing to do with the failure of Iron Lore...

As now the 34 gamers in total I have talked to regarding this issue.. not a single person has even heard of it... and now all but 2 use Pirating for the exact reasons I said people pirate for.

Fact of the matter is .. Bad Games killed Iron Lore.
 

I'm just a guy with no affiliation to game review sites and the like, so no. However, I've read enough about it from guys like you to know that it's taking fallout in the wrong direction (in the opinion of a hardcore fallout fan).
http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18164&sid=0fcf4d8e932f7ea0a0a5ade6f40b82d8

I've read all the reviews, browsed duckandcover, nma, and the "official" fo3 forums for hours reading about game features, looking at screenshots, reading backstory, etc. From what I've read and seen thus far, I am not convinced it's going to be the Fallout 3 everyone was hoping for. I really don't want to turn this into a massive rant about why I think Fallout 3 is going to be bad, but to sum it up the combat system is simultaneously FPS and essentially throwing a bone to the original fallout fans with "V.A.T.S." rather than true turn-based. The look of the models/textures doesn't follow the same original fallout feel (i.e. Power Armor and jumpsuits. Just another "**** you, we're doing it our way!" from Bethesda). They trivialize nuclear weapons by throwing in a "Fat Man" (also the name of the nuke dropped on Hiroshima, rather poor taste if you ask me, not the dark, cynical humor we found in Fallout 1 and 2 but just a ****, tasteless reference). There's a flaming sword weapon. A flaming sword.

It's obvious they're doing it their way, and I've seen the other games they've made their way, and I personally don't like them or find them fun at all. Some people might end up loving Fallout 3, but I can pretty much guarantee I wont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom