niz032

Taking advantage of piracy, how DRM lunacy caused low multiplayer player turnout

▼

Taking advantage of piracy, how DRM lunacy caused low multiplayer player turnout

from Demigod Forums

I read this from stardocks released PDF.

"For Stardock, the more significant shock of Demigod has been the discovery of the low number
of PC gamers who play strategy games online.  Demigod’s single player experience, while decent, did
not get anywhere near the care that the Internet multiplayer experience did.  Despite this, only 23% of
people who have purchased Demigod have ever even attempted to logon to play Internet multiplayer."

In Ye old days (Diablo, etc) game developers USED TO allow more then one person to play off the same account with multiple copies in multiplayer FOR FREE.   The original Warcraft, Warcraft 2 (via kali in the early internet days), doom, Descent, descent2, etc... This is why Doom, Duke 3D, descent, Warcraft, etc, got so popular.  When game developers got stingy and starting doing CD-Authentication then pirate servers started showing up. Instead since demigod is peer 2 peer, allowing pirates to play loses you nothing (didn't pay anyway) but gives a net gain for the game community as a whole.  I think game developers by using cd key auth is one of the main reasons why GPG/stardock is seeing these crap #'s.  FPS games and MMO's can get away with being anal retentive with CD keys.  FPS games because everyone plays them, and MMO's because it's pay to play with online security/auth billing.

For a game like demigod IMHO, you should be doing the OPPOSITE of what everyone in the industry is doing and take us back to the sane times pre 1997/98 where people could play "pirated" versions with one another because they wanted to use one copy, mirror it and play with their friends. I remember doing this for LAN's back in the day with Doom 2, descent and duke nukem 3D for wild times.  IMHO with internet online, I think CD-key auth and the false pirate witchhunts are in fact killing the online success of smaller games.  I think this is another "game developer got greedy" thing where corporate thinking was not the solution, but rather game developers own shortsightedness (gpg/stardock) by not studying the history of why games got popular over Kali (back when it was free and anyone could play).

http://www.kali.net/

The counter-intuitive solution is to enable pirated versions to get updates and to play online with legit players.  IMHO not only will you boost the amount of players online you also perform what I call "the microsoft strategy" - i.e. piracy HELPS because it creates a positive feedback loop (more people on the game, faster the amount of games can be made, less people have to wait before getting a game).

Lets also face it, the reason DOS and windows of microsoft became such a powerhouse was because everyone used them and they became widely known much of it because of piracy.  I think companies need to start facing reality, that they've been doing this to themselves and that there was a lot of multiplayer legit and pirate action on those previously mentioned games (duke, doom, warcraft, descent, etc)

demigod
31,161 views 55 replies
Reply #51 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Sakhari, reply 50

Gamers deserve to own their games...

You know, it's easy to make these sorts of bold statements about other peoples' work but I honestly don't see where you're drawing this sense of entitlement from.  

There's no entitlement to it,  I paid for the game if anything the developers have the entitlement complex here not the gamer.  The fact that you support such practices disqualifies anything you could possibly say in the matter.

If I buy a game I deserve to a) be able to use it how I wish b) not be spied upon c) Not have to contact the mothership for permission. Do you contact the producer of a movie before you watch every movie?  Didn't think so.  

Software licensing was always shady and bordering on fraudulent and doubly so in the case of games which have traditionally been treated as products (something you buy to own).   You can't just erase that history.  You just can't see the history of monopoly copyright abuse because you're too anti-intellectual to begin to even understand the argument.  

The whole IP model is based on extortion by denying rights to the paying party.  When you buy a car you're not spied on and you can use it how you see fit, you can get it repaired when it breaks.  When you buy a modern DRM infested game on Steam or via some other method the game companies have devised, can you do any of that?  I didn't think so.

Reply #52 from Stardock Forums Top

The fact that you support such practices disqualifies anything you could possibly say in the matter.

Right.  Just 'cause.

Not much left to say, really.  You're assuming quite a bit about what 'gamers rights' should entail with very little (beyond poor analogies to physical products) to back these views up.  But hey, feel free to continue this high-minded crusade.  The fact that you're the only one who 'gets it' offers some consolation, I'm sure.

You also might want to look up the definition of "extortion."  Either you don't know what it means or you have a very low opinion of the sales resistance of your fellow gamers.  This tends to be the most irritating point of these arguments to me - suggesting that game developers are using brutally coercive tactics to encourage purchases and that they're abusing their customers relies pretty heavily on the notion that most customers are weak-minded idiots with no control over their luxury spending.  Coming from a supposed crusader for gamer's rights, I'd say that's pretty damned insulting.

None of these allegedly tyrannical behaviors would be possible if customers weren't generally satisfied with what they were purchasing. 

 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Sakhari, reply 52

The fact that you support such practices disqualifies anything you could possibly say in the matter.

Right.  Just 'cause.

Not much left to say, really.  You're assuming quite a bit about what 'gamers rights' should entail with very little (beyond poor analogies to physical products) to back these views up.

Unfortunately more serious people then you have been looking into the matter, you're too ignorant and misinformed about the history of copyright and monopoly to understand the matter. Your claims ring hollow in light of the fact that serious respectable people are skeptical of the laws themselves.

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521879286

 

Reply #54 from Demigod Forums Top

"There's no entitlement to it,  I paid for the game"

ooo, a whopping $40-$50! For that kind of serious cash, you really deserve to own the game's code. You should be able to reproduce it at well, sell it to third parties, dance naked with it, whatever you like! I think that's greed on your part (oh my god!, its not just those evil corporations who are greedy, but poor little innocent consumers, too!)

You don't deserve anything. I love your brilliant plan of "give the game away for free, so then we'll have lots of customers!" Lots of "customers" paying a whopping $0 each, that's truly the successful business plan right there. And of course you'd be whining if they went with some micro transaction model, too- hey why limit the new Demigods to those who paid for them? Exploitation! Evil!

In general I find people like you- those who feel entitled to enjoy the fruits of another's labors without giving anything in return- to be leeches stuck in some dead-end job somewhere, not contributing anything to society, or living a life of casual ease at college on Daddy's money. The ones who are most eager to "share everything, man!" are generally the ones with the least to give. Maybe you should practice what you preach and create your own game, then give it away for free, or give up all copyright claims when you sell it. So what if someone else takes it and begins selling it as their own? Sure, you'll be broke and have nothing to show for your years of effort, but at least you'll have followed your own ideas, right?

Pathetic.

Reply #55 from Stardock Forums Top

Your claims ring hollow in light of the fact that serious respectable people are skeptical of the laws themselves.

Yes, and I'm sure every serious and respectable person who has ever considered the subject has reached the same conclusion.

Really, finding someone who's written a negative piece on existing copyright laws isn't as impressive as you seem to think it is.