231–240 of 395 posts
Wow, this is brilliant. One of the biggest complaints that pirates have is DRM. If a game is DRM free then why not purchase it? Especially if you really like it and it's only $8! Great post guys, good luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should probably not use a computer/smartphone/xbox/playstation/etc. then since pretty much every app, game, and website you use does this.
That is horrifying. That is completely horrifying. Sounds like neither should you, or I. Except the websites, servers can do what they want.
Slightly unrelated to the original point of the article: has anyone heard of Kairosoft and Game Dev Story [0]? It's ironic the OP wrote an article about irony. Having said that, it looks like they have elements not seen in GDS, but the premise is similar enough. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Dev_Story
Double standards much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really a problem, unless you have some server costs or something. The question game developers should be asking is not "How many people will illegally copy it?" but "How many people will buy it?" It doesn't matter if there are 100 free riders for 1 customers, as long as you have enough customers.
It doesn't matter if there are 100 free riders for 1 customers, as long as you have enough customers. I cannot put into words how profoundly this line of thinking upsets me. It is, quite literally, the antithesis of Western society.
US companies make drugs. They patent them wherever they can. Places that don't acknologe the patent get the benefit anyways. And the drug users in the US bear the brunt of the costs.
I like being on the other end, too. If there's more than enough to go around, I state that it should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a common approach to using gameplay for rhetorical purposes; the fact that you can code causal processes as you want is one of the main ways you can get videogames to push a point. As a more overt example, in the game Bacteria Salad [1], created after one of the E.coli scares, profits trade off directly against food safety: bigger farms are more profitable but also spread contamination more quickly. This may o…
Sim City is another good example of this. Even as a child when I first played the original, I remember reacting to the tax model in the game and how it affects net migration, as it was nothing like what I knew from Norway (and indeed, it bears little resemblance to how things works in most of Europe). A newspaper in Norway recently had to social economists play the most recent Sim City game to review the economic mod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sim City is another good example of this. Even as a child when I first played the original, I remember reacting to the tax model in the game and how it affects net migration, as it was nothing like what I knew from Norway (and indeed, it bears little resemblance to how things works in most of Europe). A newspaper in Norway recently had to social economists play the most recent Sim City game to review the economic mod…
Get out. The characters in Simcity put up with tax rates that no human ever would. The default is like 8 percent muni. And they'll put up with them even if you don't have a single school or police station.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
game quality is increasing, you're just getting older. same thing happens to me; i just can't play like i used to anymore. when you're younger it's easier to lose yourself in the game, no matter how bad (and actually boring) it is.
But I’m still able to lose myself in, say, Patrician II or Pharao or FreeCiv. Maybe I don’t like modern graphics? :P
and.
they're still triggering your dopamine release like when you were young. i remember reading an article about why every older person seems to hear the music from his youth. the reason for this is that when we're in our teens, the brain releases dopamines more readily and we're losing that ability when we grow older - except for the already ingrained pavlovian triggers.
i can't cite any sources right now. i think i ... uh, saw it on cracked (yeah, shame on me).
here it is:
#7: Your Brain Will Stop Getting Pleasure from New Music
http://www.cracked.com/article_19722_7-scientific-reasons-yo...
don't worry, it's natural.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a common approach to using gameplay for rhetorical purposes; the fact that you can code causal processes as you want is one of the main ways you can get videogames to push a point. As a more overt example, in the game Bacteria Salad [1], created after one of the E.coli scares, profits trade off directly against food safety: bigger farms are more profitable but also spread contamination more quickly. This may o…
Sim City is another good example of this. Even as a child when I first played the original, I remember reacting to the tax model in the game and how it affects net migration, as it was nothing like what I knew from Norway (and indeed, it bears little resemblance to how things works in most of Europe). A newspaper in Norway recently had to social economists play the most recent Sim City game to review the economic mod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People arguing that piracy is ruining gamedev routinely ignore the fact that those who pirate don't necessarily have the means to buy many games And people who defend pirates routinely ignore that pirated products are also pirated by people who will take what they want for free if they can, because they can. Don't pretend to a higher level of intellectual honesty or moral strength. Your position can lay claim to ne…
Yep, I've always found ridiculous when pirates claim they don't have the financial means to buy a $3 game to play on their $600 smartphone with a $30 per month data plan.
I paid $75 for my iphone 3GS. I bought it from some dude that had to buy the iphone 4 when it came out. I then proceeded to jailbreak and unlock the phone to run any software and use any carrier. I then got onto a carrier that charges $30 for unlimited phone/text/data ~ family mobile. And I don't buy any app at all. I'll save my money for tangible things instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Such a situation doesn't make sense in a rational market. " Tell that to philosophy majors. :) I can also turn on the radio and receive music for free, with ads. TPB has plenty of those (but isn't distributing anything themselves, so arguably isn't infringing... Perhaps they are facilitating, but if so they are largely facilitating non-commercial infringement; I can't imagine anyone downloading a movie and selling…
TPB do make money from advertising and I'm pretty sure they aren't cutting cheques from that to the artists/developers. The issue isn't so much the copies themselves, I could download every torrent on TPB and archive them on a stack of HDDs somewhere and it wouldn't hurt anybody. The issue is that there is no longer a requirement to pay to consume something where the business model requires that the consumer pay. Per…
I would also love to see people release commercial stuff more under CC-SA and similar (even if they still charge for distribution), or the FOSS licenses - assuming they need one. There's no reason they can't generate income, even while being shown through a subscription. The license doesn't change the distribution model. (Ubuntu is asking for donations. I would love to see some stats.) I think people just need to get used to flying without a net (copyright).
Take Netflix for example: they are producing their own shows. Like iTunes, all the content on Netflix can be torrented, but Netflix is easier for non-technical people. I don't even think copyright is necessary for either of Netflix's or iTunes' success. Netflix is a subscription, but I think they could make a similar amount if their shows were CC-SA licensed. People pay for both Netflix and iTunes because downloading is simply harder and more likely to give their computer an STD, even if the quality can be better ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5621119 ). Copyright still affects the food chain today, but Netflix has convinced me that they don't need copyright to keep the game going.
What's more likely however, I think, is that we will see something like the 6.4/93.6 ratio continue into the future, painfully and in spite of copyright, and with much resentment, until that hostility turns to acceptance (though, by then we'll probably have other generational gaps to deal with) - assuming we can get through the next 10-20 years without a censorship/copyright-centric police state. 6.4% of 7 billion, for something priced as low as $1, is still revenue of 448 million, even without budging that ratio, so I have no doubt creators will do well.
Edit: I don't feel like waiting 40 minutes for the reply button to appear on your comment, but I suppose only time will tell. In the mean time, the pro-copyright-ons and anti-copyright-ons will likely have to learn to live with each other, if for no other reason then so they don't collide and annihilate, sending us all back to the stone age (or industrial age).