So why don't Developers/Publishers and the PC Gaming Alliance stop focusing on preventing Piracy because they'll never win, people who crack games will always find a way. With mmorpgs you can host private servers, there are some WOW pirvate servers which have 50k people signed up and playing on them. Even Steam i easily crackable and you can download it all over bittorrent and people who download games for free don't care about losing features because they were never going to buy the game in the first place.

Instead of focusing on a battle they'll never win to try and gain sales they'll never get because the people pirating these games wouldn't ever buy them anyways. Why not focus how to get new customers? Why not focus on getting the kinda people who play consoles to play on their PC? Why not target people who are at work and play mini flash games?

For me Steam doesn't prevent Piracy and I'll admit I do pirate games because for me I don't have much money to spare on games and having to fork out £30-45 on a game that might suck and not be able to get a refund is alot of money to waste when that money would feed me for a week or two. However I see deals on Steam like the Titan Quest game was only $10 and I was never going to buy that game but because it was only $10 I did. Developers and Publishers need to start supporting platforms liek Steam more and there should be more advertising for it. Not only that but I also think to myself "I'm not gonna bother with GTA4" but because it's on Steam I go ahead and preorder it from there..... it's weird how it works at gettign you to buy games but it does.

Why can't more games be web browser games that the average work PC can play and get it's revenue from advertising and then that money be counting as PC gaming revenue? Whyd oes it always have to be money made from hard sales of the game? SOE for example make loads more money through the TCG in SWG or the Station exchange where people buy and sell items through EQ2. Thats money made because of them games and yet that revenue isn't counted and even CS 1.6 has in game advertising which isn't counted.

Why can't the companies in the PC Gaming alliance like Dell, Acer, Nvidia and AMD/ATI make a deal to stop putting crap graphics cards in each PC and making a standard for them. The average home PC's on sale from DELL (which premade PC's are probably what 99% of people who own a PC owns is a premade) should all have a 8800gt or 3870 as the lowest. These cards are dead cheap and they play games very well still today and people who buy a PC will slowly work out "hang on a second I can play games now" lol.

That Crysis PC which was launched to play Crysis on High settings with a high framerate for $700. Why can't the PC Gaming alliance make an even cheaper version at say $400-500 and sell it in gaming stores with the booths and hooked up to the show TV's. They can even sell them at PC retailers too and really market it as another gaming machine like the 360 and PS3. Games for Windows Live could even be put up there and marketed as that it crosses over to your 360 so the 360 crowd will want to buy one. Crysis would make a perfect PC gaming mascot because it shows off what better graphics the PC can do over the consoles.



Anyways Just some thoughts because right now all anyone seems to be doing like Epic Games (who are in the PC Gaming Alliance) is sitting there moaning about PC Piracy and not doing shit all about it. They even have stuck two fingers up to PC gaming by saying things like Gears 2 wont come out for the PC and their next engine wont be designed for the PC. I'm thinking........ why are they even in this shambles of an alliance which just seems to want to hurt PC Gaming? Sitting there with their fingers up their arse, moaning about how badly they're doign because of piracy wont do anything. All this is doing is hurting PC Gamign because it's putting off potential buyers from wanting to buy a gaming PC and buying the games because they wont want to make the investment because you just said it's dying or whatever.

No Epic your games sold poorly on the PC because of you, not piracy but YOU!

1. Gears of War was sold 1 year after launch and everyone already played it and it was a bad port. There was also no advertising for it and online was borked with no dedicated servers.

You expect people to buy that?

2. UT3 wasn't all that good and didn't sell very well over all 3 platforms.

Blizzard and Valve found a way so why can't you?


Anyways just my thoughts on the subject.

If people just started selling exclusively on Steam this wouldn't happen nearly as much.  Epic completely turned their back on the PC a while ago though, it was made pretty obvious ever since the first Gears sold well. Its pretty amazing how hypocritical they've turned, they wouldn't even be in the business if it wasn't for the PC to begin with. And yes, Ut3 is a completely disgrage, and is NOT even considered a UT game, to actual UT fans.

People aren't wrong in general to care abou piracy, I mean, look at World of Goo, an indy game that had a 90% piracy rate all because they choose to not do DRM, and do what everyone wanted them to do, and they got spit on for it basically.

I'll be honest though, I didn't even nearly read all of this, but I get the overall thing you're saying. I've pirated things before as well, and in certain cases, I really don't care what anyone thinks of it, as in people telling me Mount and Blade is such an amazing game, better than Oblivion...knowing it looked like shit to begin with, I pirated it, played it for about 20 minutes, and uninstalled and removed it from my computer immediately. I wasn't gonna fucking buy a game that didn't even look good to begin with just to prove someone wrong.

Anyway, end thing I'm saying here is this- Piracy is a problem, that isn't going to go away...but in plenty of cases it isn't even nearly as bad as people make it out to be(most big games.) Even people on consoles that want a game early, mod out their Xbox's and are always playing them a month or weeks ahead of time, hence Gears 2/Fallout 3.(plenty more too I'm sure,) the end result is this, those who pirate and most who want to bad enough, whether on PC or with a modded console, are going to find a way to do so no matter what barriers are put against them.But it can be decreased, and lessened by easily followed things that don't have to be DRM, and I think people putting games out exclusively on Steam is a starting point, as in no where else, ever. That's just what I think.

They say 90% of people who played world of Goo but really...... 90% of how many who bought it? Like I bet 1000 people max bought the game and then they saw 9000 people downloading it on bittorrent. World of Goo is great fun but it isn't a game that is meant to be purchased for that price tag. Really it's the kinda game I would get for free on Flash where the sites get their revenue on advertising. It's the kinda game where lots of people will buy it for $1 on Steam because it's sooo cheap.

Piracy is only way to buy video games on some countries (i mean getting games by buying an illegal copy). unfortunately this the only way to play every games not only PC's. what would you do if you were in situation such as this?

While the answer is simple (lower the price), that would mean less profits. That may not go down so well when all the past developers and publishers are accustomed to the bling out lifestyle, and wouldn't want to trade in their BMWs for a Mondeo.

I think the only game i ever played an illegal copy of was Max Payne 1, and i liked it so much i bought a copy of 1 and 2.  Piracy is depressing because its one of the reasons companies like epic probably moved away from the pc to consoles.  I understand why people do it though, but to me it feels wrong.

The main question to you PapaLazarou is, when you can afford to buy games (ie, when you have a steady income) will you start purchasing retail copies or remain pirating games.  Because at that point youre completely undermining the industry.
Speaking from the pc side of things; i dont feel the need to pirate games because i can usually find out how good a game is by playing a demo.  Also, pc games can be ridiculously cheap if you wait a few months.  I bought the complete Dawn of War anthology for £17.99 off of amazon, not to mention the £22.99 i paid for L4D from play.com.

If I'm not sure on a game then I'll download it because too many times have I been burnt and if I like it then I'll pay for it outta respect, thats just me. Alot of my friends download games because they're at Uni and can't afford them so it's that or they just wont bother playing them and I think that speaks to most of the people who download them, because they just can't afford them and why you're not really losing much money. I feel like developers just need to start creating more great games and advertising the PC as a gaming platform other than the 360, I mean Microsoft doesn't want you to buy a PC for gaming but a 360... which is why theres room for a gaming OS like how firefox came out and killed  IE.

i agree in some respects, but you have a catch 22 situation really because developers dont want to make great games for the pc if there is the possibility that it will get pillaged from the internet.

Ive been interested in the bombcast's discussions about this.  The whole downloadable content post release of a game makes purchasing the retail copy worth it....seems like a good idea.
If i buy a game i also feel more compelled to complete it, whereas i can imagine getting loads of games for free and never completing any because theres a lack of personal investment in it.  Just my two cents. :)

"People aren't wrong in general to care abou piracy, I mean, look at World of Goo, an indy game that had a 90% piracy rate all because they choose to not do DRM, and do what everyone wanted them to do, and they got spit on for it basically."

You know, developers like to release games on consoles because they are just so much easier in terms of security. If you wanted to play pirated games on consoles you need to buy a mod chip and so on and it's a hassle, where as on PC it's a piece of cake. Plus, there's rarely a thing PC can do, that a console can't.

NOW WAIT! You're going to say that a computer can always have better graphics because of the configurable hardware ala Crysis and that would be true to some extent. The reality of it is that PC games are much harder to develop then console games because a PC developer has to take into account a huge variety of set ups and multiple specifications. This is also a hassle they don't have to deal with, with consoles, because consoles have a steady specification. They know consistently what they are dealing with. Plus console graphics are approaching a very high point at the moment minus maybe some physics work missing such as is the case of Farcry 2 VS Crysis.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! You might also say that PC's have mice and keyboards, but many people have adapted to gamepads and they even sell gampads for PC's. Plus consoles like the PS3 have already added support for mouse and keyboard's and any game that wants to can implement that in the future as well.

So all these factors are what are causing PC developers to back away into consoles.

Good, we're still winning.

Piracy, the result of spoiled self-centered brats. The developer shouldn't have to do anything. Piracy should be a criminal offense. Y'know, the kind where you go to prison. Theft has never been acceptable before.

To LiquidPrince, development for the PC is easier, especially for smaller independent developers. Keyboard + mouse is the superior input device for any application requiring a high level of precision, and like you said, PC gamers have access to virtually any kind of input device. PC developers are backing away to consoles simply because there are more console gamers. That's it.

"Piracy, the result of spoiled self-centered brats. The developer shouldn't have to do anything. Piracy should be a criminal offense. Y'know, the kind where you go to prison. Theft has never been acceptable before.

To LiquidPrince, development for the PC is easier, especially for smaller independent developers. Keyboard + mouse is the superior input device for any application requiring a high level of precision, and like you said, PC gamers have access to virtually any kind of input device. PC developers are backing away to consoles simply because there are more console gamers. That's it."

I agree with you TC. Even the EA Securom wasn't any good. I heard on this gaming news site from the UK that people have already cracked it for Mass Effect. I think it's a shame taht people always want to get PC games the easy and free way. So yes in a sense, we are loosing the war against piracy! :(

"Bellum said:

"Piracy, the result of spoiled self-centered brats. The developer shouldn't have to do anything. Piracy should be a criminal offense. Y'know, the kind where you go to prison. Theft has never been acceptable before.

To LiquidPrince, development for the PC is easier, especially for smaller independent developers. Keyboard + mouse is the superior input device for any application requiring a high level of precision, and like you said, PC gamers have access to virtually any kind of input device. PC developers are backing away to consoles simply because there are more console gamers. That's it."

No, PC is not easier to develop for because when a developer makes a game, he has to make sure that it can run on so many different pieces of hardware with so may differing specifications. Consoles don't have that problem. As for keyboards, PS3 has that option and it has already been used in games like Unreal Tournament 3. "

"Piracy, the result of spoiled self-centered brats. The developer shouldn't have to do anything. Piracy should be a criminal offense. Y'know, the kind where you go to prison. Theft has never been acceptable before.

To LiquidPrince, development for the PC is easier, especially for smaller independent developers. Keyboard + mouse is the superior input device for any application requiring a high level of precision, and like you said, PC gamers have access to virtually any kind of input device. PC developers are backing away to consoles simply because there are more console gamers. That's it."

Piracy is a problem. It's not going away.

I really don't know what can be done. The advertising model you have suggested is definitely viable, but will it bring in revenue? We will have to see with Quake Live and Battlefield Heroes.

I truly believe that an advertising model has untapped potential. Quake Live seems like it will be a huge success - it runs on old computers, its free, its a small download, and the only drawback is advertising? The PC population is alive and well, playing World of Warcraft and the like, there just needs to be a better way to turn this crowd into revenue.

For $$ games, the future doesn't look that promising for the PC platform. Fortunately, there are a few successes here and there, such as Left 4 Dead. The future is very uncertain, but I'm not too confident game purchases will have a comeback of any sort.

"pause422 said:

"People aren't wrong in general to care abou piracy, I mean, look at World of Goo, an indy game that had a 90% piracy rate all because they choose to not do DRM, and do what everyone wanted them to do, and they got spit on for it basically."

But is that all that much worse than games that do have DRM? As far as I can tell, you get spat on for making a commercial PC game, period, regardless of protection.

What I really don't get about copy protection, whether by DRM or by CD check or whatever, is that it's always broken. I can understand something minimal - say, a CD check or on-line activation on install - in order to prevent the casual piracy of one guy burning copies and handing them out. If someone's not tech savvy, a CD check really will defeat them from copying the game for a friend, and then that freeloading friend may actually go out and buy the game. But determined pirates, the sort who will go out and torrent your game or find a crack, are simply not being stopped by any sort of code you throw at them; it's all broken eventually, no matter how strong. So why make legitimate customers suffer with something like repeated CD checks or limited SecuROM activations if it buys you a few weeks at most? Even more, why keep those measures in place after pirates have gotten their own workarounds? It just doesn't make sense to me. I was glad to see Bioshock took the limits off activation after release, hopefully others will follow in 2K's footsteps there."

The PC Gaming Alliance is an utter shambles full of morons who have no clue on what to do. Its a publicity stunt and nothing more, since it started i can't think of one thing they have done to improve or be of benefit for the PC as a gaming platform. Epic's CEO bitching about Intel is the only thing i can remember aswell as his bitching about PC gaming dying in general and how piracy is killing the platform etc etc.

Honestly the following points would be something they should look into...

• Developers need to release games in a reasonable state and quality. When you buy a game for retail price and find its full of bugs and can't be played for more than 10-20 minutes without a crash or issue something has gone wrong. Even more so when you play a game and find bugs that were in the Beta still occuring in the final release. Its just not an acceptable quality of release if the game has more bugs in it than a rainforest. Even more so when patches aren't handed out until weeks or months after release.
• Optimisation is key to allowing games to run on multiple levels of systems ranging from low to middle of the line and the very high end spec machines. Poor optimisation has no excuse when it comes to PC games. If you expect us to buy the game then atleast make an effort to try and get the game to run at a decent level of performance on my machine. Don't expect me to fork out a small fortune on a new PC or expensive upgrade just to play your one mediocre yet amazingly beautiful game, talking to you Crytek.
• If your PC game is going to require a pretty high spec computer to run it then don't release the game over Christmas. That is the most expensive time of the year for most people and i doubt very few are willing to splash out on a brand new PC to play your game when they can buy 4 or 5 games that will run on their current PC. Use marketing and PR to your advantage developers, plenty of times during the summer there is no games being released for weeks, launch a big summer title for once.
• Make a good game. I know its somewhat speculative and up for debate as to what constitutes itself as a good or bad game, and its all down to a matter of opinion but we can all agree that there are some things which are and aren't acceptable now in games. If a game just isn't good it won't sell well and when that occurs everyone loses out, consumers lose out for spending money on the game and developers lose out due to bad publicity. So lets all try to be cool and make a good game, don't release trash, if you think its going to flop then don't release it, improve on it and make the game worth releasing.
• Please start to follow the "Stardock Bill of Rights" for god sake. Its probably one of the smartest and clever moves made by a PC friendly developer in regards to pushing the platform forward and improving its state of affairs. Why no one has started to really give serious thought on enforcing it is beyond me, likely because its too simple. Because i see no reason it shouldn't have already been put into use by now, honestly it would benefit everyone if they just followed it.
• STEAM is the best digital delivery service on the internet for games, hands down you cannot deny it. So start being clever and releasing more of your games on this awesome program and get your games an even bigger audience. Steam is spearheading the digital delivery service on the PC and i think the quicker more developers jump onboard with it the better. D2D can go die, slowly....and quietly.
• Don't blame the consumer or assume the consumer is pirating your games. Try and think of ways to attract new consumers to buy your games instead of thinking up ways on how to stop consumers from pirating your games. It just creates negative feeling amongst gamers and ends up causing more people to either A.) Not buy the game in protest or B.) Pirate it anyway in spite. The EA DRM issue pretty much showed us that. So lets not have a repeat situation in the future?
• Give me a job, i really need one :(

"Piracy, the result of spoiled self-centered brats. The developer shouldn't have to do anything. Piracy should be a criminal offense. Y'know, the kind where you go to prison. Theft has never been acceptable before.

To LiquidPrince, development for the PC is easier, especially for smaller independent developers. Keyboard + mouse is the superior input device for any application requiring a high level of precision, and like you said, PC gamers have access to virtually any kind of input device. PC developers are backing away to consoles simply because there are more console gamers. That's it."

I dont buy a game and not own it. If I buy spore, I own that disk and everything on it.

I never agreed to any liscence, even if its in the booklet.

If I dont own the game, then it shouldnt be anymore than 5 dollars, just like at the rental place down the street.

"h8smikemoore said:

I dont buy a game and not own it. If I buy spore, I own that disk and everything on it.

Agreed, you do, but your friends don't.

h8smikemoore said:

I never agreed to any liscence, even if its in the booklet.

Wrong, you agreed when you bought the game. Except, I doubt you have bought many games.

h8smikemoore said:

If I dont own the game, then it shouldnt be anymore than 5 dollars, just like at the rental place down the street.

Then go rent your games you fool, there is a rather massive difference between owning something and renting something. That's like saying cars should be sold for the 100 bucks you pay to rent one from Hertz."

"Bonesofwar said:

"h8smikemoore said:

I dont buy a game and not own it. If I buy spore, I own that disk and everything on it.

Agreed, you do, but your friends don't.

h8smikemoore said:

I never agreed to any liscence, even if its in the booklet.

Wrong, you agreed when you bought the game. Except, I doubt you have bought many games.

h8smikemoore said:

If I dont own the game, then it shouldnt be anymore than 5 dollars, just like at the rental place down the street.

Then go rent your games you fool, there is a rather massive difference between owning something and renting something. That's like saying cars should be sold for the 100 bucks you pay to rent one from Hertz."

1. If I own it, then I have the right to give it to others. I am a free individual, afterall.


2. No I didnt agree to it. Show me the license first, make me sign it before I buy it.


3.You are renting, you fool. You dont own it, thus you are leasing. No it isnt like saying that, infact I would say that given that response I dont believe youre capable of coherent thought.

Im talking about licensing, if im not shown the license before hand obviously I cant agree or disagree. If I dont own the game, then its a lease to the rights. This is actually common knowledge. If its a lease, then it shouldnt be sold at the price of ownership.

Im sorry, but you dont seem like someone whos educated. Especially considering youre starting initial flames and cant even put together a valid argument, because you apparently dont know what a lease is and you dont realize that youve actually been purchasing a lease. The problem is, the license isnt presented to you prior to the purchase."

"Bonesofwar said:

"h8smikemoore said:

I dont buy a game and not own it. If I buy spore, I own that disk and everything on it.

Agreed, you do, but your friends don't.

h8smikemoore said:

I never agreed to any liscence, even if its in the booklet.

Wrong, you agreed when you bought the game. Except, I doubt you have bought many games.

h8smikemoore said:

If I dont own the game, then it shouldnt be anymore than 5 dollars, just like at the rental place down the street.

Then go rent your games you fool, there is a rather massive difference between owning something and renting something. That's like saying cars should be sold for the 100 bucks you pay to rent one from Hertz."

1. If I own it, then I have the right to give it to others. I am a free individual, afterall.


2. No I didnt agree to it. Show me the license first, make me sign it before I buy it.


3.You are renting, you fool. You dont own it, thus you are leasing. No it isnt like saying that, infact I would say that given that response I dont believe youre capable of coherent thought.

Im talking about licensing, if im not shown the license before hand obviously I cant agree or disagree. If I dont own the game, then its a lease to the rights. This is actually common knowledge. If its a lease, then it shouldnt be sold at the price of ownership.

Im sorry, but you dont seem like someone whos educated. Especially considering youre starting initial flames and cant even put together a valid argument, because you apparently dont know what a lease is and you dont realize that youve actually been purchasing a lease. The problem is, the license isnt presented to you prior to the purchase."

If you read the license, youll clearly see that you dont own the game. You merely have rights to it. The problem is, is that you never read the license prior to "buying" it. Its not your fault, you werent given the chance to.

According to the law now, if i make a license for the game im selling, you "buying" it means you agree to the terms even if you cant read it. The license says you dont have the right to back up the game or give copies of it away. Most game licenses clearly state that what you purchased at the store is merely a lease. You bought rights to the game, you did not buy the game its self. if you owned the game then you can do anything you want with it, including giving everyone you know a free copy. Just like I own my car, I can give that away if I want to. why? because I didnt lease it. Using that same logic, you can clearly see how when you buy a game you arent buying it, but merely leasing it. go pick up any game manual you have and check out the "agreement", especially newer ones. you're just buying rights to the game.

i like free games, so kill me.

"i like free games, so kill me."

You make good game. I buy good game. You make bad game. Well you know the rest...

As long as Blizzard and Valve are still around, PC gaming will thrive.

The problem with piracy is that sometimes it's a necessary evil.  I wanted a few of the Lucas Arts' point-and-click adventure games of the 90's.. The problem is finding a copy that's not grossly overpriced because now they are collector items.  So getting a 15 year old game for free doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

"I'm willing to bet that there be a LOT more losses from casual pirating as you describe it than from determined pirates. Over the years I've borrowed many things from friends, games included. I don't consider borrowing a game from a friend to be stealing from a game company any more than I consider borrowing a lawnmower stealing from John Deere. 

 I'm not going to go to a pirate website and download a game for free for a variety of reasons (getting busted, viruses, it's obviously stealing,  etc). I'm going to guess that there's a lot of people out there with the same opinion as me, they're willing to borrow something from a friend but not go and actually steal something by downloading it. So I think that copy protection measures like cd checks and online validations work quite well and would thwart MOST piracy. And..as it's been said...a determined pirate will always beat the system.

I believe the government shouldnt acknowledge a license

heres the solution:  Every software developer would have you physically sign a contract that is the same as the license they chose to use. This way, more people are forced to actually READ the malicious licenses that theyre agreeing to (I use the term agreeing loosely, because you arent shown the license prior to buying games most of the time) and might not buy them. This may make more convieniant licenses for consumers in the long run. Also, if you're worried about "piracy" in my system, any individual who signed it would be responsible for violations of the contract.

I mean, with most games the license is in the back of the book and its not like EB games lets you read it prior. If you buy it you agree, even if you think theres NO license.

"I believe the government shouldnt acknowledge a license

heres the solution:  Every software developer would have you physically sign a contract that is the same as the license they chose to use. This way, more people are forced to actually READ the malicious licenses that theyre agreeing to (I use the term agreeing loosely, because you arent shown the license prior to buying games most of the time) and might not buy them. This may make more convieniant licenses for consumers in the long run. Also, if you're worried about "piracy" in my system, any individual who signed it would be responsible for violations of the contract.

I mean, with most games the license is in the back of the book and its not like EB games lets you read it prior. If you buy it you agree, even if you think theres NO license."

"h8smikemoore said:

"I believe the government shouldnt acknowledge a license

heres the solution:  Every software developer would have you physically sign a contract that is the same as the license they chose to use. This way, more people are forced to actually READ the malicious licenses that theyre agreeing to (I use the term agreeing loosely, because you arent shown the license prior to buying games most of the time) and might not buy them. This may make more convieniant licenses for consumers in the long run. Also, if you're worried about "piracy" in my system, any individual who signed it would be responsible for violations of the contract.

I mean, with most games the license is in the back of the book and its not like EB games lets you read it prior. If you buy it you agree, even if you think theres NO license."

You are as likely to read an agreement that's on paper as you are to read the one where you have to check the box..that is you are NOT going to read it. 

In your system someone would have to store and ship this paperwork. That would be a nightmare for a retailer, so I'd say they would not support this system.

Would you have to wait until the game company recieved the physical waiver before you could play the game? That would totally suck.

What happens when Gamestop, Walmart or BestBuy lose the contract before the game developer gets it..are you accused of stealing the game?

 Would these waivers be linked to some serial number that was required to play the game? If so people could just copy the numbers and pirate that way.

So I don't think that your system would be more effective at detering piracy. I think the most likely thing, especially the way things are going, is that an internet connection will be required to activate all games in the very near future. I think we'll see all games get linked to an account, so only 1 user can access the account (I also fear that it will get linked to your ISP so you can't give your friends your username and password). 

 I also think that we're likely to see games where the majority of content is stored on a server and you paying  a monthly fee for access. 

"

It sounds needlessly redundant. You agreeing to something via clicking an 'agree' box has about the same weight as you signing a piece of paper.

its not redundant, most licenses arent shown prior to purchase. When you buy a video game at EB, you arent shown it.


Adding an ID to the source code is different than the other systems. The only way to get around it is to decompile it and look for the source code, then make sure it works then compile it, then burn it.

Incase you havent figured it out yet, decompiling is a massive pain and most people avoid it. the Id would be in the source code, not on the cover. If I was a game maker, and you went through all that trouble, id probably give you the copy anyway. It would be less effort to just goto work and use the money.

Of course it would change their end of the deal, once people realize what exactly theyre paying for people will refuse to buy, thus the license would have to change. Money has nothing to do with it. Get money out of your mind. Yeah, im free to not purchase it. BUT IM ALMOST NEVER SHOWN THE LICENSE PRIOR.

No, this license system is better for the consumer. In order to get it to work, the government needs to stop acknowledging these current licenses, and rather treat them as contracts if signed. If they arent signed, then theres no obligation to follow. When I bought Twilight Princess, in the back of the book it said I cant back the game up. Why cant I? I never agreed to these terms, and if I was supposed to then show me the terms before I buy it. I dont care WHAT the law is, me buying the game with an unknown license inside does not mean I agree to it. This is completely immoral

The government has EVERYTHING to do with it. These are technically unsigned contracts that are being enforced as if theyre signed, based upon technicallities.

I dont care how they want it used, they need to make it clear before hand and they need my signature. . If we had the ability to clone chairs, you wouldnt call it piracy if I copied your chair and then the manufactuer was out money. Patents are bullshit, and shouldnt be honored by anyone.

Its NOT their property... If I buy a game, lets say Twilight Princess.... Im not shown the license, so as far as im concerned every bit of info on that game is absolutely my property and ill give it to everyone if I so choose. They have a copyright, which is legitimate, so I cant sell it. But I CAN give it away. If you want it otherwise, make me sign the contract. No signature, means no obligation. I mean when you buy a game, it dosent even tell you what license it is. For all you know, it dosent have one. You wont know until you BUY the game, and they assume you agree to it just because you bought it. Thats complete NONSENSE.

If you read this thread, you agree to give me a million dollars, even if you dont have it youll be forced to pay the debt in other ways, such as forced labor.

Thats basically whats happening. Well, you read the thread, so you must agree? Also, patents are monopolies on ideas. Anytime theres a patent, someone should make it their effort to violate it as much as possible and put the person out of business who signed for it.

I don't know if its truly a losing battle when other companies clearly makes money from PC games. But you are bound to loose a war shooting blanks at targets.

"While the answer is simple (lower the price), that would mean less profits. That may not go down so well when all the past developers and publishers are accustomed to the bling out lifestyle, and wouldn't want to trade in their BMWs for a Mondeo."

"

It sounds like you have a fairly good idea of what a license might contain. I think that most informed consumers are in a similar position. With the magic of google I was able to find a copy of the license agreement for Spore. If I so chose I could read this and then decide that I don't want to pay for the ability to use the software at the terms offered. So the information is available, it's simply the responsiblity of the consumer to aqquire it. If you chose not to be informed, just to walk into EB and drop $60 on the counter...it's not EA's fault. It's not the retailers job to inform you either. 

Since the intellectual property is owned by EA, they can set the terms they want to sell/lease use at. If you can't be bothered to find out those terms beforehand it's your problem, not theirs. 

If you have a problem with the license agreements in general, what you need to do is organize the gaming community at large to boycott all game sales until manufacturers rework terms to the people's liking. I personally think that the vast majority of people don't really care enough about the issue to do anything.

Returning to the original point of this thread, your not liking the license agreement is not a justification to steal the product.

"