CosmicQueso

@Nethlem said:

@wompa421 said:

D: damn 93-95% piracy that's insane to the point where i think it's hard to believe maybe it was a typo and they meant 93-95% aren't pirated.

Nah these kind of estimates have no shame, there are lobby organizations with way worse estimates.

Some of them even claim that damage trough piracy goes into triple digit billions of €. As long as nobody bothers to ask for sources/proof they gonna keep inflating these numbers to make up a point that doesn't exist.

They believe that they deserve +1000% more sales, that it ain't happening is solely the fault of dirty pirates in their little imaginary corporation world. Guess that kind of stuff happens when greed beats common sense..

And get real, they're pointing out the maximum opportunity cost. And no, they're not saying they deserve "1000% more sales" what they are saying is that some percentage of those who pirated would have bought the game had the piracy option not been available. You piracy apologists really do love your hyperbole even more than the Ubi guys do.

@scaramoosh said:

93% of people pirate? Where are they getting that from?

No, they're not saying 93% of people pirate. They're saying that for every legit copy purchased, about 9 were downloaded illegally. These are estimates based on tracking of torrent sites and they include attempts to download, not just completed downloads. So the effective piracy rate is probably in the 70% range. (and yes, I do know what I'm talking about)

And it's a global percentage. Piracy rates in Spain, Italy, Russia and Asian markets are much higher than in places like the US, UK, etc. So your experience with your group of friends is most likely not representative of where the majority of global software piracy is taking place.

@Relshak said:

Even if the 93%-95% piracy rate is accurate to the number of players versus those who bought it, that absolutely does not equate 93%-95% loss of sales.

Blah. Blah. Blah. The fact is some percentage of those pirated copies are lost sales. And all of the pirated copies represent some opportunity cost of either pennies or $60.

And it doesn't matter if 95% is the rate or 50% or even 5%. Companies have a right to try to protect their shareholders. And when one way of trying to prevent loss doesn't work (like this DRM), then they have to try something else. They can't just throw their hands up and say "it's impossible to stop! We give up."

@Humanity said:

@CosmicQueso said:

Wow, businesses trying to make money? THE SHOCK AND SHAME!

The shock and shame is from the promises of not having exactly these sort of ads by said business.

Well when CBS comes in, all the old promises go out. I'm not renewing my membership, but the last thing I'm going to do is whine about it. They're trying to make money. Best of luck to 'em. They just ain't gonna do it with my membership fees anymore.

@Carryboy said:

@CosmicQueso said:

Wow, businesses trying to make money? THE SHOCK AND SHAME!

GBDF ASSEMBLE.

Oh fuck off with that shit, and with the "white knight" bullshit. It's a fucking business. Grow up.

Wow, businesses trying to make money? THE SHOCK AND SHAME!

@Deusx said:

@CosmicQueso said:

While playing it, I was angry at the game because it forced me into doing things I didn't want to do. I knew the game was forcing me to make certain choices so in the end I would realize what a monster I was becoming in the game.

The thing is, if I was watching a movie it would make sense. I could empathize with a character on screen doing these things, but still maintain the power to separate myself from the character if I so chose.

In Spec Ops, I was frustrated because I had less power. I was forced into doing things I did not want to. And instead of empathize with the character on screen, I began despising him and the entire experience.

That´s the entire point. You doing things you don´t want to. It feels forced on you and may not be a pleasent experience but it is one of the messages the game wants to convey: Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do, there are consequences for every action, even they aren´t your own. The mistake is that the message isn´t very clear in the first place.

Great points. I hear you on it trying to convey the message that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. However, there were situations presented where someone could conceivably tackle the challenges in ways other than "shoot everyone". This story told in this fashion is just much better suited for the movie or book medium, in my opinion. I just found I was getting more frustrated with the lack of choice and options, taking away from my enjoyment of the story the game tries to tell. I love the ambition, I want to see much more of it. It's a great attempt to expand the scope of what games can do and I'm glad I played it. You're right, though. The message isn't quite clear enough.

While playing it, I was angry at the game because it forced me into doing things I didn't want to do. I knew the game was forcing me to make certain choices so in the end I would realize what a monster I was becoming in the game.

The thing is, if I was watching a movie it would make sense. I could empathize with a character on screen doing these things, but still maintain the power to separate myself from the character if I so chose.

In Spec Ops, I was frustrated because I had less power. I was forced into doing things I did not want to. And instead of empathize with the character on screen, I began despising him and the entire experience.

My mom's dead. Thanks for the reminder. Jerk.

@Perrin said:

In tl;dr terms my problem with your position is that you're unwilling to accept the emotional angle that is just two guys so cut them slack, you're unwilling to accept the business angle that it doesn't make sense for them to patch it, and mostly you're just whining about something that doesn't affect you but are acting like you've been personally wronged.

His failure to provide support for his product is "the business angle". All I've said is that it's bad business for him to not support the game fully and to blame Microsoft rather than take responsibility. He is choosing to not patch the game, thereby saving himself a few thousand bucks, and in turn hurting his customer and his own long-term business.

His selling his game for profit basically removes any "emotional angle" as well. Were he giving it away, or selling it for charity or some other thing then yes, it's different. Here, he is selling his game for profit and therefore the burden of responsibility of having a fully functional product is on him. It doesn't matter if it's two guys or two hundred people.

And I haven't "whined" at all. Not sure why you're reading anything like that in what I've written.

It's the customer's personal choice what to do with his or her money. I'm just stating that if Fish wants to do this long-term, he's going to run out of people who will be willing to support him. No one likes working with an asshole.