I was reading a rant on piracy on another board, and it got me thinking. Lets face it, standard copy protection methods simply do not work. Unless ridiculously strict and invasive laws are passed preventing any electronic reproduction are passed, piracy will continue. Personally I think it is about time the industry realised this and stopped punishing its supporters. The only thing that copy protection does is annoy the legitimate users of the software. Having to faff around finding the CD to play the game, weird issues with copy protection code interfering with other software on the player''s machine etc. Why on earth would someone want to pay for software plagued with all these problems when they can download a warezed version for free? Personally, I reckon the best copy protection of all is a good quality game and a sensible price point. Some Examples: Quake 1 had no copy protection (or at least none that I am aware of) and ran directly off the HD - no CD required. Did this really hurt its sales? Linux - right from square one this software was meant to be given away free, yet people are still prepared to spend money on ''distro packs'' containing everything on CD''s (for convenience) and manuals.

Though I agree with you to a point, standard copy protection does have a valid justification, in that it deters the 'casual' software pirate who will often try to use the software without paying for it, realize that there's some ridicuously convoluted thing he/she has to do to make it work for free, and deletes if from their machine in favor of something easier.

Though it's an arguable point, the original Quake existed at a time when broadband internet access was rare and unobtainable by the average person. Thus making it much easier for most to purchase it. Again, the 'casual' pirate who wants to play the game, not spend hours (and in some cases large phone charges) to get it, will actually pay for it.

Linux is another matter entirely. Linux is totally free and easily obtainable. Companies such as Red Hat and SuSE make money off of it not so much by supplying a packaged version but through support. Theirs is a service-based industry. Linux is very complex; prohibitively complex to the average user. They sell their time and knowledge to their users, not the software itself, so it's an entirely different business model.

Unfortunately I don't see how that system could be applied to games, which by their nature must be easy to install and play. If the game was complex and user-unfriendly, would you then pay the company to spend hours on the phone with tech support? I wouldn't.

____________________________________________________

"Two wrongs do not make a right; it usually takes 3 or more."

Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once.

[edited by - ratheous on March 26, 2002 12:34:58 PM]

Christ, another software pirating retard.......

Sorry, but it''s people like this guy that get my blood running faster. First of all, CDkeys and SafeDisc V.2 do work for CASUAL software pirates, which is something that software companies MUST prevent, otherwise they won''t make a whole lotta money. Casual software pirates are people who think they can go to Blockbuster, rent a Playstation game, and copy it, and it will run fine. Would anybody buy a game that they can copy for about 6 dollars? Some, but those are the people who don''t know how to use CD burners (like my mother ) and might not play a lot of games in the first place.

But there are always going to be software pirates that would rather take the time to either a) crack a software product or b)spend a week trying to find a cracked version of "Whatever game/program/suite...Version 9.873" whatever... These people are just either too cheap to buy the software, or just accept the challenge of cracking CD Keys.

I invite you to read the article on Gamasutra about the copy protection behind "Spyro: year of the dragon" for playstation. They realized that the game would be eventually cracked. so they tried to do 2 things: a) make it difficult to crack by hiding checksums in the code and b) changing the game and making it impossible to beat if you have a cracked version of the game. it worked for about 2 or 3 months. that''s a long enough time period to (damn i have a lot of a) b)s ) a)make people forget about getting a cracked version of the game that actually works and b) taking up time from the "crackers" from cracking other software.

and to shoot down your examples:
Quake: it''s a tech demo. John Carmack will make millions just by licensing his Godliness to other companies that use his engine
Linux: It started as a hobby. Then Linus decided "hey, it''d be nice not to pay for an operating system". that was his idea. i''m not saying that he''s a communist (crap, this is TOTAL flame material even though i''m hoping it won''t be), but for the rest of us CAPITALISTS, i''d like to make money for what i do so i can eat and have a house to live in.

Piracy is bad

-timiscool999
"I like waffles. Especially with syrup." -me

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011017/dodd_01.htm

here''s the link to the Spyro article on Gamasutra. sorry forgot to put it in my reply.

-timiscool999
"I like waffles. Especially with syrup." -me

quote:Original post by timiscool999
Christ, another software pirating retard.......

Christ, another unfounded assumption making retard.
I buy all of my games thank you very much, but I, like many less morally inclined people, I get pissed off when software doesn''t work properly. It is not an argument supporting piracy, but a complaint as someone who has to deal with the shit people put into their software in order to stop piracy - shit which I think is somewhat counter productive.

quote:
Sorry, but it''s people like this guy that get my blood running faster. First of all, CDkeys and SafeDisc V.2 do work for CASUAL software pirates, which is something that software companies MUST prevent, otherwise they won''t make a whole lotta money. Casual software pirates are people who think they can go to Blockbuster, rent a Playstation game, and copy it, and it will run fine.

You are probably right, a certain amount of protection is necessary to prevent casual copying. However, at a certain point these measures become a nuisance which we could all do without. If those nuisances aren''t present in the cracked copy, warezing software becomes much more attractive.

quote:
Would anybody buy a game that they can copy for about 6 dollars? Some, but those are the people who don''t know how to use CD burners (like my mother ) and might not play a lot of games in the first place.

Everyone who actually buys games, buys something they can copy for about 6 dollars. I often here about cracked copies of games becoming available over here even before the original hits the shelves.

quote:
But there are always going to be software pirates that would rather take the time to either a) crack a software product or b)spend a week trying to find a cracked version of "Whatever game/program/suite...Version 9.873" whatever... These people are just either too cheap to buy the software, or just accept the challenge of cracking CD Keys.

Exactly. These tards will pirate your game no matter what. And even if you somehow managed to stop them from pirating it (which you can''t), they probably wouldn''t buy it anyway. So ignore these people. There is nothing you can do about them except hope they one day realise what they are doing is wrong.

quote:
I invite you to read the article on Gamasutra about the copy protection behind "Spyro: year of the dragon" for playstation. They realized that the game would be eventually cracked. so they tried to do 2 things: a) make it difficult to crack by hiding checksums in the code and b) changing the game and making it impossible to beat if you have a cracked version of the game. it worked for about 2 or 3 months. that''s a long enough time period to (damn i have a lot of a) b)s ) a)make people forget about getting a cracked version of the game that actually works and b) taking up time from the "crackers" from cracking other software.

I''ve already read it. If copy protection isn''t invasive to the everyday user (which it didn''t seem to be from what I read) and it acheived its purpose, then great. If it causes problems, which it often does on the PC, then drop it. I''m not really against copy protection in games itself, but I do dislike it when it gets in the legitimate users way.

quote:
and to shoot down your examples:
Quake: it''s a tech demo. John Carmack will make millions just by licensing his Godliness to other companies that use his engine

Irrelevent - the game still sold whether Carmack expected to make money off it or not.

quote:
Linux: It started as a hobby. Then Linus decided "hey, it''d be nice not to pay for an operating system". that was his idea. i''m not saying that he''s a communist (crap, this is TOTAL flame material even though i''m hoping it won''t be), but for the rest of us CAPITALISTS, i''d like to make money for what i do so i can eat and have a house to live in.

...again this rant doesn''t really have any relevance to the subject, although Ratheous''s comment is probably fair enough.

quote:
Piracy is bad

No shit.

On piracy in general:
Illegal use of intellectual property is "bad", but its pretty hard to prove whether it really means a loss of money for developers, because unlike regular theft, you are not depriving someone else of the use of item.(ie if you steal a car, the guy who owned cant use it anymore, but if you pirate a game the original user can still use the game). So the actual damage depends on whether or not the "pirate" would have bought the software otherwise. So when some 14 year old hack-programmer downloads Visual Studio .NET worth 2200$, MS doesnt really loose 2200$, because he would probably have gotten a 100$ student edition or just used notepad instead
For games its slightly easier, but a pirates downloading/copying 10 games/month probably wouldnt buy them all otherwise.
My point is just that the danger of piracy is very hard to evaluate.

But back to the subject, copy protection:
I think some basic software protection is okay, because it prevents the casual users from sharing the program.
CD checks are almost a must, and basic copy protection that requires special programs are understandable. Some of the later and more aggressive protection schemes like Safedisc, isnt accetable though, as it causes too much trouble to the user.
But as already pointed out, even a CD check can piss of people enough to just using the warez''ed version instead, but basicly i dont think the casual users(who are in the majority) are gonna spend a whole day messing around on assorted filesharing networks finding the program.
By having cd checks and copy protection, you might make some "super" users download instead, but you are still making hundreds of casual users buy the game instead(under the assumption that even more users just forgets about the game).
I conclusion: I think they should stick to the "safe" versions of copy protection software, because they have been proven to work on all(or almost all) CD drives, and still provide reasonable protection since special programs are required to copy them.

On that communism comment:
What is wrong with communism? As already mentioned by others communism is a good theory, which has just been implemented poorly. And i really fail to see how giving things away for free can be a problem, unless of course you are pissed that some people can make better software, and doesnt even want money for it!
And linux is actually pretty cool, a complete OS and development and office tools for free, compare that to the price of WinXP + VC++ + OfficeXP and i think its a good deal...