well if you pirated it like I did you'd know it is pretty easy apart from the buggy and un-intuative boss fights, which are frustrating in the worst way.Pure_Beef_68 wrote:
Me neither. Never played it to be honest, just heard it was a far cry back to the days when games weren't piss easy.FloppY_ wrote:
I love developers with this point of view, because it is the truth, DRM does nothing but annoy the paying customer...Pure_Beef_68 wrote:
"Still, DRM does not work and however you would protect it, it will be cracked in no time. Plus, the DRM itself is a pain for your legal gamers – this group of honest people, who decided that your game was worth the 50 USD or Euro and went and bought it. Why would you want to make their lives more difficult?"
I'd love to support developers like this, but I didn't care about Witcher 2 at all...
both only mention digital sales. It's not a stretch to think computer savvy people (like people who pirate) would lead the charge into digital sales. Digital sales are less than half of total music sales the last time I checked (probably like 5 year old data). So I would say that study is incomplete at the very best. Maybe there are other studies that would back up your statement but neither of those do.Winston_Churchill wrote:
theres a few, but from a 30 second googleKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Do you have a link to the study? Was it across all media platforms or just games?Winston_Churchill wrote:
pirates are proven to spend more money on content than non pirates. and (i would guess) they are more likely to pay for content from small devs than massive companies
I agree with the idea that the industry and digital content delivery model is flawed (more or less), but that's not justification for pirating.
http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/musi … oll-finds/
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the … rs-100122/
^that one being a study by a music lobbying group funny enough
I didnt see it mention digital sales only in the first? And why would that be relevant anyway? Either way its money going towards the industry, theres probably higher margins when its digital.
From the guy who did the second study:
From the guy who did the second study:
And thats higher spending overall, not just in regards to digital sales. Also digital sales surpassed physical ones this year and keep growing while physical ones continually decrease.On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.
Mulligan has his hands tied and couldn’t say much about the findings without IFPI’s approval, but we managed to get confirmation that paying file-sharers are the music industry’s best customers. “A significant share of music buyers are file sharers also. These music buyers tend to be higher spending music buyers,” Mulligan told TorrentFreak.
Well, that's kind of misleading because only a small percentage of the population purchases music at all, and an even smaller percentage could be classified as audiophiles. Prior to digitization those audiophiles made up the bulk of sales (all those weird people like me with thousands of CD's or records), but after, they are where the biggest losses came from. I personally haven't bought more than a handful of CD's since I discovered Napster and everything that came after it. While I can't guarantee I would've continued my free spending ways when it came to music, I know that in my own personal case, the ease of piracy has cost the record companies tens of thousands of dollars.Winston_Churchill wrote:
I didnt see it mention digital sales only in the first? And why would that be relevant anyway? Either way its money going towards the industry, theres probably higher margins when its digital.
From the guy who did the second study:And thats higher spending overall, not just in regards to digital sales. Also digital sales surpassed physical ones this year and keep growing while physical ones continually decrease.On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.
Mulligan has his hands tied and couldn’t say much about the findings without IFPI’s approval, but we managed to get confirmation that paying file-sharers are the music industry’s best customers. “A significant share of music buyers are file sharers also. These music buyers tend to be higher spending music buyers,” Mulligan told TorrentFreak.
The same kind of thing happens with video games (although I haven't pirated much software over the years), the bulk users are the market, and those users are the ones that eventually turn to piracy and cause losses.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
both only mention digital sales. It's not a stretch to think computer savvy people (like people who pirate) would lead the charge into digital sales. Digital sales are less than half of total music sales the last time I checked (probably like 5 year old data). So I would say that study is incomplete at the very best. Maybe there are other studies that would back up your statement but neither of those do.Winston_Churchill wrote:
theres a few, but from a 30 second googleKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Do you have a link to the study? Was it across all media platforms or just games?
I agree with the idea that the industry and digital content delivery model is flawed (more or less), but that's not justification for pirating.
http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/musi … oll-finds/
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the … rs-100122/
^that one being a study by a music lobbying group funny enough
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
Your statement wa that pirates pay more than non-pirates, but if a study doesn't take into account physical sales (which count for a significant portion of overall sales), then the study is irrelevant to your argument. But yeah, upon second read the first study doesn't mention digital sales, but it also doesn't mention any other media, only music. I asked for the study because your statement was something I hadn't heard before.
From your block quote, notice the distinction of 'paying' file sharers. That speaks to your point that digital sales margins are larger, so yes they are the best possible consumer. But what about non-paying file sharers?
I am in total agreement that sharing music is a great tool to find new music. There are other avenues to that than simply downloading a bands complete discography because you heard one song that sounds good. That to me just reeks of a 'look at my iTunes folder, I've got x days of music ' brag.
From your block quote, notice the distinction of 'paying' file sharers. That speaks to your point that digital sales margins are larger, so yes they are the best possible consumer. But what about non-paying file sharers?
I am in total agreement that sharing music is a great tool to find new music. There are other avenues to that than simply downloading a bands complete discography because you heard one song that sounds good. That to me just reeks of a 'look at my iTunes folder, I've got x days of music ' brag.
the reason i get an artist discog is cause a) i hate the nagging feeling that i'm missing something that could be 'better' or mark a different phase/style in their musical oeuvre and b) because how can you say you like a band or rate a band positively if you have not appraised all their work? especially if you deal in any sort of musical review, criticism or recommendation. i'd hate to review a band having only heard a few youtube'd singles from their latest album. the model of music collection has turned from the commodity-fetishisation of the vinyl and the cd (the 'pleasure' of having the music-as-object, the material acquisition, and so forth) into a new digitized age of archivism and archeology (collecting your own library and deriving 'pleasure' from organising and exploring through it, looking for artefacts). it's just the latest permutation of the same collector's erotica.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
awesome article that talks about valve's stance on piracy:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3808 … _Price.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3808 … _Price.php
From the perspective of Valve, software piracy is caused more by convenience than it is by the cost of games.
That's according to co-founder Gabe Newell, who recently spoke at the North to Innovation conference in Seattle, giving a very frank and open outline of the modern economics of video games.
According to Newell, Russia -- which is often ignored as a market due to its high level of piracy -- is one of Steam's highest grossing countries.
"Russia now outside of Germany is our largest continental European market," said Newell, adding that "the people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russian."
"The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates," he said.
Earlier this year, Valve officially went "free-to-play" by offering its popular Team Fortress 2 as a microtransaction-supported game.
According to Newell, the move increased the game's online userbase by a factor of five. Surprisingly, where most companies are claiming free-to-play conversion rates -- that is, the percentage of players who end up spending money on in-game transactions -- are between 1 and 3 percent, Newell said Team Fortress 2 players convert far more frequently.
"We see about a 20 to 30 percent conversion rate of people who are playing those games who buy something," he revealed.
"We don't understand what's going on," he admitted. "All we know is we're going to keep running these experiments to try and understand better what it is that our customers are telling us."
My statement was really that pirates aren't the cold, heartless people that pay nothing but take everything they possibly can for free attitude some people had. That's entirely not true, and 'pirates' are an incredibly significant part of the paying market. I could even stretch that to saying piracy has led to some of the conveniences we have today with digital media.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Your statement wa that pirates pay more than non-pirates, but if a study doesn't take into account physical sales (which count for a significant portion of overall sales), then the study is irrelevant to your argument. But yeah, upon second read the first study doesn't mention digital sales, but it also doesn't mention any other media, only music. I asked for the study because your statement was something I hadn't heard before.
From your block quote, notice the distinction of 'paying' file sharers. That speaks to your point that digital sales margins are larger, so yes they are the best possible consumer. But what about non-paying file sharers?
I am in total agreement that sharing music is a great tool to find new music. There are other avenues to that than simply downloading a bands complete discography because you heard one song that sounds good. That to me just reeks of a 'look at my iTunes folder, I've got x days of music ' brag.
The study did take into account physical sales, I'm confused where youre getting that from. The second one was about all music sales, digital and physical. They highlighted digital sales specifically in one section, but thats just because its torrentfreak, who is going to obviously be just as biased as any music organization, just in the other direction. My quote, however, was about all music sales.
Obviously there are non-paying file sharers, but then that goes back to the endless argument on whether or not they would have bought the product in the first place if it wasnt available to them for free.
My whole purpose of posting was that this area isnt nearly as much of a white/black issue as some make it out to be.
>paying for games
Sarcasm aside, a closer figure is probably one lost sale per two-fifty downloads. That's still a lot of lost revenue, but not nearly as drastic as let on. If the Witcher 2 had a demo, I'd be more inclined to sympathize with the developers. Sure, it takes extra time, but people get to legitimately figure out if they want a video game rather than being forced to blind-buy (reviews don't help much anymore since most of them seem to be bought), which got the industry in such a pickle in the early 80's.Lucien wrote:
each downloaded copy == 1 lost sale
That's right. They cost $60. Or $70. Or $150.Mutantbear wrote:
games dont cost $50 anymore
I think the idea of a demo launch is something all developers/publishers need to take a serious look at, for sure
Well, that's because those people care about music or games and thus would've been more likely to purchase anyway. The majority of people buy maybe 1 CD worth of music a year, and the same goes for games. Anything above that low bar and you have those 'big users' that the record companies and software developers depend on. So, saying that file sharers are the biggest purchasers is true, but only because the bar is set so low to begin with.Winston_Churchill wrote:
My statement was really that pirates aren't the cold, heartless people that pay nothing but take everything they possibly can for free attitude some people had. That's entirely not true, and 'pirates' are an incredibly significant part of the paying market. I could even stretch that to saying piracy has led to some of the conveniences we have today with digital media.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Your statement wa that pirates pay more than non-pirates, but if a study doesn't take into account physical sales (which count for a significant portion of overall sales), then the study is irrelevant to your argument. But yeah, upon second read the first study doesn't mention digital sales, but it also doesn't mention any other media, only music. I asked for the study because your statement was something I hadn't heard before.
From your block quote, notice the distinction of 'paying' file sharers. That speaks to your point that digital sales margins are larger, so yes they are the best possible consumer. But what about non-paying file sharers?
I am in total agreement that sharing music is a great tool to find new music. There are other avenues to that than simply downloading a bands complete discography because you heard one song that sounds good. That to me just reeks of a 'look at my iTunes folder, I've got x days of music ' brag.
The study did take into account physical sales, I'm confused where youre getting that from. The second one was about all music sales, digital and physical. They highlighted digital sales specifically in one section, but thats just because its torrentfreak, who is going to obviously be just as biased as any music organization, just in the other direction. My quote, however, was about all music sales.
Obviously there are non-paying file sharers, but then that goes back to the endless argument on whether or not they would have bought the product in the first place if it wasnt available to them for free.
My whole purpose of posting was that this area isnt nearly as much of a white/black issue as some make it out to be.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
For sure, but they prefer you try it by buying the whole game, and it could be me, but it looks like consoles usually get a decent amount of demos and yet you pretty much never see them on Steam anymore.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think the idea of a demo launch is something all developers/publishers need to take a serious look at, for sure
Last edited by _j5689_ (2011-11-30 17:44:15)
I see plenty of demos on Steam. Ones that aren't can usually be found on fileplanet, gamershell or something like that. Games without demos draw very little sympathy from me when pirated unless they're cheap (<$10) to begin with)._j5689_ wrote:
For sure, but they prefer you try it by buying the whole game, and it could be me, but it looks like consoles usually get a decent amount of demos and yet you pretty much never see them on Steam anymore.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think the idea of a demo launch is something all developers/publishers need to take a serious look at, for sure
Doom's demo gave us 33% of the game's content, barring monsters, textures and music that only appeared in episodes 2 and 3. I'd say that's truly generous. I didn't have money for it at the time (kid and all; I bought the shareware version on floppy for cheap), but when I did I bought just about everything of id's ever since, including disc and digital versions of Doom 1.
(e: and I still keep pronouncing it eye-dee. lol)
When I was 8 NES games were still $100 a pop - Zelda II, Mario Bros. et al.Jay wrote:
The amazing thing is that video games have basically remained static at $50/each for almost 30 years now. I'm pretty sure I remember NES games costing that much back in the 80s.
/awstrayleeya
With a few exceptions, prices for console games have been fairly static (Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was stupidly expensive). PC games have fluctuated more.
With a few exceptions, prices for console games have been fairly static (Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was stupidly expensive). PC games have fluctuated more.
Have they? They've remained mostly stagnant at $50 until recently when I think MW2 was one of the first to set the trend of putting PC games at $60. There are still some games that only charge $50 (Arkham City on a quick glace is one) for the PC version, and to rise only $10 over 20+ years of the video game industry being active is ridiculously low. Gas used to be $0.95 a gallon in the mid 90's, if not lower. Now, $3 is considered cheap. Look at anything else compared to what it was in the mid-90's. For people to complain because of $10 extra is ridiculous.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/awstrayleeya
With a few exceptions, prices for console games have been fairly static (Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was stupidly expensive). PC games have fluctuated more.
I remember paying $50+ for Wrath of the Black Manta for NES. I remember because it was the first game I actually paid attention to the price.
And Action 52 was $200!Jaekus wrote:
When I was 8 NES games were still $100 a pop - Zelda II, Mario Bros. et al.Jay wrote:
The amazing thing is that video games have basically remained static at $50/each for almost 30 years now. I'm pretty sure I remember NES games costing that much back in the 80s.
Er.Poseidon wrote:
Have they? They've remained mostly stagnant at $50 until recently when I think MW2 was one of the first to set the trend of putting PC games at $60. There are still some games that only charge $50 (Arkham City on a quick glace is one) for the PC version, and to rise only $10 over 20+ years of the video game industry being active is ridiculously low. Gas used to be $0.95 a gallon in the mid 90's, if not lower. Now, $3 is considered cheap. Look at anything else compared to what it was in the mid-90's. For people to complain because of $10 extra is ridiculous.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/awstrayleeya
With a few exceptions, prices for console games have been fairly static (Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was stupidly expensive). PC games have fluctuated more.
Games like Final Fantasy II and Street Fighter 2 were in the $70 range, and that's USD. Doom was cheaper than the ordinary new console release and had 1/3 of the entire game released as a demo (that is, 1/3 before they released Ultimate Doom). Tons of PC games were priced at that range or less. If anything, their price grew to more closely match console games long before it would be reasonable to blame MW2.
I think PC games deserve to be more expensive than console games since it is so much more difficult to develop for...but that wouldn't be marketable reality.
thats why games today are built for 3 platforms.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Er.Poseidon wrote:
Have they? They've remained mostly stagnant at $50 until recently when I think MW2 was one of the first to set the trend of putting PC games at $60. There are still some games that only charge $50 (Arkham City on a quick glace is one) for the PC version, and to rise only $10 over 20+ years of the video game industry being active is ridiculously low. Gas used to be $0.95 a gallon in the mid 90's, if not lower. Now, $3 is considered cheap. Look at anything else compared to what it was in the mid-90's. For people to complain because of $10 extra is ridiculous.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/awstrayleeya
With a few exceptions, prices for console games have been fairly static (Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was stupidly expensive). PC games have fluctuated more.
Games like Final Fantasy II and Street Fighter 2 were in the $70 range, and that's USD. Doom was cheaper than the ordinary new console release and had 1/3 of the entire game released as a demo (that is, 1/3 before they released Ultimate Doom). Tons of PC games were priced at that range or less. If anything, their price grew to more closely match console games long before it would be reasonable to blame MW2.
I think PC games deserve to be more expensive than console games since it is so much more difficult to develop for...but that wouldn't be marketable reality.
cba to read the 1st and 2nd page, but didn't this game suck like really bad for the gameplay to the point where every fight is about 5 minutes of indirect combat and acrobatics?
That's just what I've heard and would kind of explain the high torrenting. I was really excited for this game after just beating the first game, but then I heard from people that the gameplay was so bad that it was worth avoiding it until it was necessary just to progress the very interesting storyline
That's just what I've heard and would kind of explain the high torrenting. I was really excited for this game after just beating the first game, but then I heard from people that the gameplay was so bad that it was worth avoiding it until it was necessary just to progress the very interesting storyline
I bought Witcher 2 and haven't even finished it. It's just worse than witcher 1 (which was great).
I feel like the company that made it just became console sellouts so everything got fucked up and weird just so they could sell it on the 360 and eventually the PS3 when they release that port too.