Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely.

A few, at least.

I don't care.

Not certain.

Definitely not.

Other.

View poll. / Abstain.

[Blank Expression]

Eugenitor, your comments to this point have not exactly covered yourself in glory. I addressed your points. Do you have anything substantiative to reply with, or have we seen the best you can do?

[Gantolandon]

The point in blaming the gaming community is that they are the ones at fault! The gaming public buys the shit. If they did not, it would not be made. Activision et al. provide what the customer wants, and do so in a way that frankly I'd say is of better quality than is strictly necessary--most consumers are not exactly picky about their gaming titles if they have the right label on it. You're complaining about them serving their customers what their customers want.

This is bullshit. No customer actually wants to buy a broken on release game. The only reason he buys it is because he is convinced (misled) that it is not broken. Or it is now, but it will be patched in no time. Or the problems are very minor.

This complaint is even more hollow given the astonishingly awesome rise of independent gaming--interesting, low-cost titles that aren't affiliated with Activision, EA, etc. in any way. You have choices. Theirs do not affect you.

Yes, they are. One customer won't change anything.

But if you want it to change, because you think that Evil Activision is so bad, then your only option is to change the market. Is it hard? Sure. Things that are worth doing often are. But "it's too hard and we'll fail anyway" is the real excuse to do nothing. Don't try to throw that back on me.

Both are an excuse to do nothing. "Change the market" is pointless spoken to a random guy on a forum. It can only convince him to shut the fuck up and begin to like things how they are. If you want people to change something, you have to let them to be unhappy because of how things are currently.

The question you must answer, and I don't think you can do so rationally but you're welcome to try, is this: Why should Activision make what their customers don't want?

This question is pointless because it assumes that people really want DRMed and broken software. And this is bullshit.

Not really. All piracy does, in the end, is encourage them to go to even greater extremes. Piracy communicates a message to publishers: "hey, you're making a great product that we want, we're just dickheads who just don't want to pay for it." It is a perfectly rational decision, given that perception (whether or not it was intended--it is the inference, not the implication, that matters), to attempt to make you pay for it, then, through technological means if necessary.

Currently, those technological means are more harmful to paying customers than to the pirates. And nothing seems to change.

Smartphones--the number of people willing to put up with instability from jailbreaked phones is pretty marginal, and other than that, for the most part you're getting your applications from signed, established sources

Please don't try to enlighten me about smartphones, I actually develop for them. iOs seems to be the most safe platform, but mainly because the people who buy Apple products actually can afford game for it (as in - it's not a significant expense for them). The rest is less safe. Look for example at Android.

Something does not have to be piracy-proof; it just has to be piracy-resistant until most people give up and buy it.

Actually most of the pirates will then just shrug and not buy the product at all. It's not that they actually need it.

Frankly, all this slap-fighting between pirates and publishers just pisses me off. I get screwed coming and going, because while I'm a gamer who gets screwed by publishers' often idiotic attempts to curtail piracy, I'm one of those unfortunate people who actually creates IP and makes a living off of it--which, to the short-sighted and largely dumb pirates, makes me something of the enemy.

Cry me a river. I'm a game developer too.

And, sitting in the middle, something really unfortunate but very true is apparent: at some point, y'all are going to have to come to peace with the uncomfortable realization that you, as a gaming community, brought a great deal of publisher dickishness down upon yourselves. You are nowhere near blameless. Foisting it all off on The Bad Corporations is the height of disingenuousness.

Unless you are a self-publishing indie developer, you are actually not sitting in the middle. Piracy hurts you less than the publisher pimping you out of most of your money. Do you at least have some profit from the software you write, or are you living from a wage?

[BigD145]

The point in blaming the gaming community is that they are the ones at fault! The gaming public buys the shit. If they did not, it would not be made. Activision et al. provide what the customer wants, and do so in a way that frankly I'd say is of better quality than is strictly necessary--most consumers are not exactly picky about their gaming titles if they have the right label on it. You're complaining about them serving their customers what their customers want.

This is bullshit. No customer actually wants to buy a broken on release game. The only reason he buys it is because he is convinced (misled) that it is not broken. Or it is now, but it will be patched in no time. Or the problems are very minor.

MORE regulation, damn it. Consumers don't know what the F* is going on if they aren't told and most companies aren't required to say diddly squat about their operations.

[Blank Expression]

I'm not going to go through a fisking, because it inevitably devolves into point-by-point derp, but I think you're greatly overestimating the number of "broken" games and greatly underestimating the number of people who convince themselves that they "need" game X. Some of them, if they can't pirate it, won't play it. You can't reach them; they're broken people and they're not your customers. The ones that you can reach are the ones who'll pirate it if it's easy enough. Analogies are always suspect, but it's like a lock on a car: it won't stop anyone who is dead-set on stealing out of your car, but it will keep the honest people from reaching inside and taking the iPhone you left on the dashboard.

As for whether or not people "want" broken software--well, one, as I noted, you and the other posters in this thread are hugely overstating the commonness of it, at least among the games developed by these companies, and two, they buy it anyway. Somebody earlier in the thread used JoWooD, a long-time shovelware publisher, as an example: the games they publish tend to be buggy shit. So don't buy them. Buying a broken-on-release game sucks. It shouldn't happen. But it does, for a variety of reasons that eventually boil down to "consumers let them". I practice what I preach: with the exception of publishers who I know to have solid development practices and a policy of releasing well-QA'd titles, I don't buy games anywhere near release. The only games I've bought at or near release in the last five years are Civilization 5 (mistake), Orange Box (best gaming purchase I've ever made), and Left 4 Dead 2 (because the first was also excellent). Aside from Civ5, which in truth I would have bought even with reviews calling it a stinker because that is the one case where I am an unabashed series fanboy, I have not been burned. I avail myself of more information before committing to a purchase. You, and every other consumer, can too.

Now, I would support the idea of additional consumer protection laws regarding buggy/defective software. I really would. There's no professional reason to release buggy software (there are certainly marketing and economic ones, but as a developer I care much less about that). The problem is in the implementation. There are few cases where it is clear-cut in a legal sense that a piece of software is "broken"--or, as it clearly requires judicial involvement, the problem arises that it is a rare person willing to spend a lot of money to push a lawsuit regarding a video game. This is not, at least as far as I can see, an area where the government can wave a magic wand with consumer protection laws. If you can put forward some sane, justifiable, measurable metrics for consumer protection laws in this area, I'd love to hear it, and I'd be completely willing to back them if they make sense. I have a hunch, though, that they will not, and that the consumers have to take some agency themselves.


And speaking of consumer agency--the continued complaints of "but I'm only one man!" are also really funny. I'm just one guy. I exercise the agency I have. I don't buy games from a fairly extensive list of publishers who have pissed me off in the past (Strategy First, for example, is well-known for screwing developers out of royalties, in between bankruptcies). Do the same. If your problems with them are shared by a sizable chunk of the market, they will change their behaviors. Perhaps you're just too fucking expensive to cater to, in which case--too bad. You're not their target market. Patronize others. There are really very few of the ones you're railing about and plenty of those who bear no resemblance to the description you're throwing out there.

Consumers do have choices, and they're in no way a Hobson's. A consumer's individual unwillingness to exercise those choices is their own affair, but complaining about a situation you have the power to stay out of rings very hollow. Your complaint can be distilled, and not uncharitably, to "people buy games I don't want them to buy." You don't have to. And neither do they.



And, FWIW, currently, I am both employed as a software developer (internal software) and do additional development work as a direct contractor. So while I am being paid a wage, a fairly decent chunk (~30%) of my income comes from directly developed software and IP transfer. That percentage I hope to increase to 50% over the next year, if not more.

[Gantolandon]

And, FWIW, currently, I am both employed as a software developer (internal software) and do additional development work as a direct contractor. So while I am being paid a wage, a fairly decent chunk (~30%) of my income comes from directly developed software and IP transfer. That percentage I hope to increase to 50% over the next year, if not more.

You're making internal software (as I understand, made for one or few specific customers) and still complain about piracy?

I'm not going to go through a fisking, because it inevitably devolves into point-by-point derp, but I think you're greatly overestimating the number of "broken" games and greatly underestimating the number of people who convince themselves that they "need" game X. Some of them, if they can't pirate it, won't play it. You can't reach them; they're broken people and they're not your customers. The ones that you can reach are the ones who'll pirate it if it's easy enough.

They don't convince themselves, they are convinced. This is exactly what marketing and advertising is about. You'll be surprised how quickly this conviction can perish if suddenly there is no easy way to get the game. And the amount of people playing the game usually encourages some to buy it, so I don't think even the publishers would like to see a piracy-free world. Perhaps more than copyright-free world, but it still would hurt them a lot. That's why I think that heavily broken games are better completely forgotten than pirated.

As for whether or not people "want" broken software--well, one, as I noted, you and the other posters in this thread are hugely overstating the commonness of it, at least among the games developed by these companies

Your mileage may vary. I would think it is quite common, especially after I know the development process from the other side. No matter their amount, it really hurts a lot in case of a game you were awaiting eagerly. And I don't speak of Activision only.

they buy it anyway. Somebody earlier in the thread used JoWooD, a long-time shovelware publisher, as an example: the games they publish tend to be buggy shit. So don't buy them. Buying a broken-on-release game sucks. It shouldn't happen. But it does, for a variety of reasons that eventually boil down to "consumers let them". I practice what I preach: with the exception of publishers who I know to have solid development practices and a policy of releasing well-QA'd titles, I don't buy games anywhere near release. The only games I've bought at or near release in the last five years are Civilization 5 (mistake), Orange Box (best gaming purchase I've ever made), and Left 4 Dead 2 (because the first was also excellent). Aside from Civ5, which in truth I would have bought even with reviews calling it a stinker because that is the one case where I am an unabashed series fanboy, I have not been burned. I avail myself of more information before committing to a purchase. You, and every other consumer, can too.

So what? Does it mean they are the dirty whores who like it this way and don't deserve anything better? How do you want to convince them they should change anything if you don't let them at least hate the people who are selling them shit? Congratulations, you have been cheated only once. But instead of blaming the guy who deceived you, you prefer just to shut up because you were asking for this anyway. Doing exactly what the fraud would want you to do.

Would you also be so tolerant if mugged in the alleyway? After all, you shouldn't be so stupid and go there.

Now, I would support the idea of additional consumer protection laws regarding buggy/defective software. I really would. There's no professional reason to release buggy software (there are certainly marketing and economic ones, but as a developer I care much less about that). The problem is in the implementation. There are few cases where it is clear-cut in a legal sense that a piece of software is "broken"--or, as it clearly requires judicial involvement, the problem arises that it is a rare person willing to spend a lot of money to push a lawsuit regarding a video game. This is not, at least as far as I can see, an area where the government can wave a magic wand with consumer protection laws. If you can put forward some sane, justifiable, measurable metrics for consumer protection laws in this area, I'd love to hear it, and I'd be completely willing to back them if they make sense. I have a hunch, though, that they will not, and that the consumers have to take some agency themselves.

First, the stupid EULAs should be invalidated. The customer should have to waive his rights to even install the program. No honest developer really needs a clause that he's not liable for the damages his product do, for example. Certainly I should at least know what are they trying to install with their program.

Second, in most cases there is certainly a way to determine if the game is broken or not. If technical issues make playing it like a chore, no sane judge (or jury in countries which have them) will consider it playable. In other cases, just look what the advertisements and dev diaries promise. A game where the story is the main asset, shouldn't have half of the last chapter cut to pieces almost beyond recognition, for example. If the developers take pride in creating a believable world, it's quite easy to disprove them when everything seems to happen at random. If a game is considered broken, its flaws are usually very recognizable to anyone who will take a look. If the case is brought into court, the code and design documents could be examined.

And speaking of consumer agency--the continued complaints of "but I'm only one man!" are also really funny. I'm just one guy. I exercise the agency I have. I don't buy games from a fairly extensive list of publishers who have pissed me off in the past (Strategy First, for example, is well-known for screwing developers out of royalties, in between bankruptcies). Do the same. If your problems with them are shared by a sizable chunk of the market, they will change their behaviors.

Great! So I just have to convince several millions of people to do exactly the same as I do.

Wait, I'm pretty sure I'm doing it now and done it earlier in this thread. Thank you for your incredibly useful advice.

[Eugenitor]

Second, in most cases there is certainly a way to determine if the game is broken or not. If technical issues make playing it like a chore, no sane judge (or jury in countries which have them) will consider it playable. In other cases, just look what the advertisements and dev diaries promise. A game where the story is the main asset, shouldn't have half of the last chapter cut to pieces almost beyond recognition, for example. If the developers take pride in creating a believable world, it's quite easy to disprove them when everything seems to happen at random. If a game is considered broken, its flaws are usually very recognizable to anyone who will take a look. If the case is brought into court, the code and design documents could be examined.

Oh God I wish we lived in a world where this was possible. "Producers of Xenogears, the plaintiff alleges that second disk consists of nothing but explanation and plot elements loosely hinged together with the main characters sitting in chairs talking. They seek $25 per class member as they only got half a game."

And then we could press criminal charges against the fucktards who made Big Rigs.

[Virex]

What's going to be easier, convince customers to get some economic ethics or convince the government to improve customer rights?

[Pnx]

What's going to be easier, convince customers to get some economic ethics or convince the government to improve customer rights?

Shit man, talk about a rock and a hard place.

[freeformschooler]

What's going to be easier, convince customers to get some economic ethics or convince the government to improve customer rights?

Shit man, talk about a rock and a hard place.

Honestly, people aren't gonna STOP buying crappy games. They really aren't. So I'd say the latter option has more of a shred of hope to it than the former.

[Gantolandon]

Well, none of this options is very feasible. I would rather bet on recession taking care of this particular problem. Still, not buying crappy games is definitely a good way to improve the situation. It's really worth practicing.

[lagging savant]

I am trying to become a professional software developer and start a business. I'll offer my thought on this.

Personally I am trying a few methods to allow the consumers to take a pro-active approach in supporting the ongoing development of the game.

What I have observed is after investing a lot of time and resources the business needs to recover their costs or they need to start firing people or go bankrupt. I've learned that making these games is like putting a cart before a horse. Then try to sell everything in the cart so you can feed your family and everyone else who has a share of the effort. The sad thing is they won't tell you it is a cart of manure before you buy your share. They'll hype it up. We'll gift wrap this brown stuff and even let you MicroPayment the sludge on the bottom too!

What I think would be nice is if the gamers can take an active part in making the game and vote or voice their opinions. Then give feedback on what was put in (Like it or Hate it), then move on. Sponsor parts of the game. Then when the product is released the community of players that inspired, commented and created a community cause the game to thrive and grow. A Development on Demand with feedback and agility.

What it comes down to with the majority of publishers is that they have to research and plan what is fun. Not trusting a consumer because the consumer has no personal stake in the game's success. A consumer has a quick comment "that game sucked" and move on. 100,000 "that game sucked" , 20 awesomely skill programmers are fired and some fat cat director. A game ruined because the director's kid hated it and he had everyone change a once fun game.

Just my observations.

[Leafsnail]

At the moment, it's possible to be able to buy a game and find that it's ridiculously riddled with bugs to the point of being unplayable and you can, at most, get store credit (and only if it's not a PC game). Personally, I think it's ridiculous that consumers aren't able to return products that are bad and they don't view as being worth the price, and is one of the main issues with computer gaming these days.

I can't think of any products that work this way.  You can't ask for a refund if you don't like a movie you bought, or a sandwhich or whatever unless it actually differs from the normal unit of those.

Now, bolded kindof makes sense (not sure how many current games are unplayable given playtesting, but whatever).  Italicised doesn't.  You can't just borrow things until you decide you don't like them (or until you've finished the game, if you're unscruplulous) and then expect a refund.  It's just unfair on the shop, apart from anything else (they lose a copy and get nothing for it).

To me, a far better solution to the unexpected bugs thing would be to have companies patch the bugs or, if the game is hopelessly buggered beyond belief, recall it (like you do with other things).

The thing to do about bad games is not to buy them.

[beorn080]

Something does not have to be piracy-proof; it just has to be piracy-resistant until most people give up and buy it.

What one person engineers, another can reverse engineer. I don't advocate or disapprove of piracy, but it is foolish to think a program won't get hacked. The BEST way to prevent piracy is to make it so you get a better product when its purchased legally, and as you can see in this thread and others everywhere, pirated games have the benefit of not having the massive DRM that has in some cases made every other game unplayable. The fact that the anti piracy measures encourage privacy to get a properly working product means that even if they are really hard to break, someone is going to.

At the moment, it's possible to be able to buy a game and find that it's ridiculously riddled with bugs to the point of being unplayable and you can, at most, get store credit (and only if it's not a PC game). Personally, I think it's ridiculous that consumers aren't able to return products that are bad and they don't view as being worth the price, and is one of the main issues with computer gaming these days.

I can't think of any products that work this way.  You can't ask for a refund if you don't like a movie you bought, or a sandwhich or whatever unless it actually differs from the normal unit of those.

Now, bolded kindof makes sense (not sure how many current games are unplayable given playtesting, but whatever).  Italicised doesn't.  You can't just borrow things until you decide you don't like them (or until you've finished the game, if you're unscruplulous) and then expect a refund.  It's just unfair on the shop, apart from anything else (they lose a copy and get nothing for it).

To me, a far better solution to the unexpected bugs thing would be to have companies patch the bugs or, if the game is hopelessly buggered beyond belief, recall it (like you do with other things).

The thing to do about bad games is not to buy them.

Actually, if the food is inedible, or made not to your specifications, you can get a refund. If the movie stops playing halfway through, that is a failure to provide the contracted service.

[G-Flex]

Something does not have to be piracy-proof; it just has to be piracy-resistant until most people give up and buy it.

What one person engineers, another can reverse engineer. I don't advocate or disapprove of piracy, but it is foolish to think a program won't get hacked. The BEST way to prevent piracy is to make it so you get a better product when its purchased legally, and as you can see in this thread and others everywhere, pirated games have the benefit of not having the massive DRM that has in some cases made every other game unplayable. The fact that the anti piracy measures encourage privacy to get a properly working product means that even if they are really hard to break, someone is going to.

To be fair, Blank Expression never said he thinks there is a foolproof DRM method. In fact, he specifically stated that isn't necessary.

[Blank Expression]

Something does not have to be piracy-proof; it just has to be piracy-resistant until most people give up and buy it.

What one person engineers, another can reverse engineer. I don't advocate or disapprove of piracy, but it is foolish to think a program won't get hacked. The BEST way to prevent piracy is to make it so you get a better product when its purchased legally, and as you can see in this thread and others everywhere, pirated games have the benefit of not having the massive DRM that has in some cases made every other game unplayable. The fact that the anti piracy measures encourage privacy to get a properly working product means that even if they are really hard to break, someone is going to.

To be fair, Blank Expression never said he thinks there is a foolproof DRM method. In fact, he specifically stated that isn't necessary.

The person you replied to hasn't really read my post, it seems, because the point of anti-piracy techniques is to stave off cracking a game until the initial rush has worn off and they've gotten most of the sales that they could expect to get.

On the other hand, you seem to have grasped my position very well. I do not approve of, nor do I buy titles that feature, invasive DRM - I own one game with Tages because it came as a part of a pack and I own zero with SecuROM. I am, however, entirely okay with the Steam form of DRM, because in return for making publishers feel more secure I get a value-add: I no longer have to pay attention to disks, I can download my titles, and Steam also gives me an easy and pretty nice way to play the games with my friends. (Because somebody always brings up Impulse, I'll just qualify this paragraph with the note that the network effect does matter, and since nobody I know uses Impulse, I don't get much from using it either.)