This War of Mine Dev Responds to Pirates with Free Copies of Game

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

odolwa:

Teoes:
I felt the developer deserved extra sales for their good actions.

There you go again with the 'good actions' argument. They're only good for would-be pirates. You'll never see EA or Ubisoft handing out keys for a new game after a bout of piracy, because they have stock options to soften the blow. A small dev team, on the other hand, has to bow to public pressure and perform 'good actions' in order to prove themselves. It's pathetic.

Would you rather I enacted GOG's 30-day money back clause to return the game, and contacted the developers to say "soz guys, odolwa thinks this is pathetic, I can't have your game."?

It is irrelevant to me in this situation who made the game, whether it be the biggest AAA behemoth on the planet or the smallest-scale indie dev that ever inhabited a leaking, dimly-lit basement. If a dev acts like a twat, I am less likely to buy their game. If they act like a champ, I am more likely to buy their game.

Do you think I should be expected to buy every game that is released to reasonable review? Do you think it unreasonable that I look at a game, think that it may not be to my tastes and therefore decide not spend my limited funds on it? If we can establish that the answer to the first question is 'No' and the answer to the second question is also 'No', then take that in conjunction with the second paragraph of this post (which, again, I do not think is unreasonable), then I don't see why it is such a crime that I decide to spend my money after all.

We can also take into consideration the more specific situation that lead to this thing in the first place. It's not just "pirates" as you put it, as the dev said they feel nothing can be done about those sorts; it's about people "..pissed about the current quality of many games, or those who simply can't afford the game at the time, because of some personal reasons.". If I felt I needed justification for my "good actions" comment, that would be it. These folks are trying to help out people who might not feel able to buy the game and that's a bloody decent thing to do (again, irrespective of their size as a company). Note how that ties in with my previous comment about my trying not to spend too much money at the moment. Note how that ties in with my deciding to pay for the game, note how despite my limited funds I was not choosing to resort to piracy, despite your attempt to put words in my mouth post.

Have a go at genuine discussion, without twisting my words or cherry picking to leave out statements that might flesh out my stance, as you have done already. I believe you are simply being belligerent for the sake of it - see if you can change my mind.

Aeshi:
Yes it would (though admittedly not by much.) Plenty of people have paid for this game. What makes him so much more important than them that he doesn't have to pay?

I guess we just have different values about justice.

All other things being equal, I would rather see freeloaders having a good time, because the more people enjoying themselves the better, than to make sure that all people are rewarded proportionally to their contribution even if that means less overall enjoyment with no positive benefit.

It's a similar issue issue as whether you would see criminals in a brutal max security prison knowing that it will set them up for a lifetime of crime, or rehabilitated in a swedish resort prison, that has absurdly low recidivism. What's more important, maximizing society's well-being, or soothing our demand for deserved rewards and punishments?

It's also related to the issue of positive externalities. If you buy a bunch of fireworks, do you carry them to the middle of an empty field, where no oe can see their effect for free? If you renovate your house, do you also put a big ugly wall around it to make sure that your neighbors' property prices won't undeservedly increase from the better-looking neighborhood?

There are plenty of situations, where some people can and do spend effort for their own purposes, and some of the results of this can trickle down to those who couldn't and wouldn't do it anyways. Trying to deny these would feel like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Teoes:
..pissed about the current quality of many games, or those who simply can't afford the game at the time, because of some personal reasons

The 'quality of games' bit is entirely subjective. It's PR speak. They are on the defensive. They have 'no' recourse but to grin and bear it. Do you honestly think if the game weren't being pirated that they'd be handing out keys? Of course they wouldn't! Otherwise, they'd have published the game with an "If disenfranchised with gaming industry, click link for free game-key" button!! They aren't 'being champ', as you put it, they're being as smart as they can be under the circumstances. And it's a shame they can't just sell a game on it's own merits, without validating themselves further in this manner.

odolwa:

Teoes:
..pissed about the current quality of many games, or those who simply can't afford the game at the time, because of some personal reasons

The 'quality of games' bit is entirely subjective. It's PR speak. They are on the defensive. They have 'no' recourse but to grin and bear it. Do you honestly think if the game weren't being pirated that they'd be handing out keys? Of course they wouldn't! Otherwise, they'd have published the game with a "If disenfranchised with gaming industry, click link for free game-key" button!! They aren't 'being champ', as you put it, they're being as smart as they can be under the circumstances. And it's a shame they can't just sell a game on it's own merits, without validating themselves further in this manner.

Well you're still cherry picking and disregarding most of my post, but at least you're no longer making stuff up or twisting my words, so I'm grateful for some progress at least.

It may be PR speak, but I'm not wholly inclined to agree. It seems to me to be a little more like an honest statement from a person. In the grander scheme of the sort of shite that some developers and publishers put out on a regular basis, I'll take this happily and ask for more. Do you think it's an unreasonable or unrealistic statement that people out there might be frustrated with the state of the games industry and therefore unwilling to pay for games, or that they might feel a little strapped for cash for purchases? Note that this question can be both asked and answered without condoning piracy. As an aside, I'm aware of the fact that I've asked you a number of times if you feel something is unreasonable, but you have failed to answer a single one.

I agree that they wouldn't be handing out keys if the game wasn't being pirated. It is, however, being pirated. Considering they could either be ignoring the pirates or wailing and gnashing their teeth, promising swift bloody brutal vengeance on the pirates, but instead they choose to try and be understanding and give the situation what many would consider is a positive outcome, then yes, I think they are doing a good thing. I see this as being very similar to other companies and their more positive responses to piracy. Isn't it GOG who are aware their lack of DRM could lead to piracy, but choose to trust people instead and hope that positive behaviour encourages positive behaviour in response? Isn't it Valve who like to treat pirates as potential customers? Are either of these practices pathetic? Should we not be holding up these practices of GOG, Valve and 11 Bit as a positive example to others?

So that's things (my response, my opinion) with regards to your post and the issue of this news, the developer and their response to piracy. I'll post this bit again:

Do you think I should be expected to buy every game that is released to reasonable review? Do you think it unreasonable that I look at a game, think that it may not be to my tastes and therefore decide not spend my limited funds on it?

If you can address that (and I think the reasonable answer to both questions is "no"), can you tell me what is so unreasonable about me changing my mind in light of a situation coming to my attention and deciding to buy the game after all?

Great! Another developer who understands the times we live in. I wish them every possible success!

Teoes:
Isn't it GOG who are aware their lack of DRM could lead to piracy, but choose to trust people instead and hope that positive behaviour encourages positive behaviour in response? Isn't it Valve who like to treat pirates as potential customers?

But that's just it! So much is 'already' offered by Steam (- via sales), GOG (- minus DRM '&' sales) & now 11-bit (- with free games) to the pirates, but they 'still' take advantage of them. If we take the view that 11-bit offered the free keys just to help folks strapped for cash, rather than pirates, then it invalidates your other statement of:

Teoes:
I agree that they wouldn't be handing out keys if the game wasn't being pirated.

So who are they offering these keys to? Because if these keys are for people who can't afford the game and who would otherwise wait until they save some money or a sale kicks in, then they aren't pirates and the keys wouldn't/ shouldn't be offered to them. Hence, it's a PR stunt. 'That's' the point to make. Yes, there are pirates, and yes this won't change anything on that front, but 10 keys to 10 random people is a reaction to a hopeless situation. 'You' may have been persuaded to part with cash based on the article, but it works the other way too, because anyone who pirates games will simply add this to their 'shopping list'. The developers have lost on potential sales from customers who might actually have bought the game legitimately, after handing out those keys, on a site that already offers so much, from a small developer who shouldn't, in my opinion, have offered those keys in the first place. PR works both ways here, and now they've put a spotlight on their own game as a candidate for piracy.

The game is good, y'all. Buy it.

odolwa:

Teoes:
Isn't it GOG who are aware their lack of DRM could lead to piracy, but choose to trust people instead and hope that positive behaviour encourages positive behaviour in response? Isn't it Valve who like to treat pirates as potential customers?

But that's just it! So much is 'already' offered by Steam (- via sales), GOG (- minus DRM '&' sales) & now 11-bit (- with free games) to the pirates, but they 'still' take advantage of them. If we take the view that 11-bit offered the free keys just to help folks strapped for cash, rather than pirates, then it invalidates your other statement of:

Teoes:
I agree that they wouldn't be handing out keys if the game wasn't being pirated.

So who are they offering these keys to? Because if these keys are for people who can't afford the game and who would otherwise wait until they save some money or a sale kicks in, then they aren't pirates and the keys wouldn't/ shouldn't be offered to them. Hence, it's a PR stunt. 'That's' the point to make. Yes, there are pirates, and yes this won't change anything on that front, but 10 keys to 10 random people is a reaction to a hopeless situation. 'You' may have been persuaded to part with cash based on the article, but it works the other way too, because anyone who pirates games will simply add this to their 'shopping list'. The developers have lost on potential sales from customers who might actually have bought the game legitimately, after handing out those keys, on a site that already offers so much, from a small developer who shouldn't, in my opinion, have offered those keys in the first place. PR works both ways here, and now they've put a spotlight on their own game as a candidate for piracy.

I don't care if it is a PR stunt, I've already said I'll take this situation and ask for more, when compared to the usual PR stunts we have to deal with. Even agreeing that this is a PR stunt, I do not feel that negates the goodwill that could be engendered from the situation.

You claim that some of those who took one of the Steam keys was a potential sale they've now lost: this requires citation or can be disregarded as baseless. It can also at least in part be counter-acted by the people in this thread alone who've bought the game because of their stunt. I count 7 people (including myself) who say they have bought the game as a result, plus another few who said they may or will in future buy a copy.

You claim that people who pirate games anyway will now add this to their shopping list and that they've put a spotlight on their game as a candidate for piracy (I assuming the point being that piracy of the game will increase as a result of this stunt): this requires citation or can be disregarded as baseless.

But really, I'm tired of discussing this with you and I'm tired of you failing to address my points or answer my questions in order to back up your earlier statements; so feel free to not back up these statements either. Bottom line is: I believe 11 Bit Studios did a good thing here and I bought their game as a result. Thanks for managing to turn even that simple statement into an argument. Thanks for managing to shit on that piece of good news. I'm done here.

If you're going, fine, but I want to at least make my own closing statement.

Teoes:
I do not feel that negates the goodwill that could be engendered from the situation

Now this is just you vs. me, because I don't see it as goodwill. Goodwill suggests they 'wanted' to do this. But this is a reaction to a bad situation, as opposed to something done willingly. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Teoes:
You claim that some of those who took one of the Steam keys was a potential sale they've now lost: this requires citation or can be disregarded as baseless.

And neither can you claim that it 'wouldn't' result in a sale. If nothing else, this sets a s**ty precedent. Why not just wait for other games to be pirated and have more desperate indie dev's in PR damage control hand out freebies? We even had Jim Sterling asking the folks to not pirate from indies! No lessons learned so far. Let's keep going...

Teoes:
It can also at least in part be counter-acted by the people in this thread alone who've bought the game because of their stunt.

You know what made 'me' want to buy this game? The review. Not an article about the dev back tracking after a wave of piracy. But let's go your way for a moment. What if the article were exactly the same but it was about Sonic Boom, a notoriously bad game. Would you buy it then? Probably not. You don't see many articles about crap games being pirated, now do you?

Despite my frustration, I respect the good intention in your words, but this championing of someone whose back is against the wall misses the point entirely, for me. That's why I went off on one. Apologies.

odolwa:

Teoes:
and that the dev's good actions have earned them a sale from me.. implying I will exchange legal currency for a legal copy of the game.

Their 'good' actions have 'earned' them a sale? Was taking the time to craft a game that has reviewed reasonably well not good enough in the first place?

Did you ever think that possibly he would simply not buy the game or wait for a sale but the actions of the dev convinced him that the game was worth a try? Devs actions can earn and lose sales as much as the products themselves.

RicoADF:
Did you ever think that possibly he would simply not buy the game or wait for a sale but the actions of the dev convinced him that the game was worth a try? Devs actions can earn and lose sales as much as the products themselves.

Read everything I said after that. The rabbit hole goes deeper, Neo.

odolwa:

Read everything I said after that. The rabbit hole goes deeper, Neo.

Yes I read that after the first post, I must say I side with Teoes here. While this may be a PR stunt (we don't know for certain, this is an assumption) I would say it's a smart one if so. Weather it's AAA or indie, the way a developer/publisher treats their customers (or potential customers) has a big impact on how I and many others see them.

As an example: I would not be in a hurry to get an EA or Ubisoft game because their past actions have indicated a lack of respect for myself and others, their customers. They also show that they see the game as nothing more than a means to an end (to get your cash), they don't care about the game beyond that. In contract, 11 bit here has shown their good people that want others to enjoy the game first of all, they know that they'll make their money either way because they have confidence in their game and believe in it.

It's like buying anything really, if the salesman treats you like crap then it doesn't matter if their product is better I'll go over to the next store that treats me with respect and buy from them. It's customer service, which at the end of the day is a big part of what we pay for.

RicoADF:
the way a developer/publisher treats their customers (or potential customers) has a big impact on how I and many others see them

Whether you see what they did as good or bad will basically boil down to personal opinion. I'm saying it's bad because:
a) This is a response to pirates, not a sudden burst of impromptu customer service. Personally I think this is not good for the industry (specifically the indies), even if the PR might secure a few extra sales. Although the jury is out on that one, I think.
b) EA & Ubisoft can, and do, ignore/ challenge pirates more effectively, PR be damned, because the sheep will always balance the sales out, no matter how crap a game is. Point in case, Unity has 'outsold' Blackflag despite the litany of bugs. It's not fair to bully the little guy when the major groups get away with bloody murder and will 'never', and I mean 'never', give any freebies without checking with the shareholders. Indies don't have stocks, or Swiss bank accounts and I don't like that they had to make this concession. It sucks. My 'opinion', yes, but a valid one.
c) If 11-bit had said/ done nothing in the face of the piracy I, personally, don't think it would have hurt or benefited them massively either way. The pirates won't stop pirating, and if they had made a crap game anyway, you, I and everyone else wouldn't bat an eyelid. However, they 'did' make a good game. That should be enough, for all concerned. If the PR draws attention to anything, it's that piracy against small developers is rampant and pitiless, and they have no option but to pretend it's not happening, or spread their butt cheeks with a smile on their face while blowing smoke up our ass about "gamers being unhappy with the current state of the industry". I see, and was that 11-bit's fault? Why do they have to give hand-outs while Ubisoft says "we're looking closer at the way in which we release our games for review"? See the difference?

So, a lot of this is subjective. If you disagree, ok, but I still don't have to like it and wanted to express as much. That's all I can say, otherwise I'm just repeating myself.

Sigh *Double Post*

Good on them. I love this kind of approach to piracy; they can't stop it, so they might as well make the best of it.

I don't care if this is a calculated decision or one made from the kindness of their hearts; what 11 Bit says is true. A lot of people don't want to pirate a game; if they can afford it, they generally will pay for it. Of course, there are the people who would, as they said, "would pirate the game even if it would cost 10 cents", but they also said that "you can do nothing about them". That's the truth. But the majority of people who pirate games do so simply because they can't afford paying for it. By understanding this and helping the people who can't afford it, they encourage people who can afford it to buy the game. It's a psychological tactic; they make themselves seem like good people, and thus more people think that they deserve money. That may be a cynical way of looking at it, but whether it was a business decision or one of genuine benevolence, it's effective as heck for raising hype and spreading the word of them, their actions and their game.

odolwa:
Snip

Mate, you're ignoring the majority of people's posts, cutting out a small portion of what they say and ignoring the rest. Stop that. Quote them entirely and argue their entire post, don't ignore them because it's convenient for you.

Anyway, I'm buying the game as soon as my next check comes in, thanks to this. I was already interested in the game, but this move (PR stunt or not) massively spiked my interest in the game.

Ladylotus:
Mate, you're ignoring the majority of people's posts, cutting out a small portion of what they say and ignoring the rest. Stop that. Quote them entirely and argue their entire post, don't ignore them because it's convenient for you.

Anyway, I'm buying the game as soon as my next check comes in, thanks to this. I was already interested in the game, but this move (PR stunt or not) massively spiked my interest in the game.

I've argued my points clearly, and in detail. If you disagree with me, fine.

Isn't this similar to what Cactus did when people pirated Hotline Miami? When Hotline Miami's pirated version had a bug, he produced a fix and released it?

Honestly, I think the people who truly can't afford it are probably in the very small minority. Maybe you can't afford a game at release, but Steam sales often make even the most expensive AAA games quite affordable. Even if you think you'll never be able to afford it, you can play other games which are free. Then again, I am looking at this with a fairly biased perspective since I've never really been poor. I'd welcome anyone to try and justify this (obviously not stating that you do pirate since it's against forum rules). I'd just like to see an honest perspective on this since whenever read about piracy justification it's usually some bullshit along the lines of "fighting the man."

Im not that interested in the game, but hell im tempted to buy it anyway after that. Probably will do when i get my next pay check, good show 11 Bit Studios.

Ugh. These guys are too nice.

This is like saying that "Oh, well, there's really no way to stop death threats, or trolling, so just turn the other cheek. It's whatever." It just feels like such a defeatist mentalitly. It's like a little kid bringing his gameboy to the playground and going "These guys are just going to take it from me anyways, so I'll wrap it up in a little bow and hope they'll be my friend."

I think what really cheeses me off about this is the fact that they are rewarding the people who refuse to pay for their games. It's a commendable attitude, in that they aren't throwing a bitch-fit, but it still just seems so sickeningly submissive.

EyeReaper:
Ugh. These guys are too nice.

This is like saying that "Oh, well, there's really no way to stop death threats, or trolling, so just turn the other cheek. It's whatever." It just feels like such a defeatist mentalitly. It's like a little kid bringing his gameboy to the playground and going "These guys are just going to take it from me anyways, so I'll wrap it up in a little bow and hope they'll be my friend."

I think what really cheeses me off about this is the fact that they are rewarding the people who refuse to pay for their games. It's a commendable attitude, in that they aren't throwing a bitch-fit, but it still just seems so sickeningly submissive.

At last, I'm not the only one. Thank you.

odolwa:

EyeReaper:
Ugh. These guys are too nice.

This is like saying that "Oh, well, there's really no way to stop death threats, or trolling, so just turn the other cheek. It's whatever." It just feels like such a defeatist mentalitly. It's like a little kid bringing his gameboy to the playground and going "These guys are just going to take it from me anyways, so I'll wrap it up in a little bow and hope they'll be my friend."

I think what really cheeses me off about this is the fact that they are rewarding the people who refuse to pay for their games. It's a commendable attitude, in that they aren't throwing a bitch-fit, but it still just seems so sickeningly submissive.

At last, I'm not the only one. Thank you.

So you're prefer to be wrong in an echo chamber than figure out how to be right?

That's all I got from that comment.

I mean, you're not wrong in that they did this because they had no better option, but you're wrong in acting like it's a bad thing. It's not. Not by a long shot.

I never understood the "I don't have money" defense for piracy. If you have time to play games but not the money to buy them, get out of the house, make some money, and come back when you can purchase the game. This isn't like stealing groceries because you can't put food on the table, it's more like stealing jewelery because it looks shiny.

Still, good on the dev for taking advantage of the situation.

Signa:

So you're prefer to be wrong in an echo chamber than figure out how to be right?

You're assuming that he's wrong and you're right. Not necessarily the case.

Dagda Mor:

Signa:

So you're prefer to be wrong in an echo chamber than figure out how to be right?

You're assuming that he's wrong and you're right. Not necessarily the case.

He's wrong for acting like this is a bad thing. That's wrong enough. He's taking a win-win situation and saying that one side isn't winning enough because reasons. You seem to be pretty close to his camp, given that you seem to think those steps are as easy said as done. Hell, why spend any of your free time gaming? You could be looking for more jobs and making more money so that you'll never have to think about piracy again!

Look, you're all glossing over the important points here: Whether you are able to afford the game is irrelevant. The pirates decided that either they are too poor to purchase this game at all, or they didn't budget wisely, and piracy gets them what they were wanting, even if they are short of funds. This measure by 11-bit makes sure that those people who do have the funds now know where to allocate their next batch. 11-bit wins, the pirates won, and anyone else left isn't worth the time considering. The ONLY thing I'm left wondering is if those keys went to people that actually should have had them. I think it would be shitty if either you or I ended up with them because we would have bought it.

Reading these posts, I didn't see anyone bringing up an important aspect of the situation: 11 Bit is a Polish game studio. Now, you must know that gaming culture in the former Soviet bloc is deeply rooted in piracy. Back in the era of casettes and floppy disks, the poor economic state and lack of official distributors meant that most people had access to games only through semi-legal or illegal channels. I wouldn't be surprised if the developers at 11 Bit had firsthand experience on what makes someone turn to piracy, and in that light, being non-hostile towards pirates would not be a coldly calculated PR-trick, but simply avoiding hypocrisy.
This is, of course, pure conjecture on my part.

Sigmund Av Volsung:
It is an unconventionally constructive attitude. I like these guys.

Perhaps "certain" devs could get over Piracy and just accept it as a fact of life instead of crowbarring in DRM everywhere.

Ah, who are you kidding? They'll probably just lock it down so tight only three people can play at a time.

wass12:
Reading these posts, I didn't see anyone bringing up an important aspect of the situation: 11 Bit is a Polish game studio.

This was raised on the first page and fairly early in it.

Zachary Amaranth:

wass12:
Reading these posts, I didn't see anyone bringing up an important aspect of the situation: 11 Bit is a Polish game studio.

This was raised on the first page and fairly early in it.

Re-reading the first page, I finally noticed Skeleon's post that speculates on the same issue. My apologies for not being observant enough.

Signa:

Dagda Mor:

Signa:

So you're prefer to be wrong in an echo chamber than figure out how to be right?

You're assuming that he's wrong and you're right. Not necessarily the case.

He's wrong for acting like this is a bad thing. That's wrong enough. He's taking a win-win situation and saying that one side isn't winning enough because reasons. You seem to be pretty close to his camp, given that you seem to think those steps are as easy said as done. Hell, why spend any of your free time gaming? You could be looking for more jobs and making more money so that you'll never have to think about piracy again!

Look, you're all glossing over the important points here: Whether you are able to afford the game is irrelevant. The pirates decided that either they are too poor to purchase this game at all, or they didn't budget wisely, and piracy gets them what they were wanting, even if they are short of funds. This measure by 11-bit makes sure that those people who do have the funds now know where to allocate their next batch. 11-bit wins, the pirates won, and anyone else left isn't worth the time considering. The ONLY thing I'm left wondering is if those keys went to people that actually should have had them. I think it would be shitty if either you or I ended up with them because we would have bought it.

Quit with the 'us vs. them' shit. And with the strawman shit, too. When I want something, I get the money to buy it. When I don't want something, I do nothing. And that IS as easily said as done--budget more effectively or work more hours at your job. If you're just a kid and you don't have a job, mow some lawns or walk some dogs. Open a lemonade stand if you have to. It's really that simple. Satisfying your desire to play a game is simply not as important as paying the developer for its work, and you have no right to play a game unless you pay the owner whatever price it has decided to charge.

Also, I said that piracy has no justification, not that the dev made the wrong move. In the post right before the one you quoted, I specifically said that I supported the dev's handling of the situation.

Dagda Mor:

Signa:

Dagda Mor:

You're assuming that he's wrong and you're right. Not necessarily the case.

He's wrong for acting like this is a bad thing. That's wrong enough. He's taking a win-win situation and saying that one side isn't winning enough because reasons. You seem to be pretty close to his camp, given that you seem to think those steps are as easy said as done. Hell, why spend any of your free time gaming? You could be looking for more jobs and making more money so that you'll never have to think about piracy again!

Look, you're all glossing over the important points here: Whether you are able to afford the game is irrelevant. The pirates decided that either they are too poor to purchase this game at all, or they didn't budget wisely, and piracy gets them what they were wanting, even if they are short of funds. This measure by 11-bit makes sure that those people who do have the funds now know where to allocate their next batch. 11-bit wins, the pirates won, and anyone else left isn't worth the time considering. The ONLY thing I'm left wondering is if those keys went to people that actually should have had them. I think it would be shitty if either you or I ended up with them because we would have bought it.

And that IS as easily said as done--budget more effectively or work more hours at your job.

Aaaand I tuned out right about here. Dude, you have no clue. My brother almost got written up for clocking in 2 minutes early because his employer didn't want to pay him any overtime. It just isn't that simple no matter how much you say it is. If it WAS that simple, then piracy wouldn't be that big of a deal, because pirating a game isn't simple. As it is now, it's still more simple than what you suggest.

Signa:
The ONLY thing I'm left wondering is if those keys went to people that actually should have had them. I think it would be shitty if either you or I ended up with them because we would have bought it.

That's kind of my point, though. If I had been there when they handed the keys out, I'd honestly be asking them to reconsider and buy the game instead. If pirates are going to pirate, then they haven't changed anything on that front, so giving free games to folks who would have likely bought them anyway misses the point.

You say I'm wrong from a PR standpoint, regarding what they did, and I say that's fine but it's subjective because, as you acknowledge, the folks they gave those keys too were likely not pirates. Ultimately it's good PR, but it stems from a s**ty situation and I'm not wrong about that. Congratulate the team if you like, but don't forget to condemn the pirates. I've not seen many folks doing that, so far. Only the real fans are paying for the game. In any case, that's just my opinion.

Zachary Amaranth:

Sigmund Av Volsung:
It is an unconventionally constructive attitude. I like these guys.

Perhaps "certain" devs could get over Piracy and just accept it as a fact of life instead of crowbarring in DRM everywhere.

Ah, who are you kidding? They'll probably just lock it down so tight only three people can play at a time.

I'd like to believe that people can learn from their mistakes.

Or at the very least, that current games publishers and devs will get replaced by those who know that DRM has never worked in the history of anything in 'preventing' piracy without fucking over the buying consumer.

odolwa:

Signa:
The ONLY thing I'm left wondering is if those keys went to people that actually should have had them. I think it would be shitty if either you or I ended up with them because we would have bought it.

Congratulate the team if you like, but don't forget to condemn the pirates. I've not seen many folks doing that, so far. Only the real fans are paying for the game. In any case, that's just my opinion.

I consider pirates and piracy something of a force of nature. They are going to be there whether you're yelling at them, beating them senseless or giving your shit out for free. I can't be bothered to get mad about them, and I feel like few others here are either. Keeping with the force of nature analogy, this measure is like knocking out windows before a hurricane. It sucks, but it's the best way to weather the storm.

Thank you for being more civil than I was. I was getting pretty frustrated with your interaction with Teoes, so I got a little curt.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.