Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Details On Unigine's OilRush Game

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    It's the marketvalue (as stated on the site itself) so that should be seen as the value of the combined products.

    You do have a point that they should be able to make money with a price of less then 80,-. Then again, charity is involved. That obliges to spend some more on it.
    Yeah, and if the bundle was on sale in a store, the marketing would say it has a value for 80, and that you were getting a deal for 40 or 50 with the bundle. So would you then consider everyone who bought it from the store a pirate and freeloader?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      Yeah, and if the bundle was on sale in a store, the marketing would say it has a value for 80, and that you were getting a deal for 40 or 50 with the bundle. So would you then consider everyone who bought it from the store a pirate and freeloader?
      Different story that is not applicable here. Even if 40,- that's still 4 times more then the average Windows consumer paid.

      Look, I am not doing this to prove I am right. If you disagree then that's fine. I just wanted to give a different angle on the subject because of the people who continue to whine about "I wouldn't be a pirate if it did not have DRM".

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
        Different story that is not applicable here. Even if 40,- that's still 4 times more then the average Windows consumer paid.

        Look, I am not doing this to prove I am right. If you disagree then that's fine. I just wanted to give a different angle on the subject because of the people who continue to whine about "I wouldn't be a pirate if it did not have DRM".
        I believe it's exactly the same situation. But anyway, i agree that people are always going to pirate whether DRM is there or not.

        1 thing this can do is create separate pricing tiers for those willing to spend less money then others. It's a long-time strategy businesses use to wring more money out of their customers. Typically, they provide a basic, standard, and premium version of content with the idea that some people will be willing to buy the basic package and they would have never bought the standard, while others might even be willing to go above and pay extra.

        So it'e entirely possible that even a lower average price could have been beneficial in the larger scheme of things if it brought in a lot more buyers than the normal price would.

        But I'll repeat, I understand why DRM schemes are put in place because piracy does seem to be rampant even without them. The key is making sure the DRM scheme doesn't completely ruin the product, something which can be done but isn't always.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          But I'll repeat, I understand why DRM schemes are put in place because piracy does seem to be rampant even without them. The key is making sure the DRM scheme doesn't completely ruin the product, something which can be done but isn't always.
          Agreed!

          Comment


          • #25
            Some of the comments in this thread are funny. Seriously DRM does nothing to prevent "piracy". It just restricts and irritates the people that actually bought the product; making the paid-for product the inferior one.

            These 90% piracy figures are useless, they make the assumption that 100% of those people that pirated would have bought it. Rubbish.

            Most of the people that pirated World of Goo probably wouldn't of bought it anyway. Some of them might have bought it on the Wii, but downloaded from TPB for the PC. Others might have bought it after pirating it. You cannot treat torrent downloads as lost sales it's a ridiculous assumption.

            The last 10-15 games I've bought have been DRM free. They've been Osmos, the Humble Indie Bundle and the rest from gog.com. I *really* wanted Starcraft 2, but I'm not paying money for a game I may not be able to play in 5 years time. I don't even trust Steam, what if Valve goes bankrupt? What if they change the rules? When I buy something I want to own it. I don't pirate games, I just don't buy them if there is anything more than a serial code to enter from the back of the manual. If OilRush is DRM free, I'm buying it. It it's not, I'm not.

            Comment


            • #26
              I seriously miss the 90's when the Official Problem (tm) wasn't piracy but Evil Hackers from Russia selling games illegally and money pouring to Russian mafia. This whole "I share, you share" decade has mostly made all of us lose perspective. Including game companies.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Kazade View Post
                ...The last 10-15 games I've bought have been DRM free...
                U != the general gamer

                Sure every DRM get's cracked. However they do prevent the less tech savey from sharing and usually keep most of the pirate's offline.

                BTW, I don't like DRM either. I concider it neccesary evil.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
                  U != the general gamer

                  Sure every DRM get's cracked. However they do prevent the less tech savey from sharing and usually keep most of the pirate's offline.

                  BTW, I don't like DRM either. I concider it neccesary evil.

                  You don't need DRM to keep pirated copies offline, a serial number is enough to burn the fun.
                  and even my grandma could use a cracked version. (they come in already cracked DVD-Images now)

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    That's correct, when you want to play on official servers usually a serial sent to the server is enough. That does not prevent from host hacks which redirect to another authentification server but in most cases it will be enough as protection. For single player games some studios do really cracy things to avoid copying. Like requireing online for every progress point to dl extra data - look at Ubisoft. When you begin with that your fellows will not be happy usually...

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      DRM will only strike two groups:
                      -The crackers
                      -The actual buyers

                      DRM does not apply to:
                      -People who head over to, say, the Pirate Bay

                      You're only screwing yourselves if you release your game with DRM.

                      Try maximising profits instead of trying to decrease the amount of non-sales in the entire market; it's like "Our goal is to sell a game to the entire market and any single consumer that doesn't buy it is due to piracy so we should reduce that". That is ofcourse nice if you care about a userbase in case you sell a platform, but is totaly stupid, from every corner of every law of economics, to apply this to games.

                      Experience shows that converting software pirates is futile. What is more likely is convincing games that do pay for games to buy your game; "Don't worry; if you buy this game then you won't be having to deal with user-unfriendly copy protection".

                      No of course we know that DRM is totaly not intended to reduce piracy; it is intended so that you can't sell your game second handed when you're done with it so this tactic makes sure that would-be second hand buyers go to the original retailer instead.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X