WitchKing

I just quit about a month ago, so change me to Freelance. You can add this too: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tobiasbodlund

Hehe, I second that motion The interesting thing here though is the adding of code to prevent second-hand trading - you have to agree that's a new one

I agree, we have to make people want to buy the games - not horse around with lame restrictions and blocks on the products we want people to buy with their hard-earned money. Otherwise we are just punishing the paying customers.

Hehe, I was being totally ironic with the suggestion of outlawing second-hand trading Imagine the effect on current trading in automobiles, comics, clothes, cutlery, furniture, boats, weapons, houses! Then imagine the garbage problems, then imagine the erosion of respect for the law as everyone just blatantly and openly ignores the ban because they see it as absurd...

Chek dis: http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/vi ... &forum=125 It seems to me that this protection is more likely to increase piracy than decrease it. So this is probably intended as an attack on the second-hand market for the game. Now think about this: the games industry probably loses a lot more on second-hand games trading than on piracy. After all, we're talking about people who are actually willing and able to spend money on games, but who spend their money in places where not a single cent goes to the developers. Second hand is killing our profits more than piracy. I bet EA, being smart, has figured that out a long time ago. So... how about outlawing second-hand trading altogether?

He's absolutely right in what he implies here.

Absolutely right. What still amazes me, however, is how slow big parts for the game industry is in catching on to these tricks - considering how much of it is just directly transferable from the movie business. Game companies should get in more movie people. Or at least look at them and copy more.

Brandon Sheffield had some pretty interesting points in his column in the latest issue of Game Developer Magazine, specifically relating to distribution and game industry profits. It's not directly piracy he was talking about, but it's related. Recommended reading, because what it's all about is finding new working marketing and distribution models. That's where bigger profits will come from.

It's a crazy world... http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4 ... id=6185242 Personally I felt very offended and upset. I swear.

"Dez, World of Whorecraft pornography producer"

Brilliant! I'm gonna showing ALL these photos to my girlfriend - she's always whining about cables everywhere and my messy desk. If she sees what Sid Meier's desk looks like maybe she'll calm down

Anyway - pirating games is the easiest thing in the world - and still sales are huge for the really good games out there. So I wouldn't worry too much about our profits. I guess that a lot of us just like paying for a good product.

I'm not whining about the publishers. I'm just saying that there's no special reason why it's good for the industry to protect their copyright as it is defined now. I do agree with those advocating reform that current copyright laws usually rest on some pretty arbitrary preconceptions, and that it would be better for the industry to adapt with new business models instead of supporting expensive and intrusive surveillance of private citizens' communications. The whole issue does make me think of communist regimes, we agree there I am a professional and I want to be paid (lots) for my work. I just don't think my profits will go up from new and oppressive laws trying to artificially keep an antiquated intellectual property system barely alive. If anything that whole expensive surveillance system will make taxes go up and I will make LESS money As I said - new business models! I don't see Blizzard whining about WoW piracy.

By the way - this with the copyright/piracy issues is not just about a few progressive modern-day crazy vikings. It's a HUGE and growing discussion worldwide, which is much too complex and extensive to summarize here Check it out, it's very interesting.

Basically they want to combat the tendencies towards a 1984-style surveillance society, and instead open the way for realising the productive and creative potential of modern information technology. They argue that non-commercial filesharing stimulates both cultural expression and economic growth, as well as the general well-being of people, whereas artificially restricting the natural distribution of ideas and culture will stifle society - especially considering that in the end it can't be done without effectively allowing the police to come to your home and search your computer and your desk drawers. It's also about making law catch up with reality. Five hundred years ago it was illegal to say that the world was round. Besides, I'm a game developer and it's the publisher who's gonna cash in on my hard work, not me. And they are not productive, they have just managed to work a system which requires a old-fashioned physical distribution chain, thereby profiting on other people's (mine!) creative work. Valve is sort of being more modern with Steam - but the day every developer sells their games on download without letting publishers walk away with over half the profits, that's when this industry will have modernised more. One question: If I tell you something interesting from the book I'm reading and you don't pay the publisher for it - is that immoral?