Digital piracy (long)

[Nekojin]

Already addressed this part, but you probably didn't see it yet since you were probably typing this at the time.

As the rest of your post, therein lies a large part of the difference between Diablo and an MMO. First of all, since as you said, Diablo 3 has an in-game auction house that uses in-game currency, there's still going to be RMT. So there's that. But also, you're right, if they make the rules and don't enforce them, then it's toothless. That's why MMO's have GMs to ban gilsellers. If Blizzard wants to have it essentially set up like an MMO, then operate it as one.

They are. It's a no-subscription-fee MMO, for all practical purposes.

Then, a couple of years into the game's lifespan, they introduced a real money market in which you could buy a pack of elite skills for like $10. Needless to say, we were a bit miffed.

And how did this actually affect you? You're jealous that they could just buy it, rather than going through the grueling process of earning it the old-fashioned way... so what? You still have the pride of having actually earned it. It didn't diminish you in any way... it just elevated those who chose to buy them a little. And since you had experience in using the skills, you're still ahead of them.

- - - - -

Let me give you a bit of my history on this. Back in the day (EQ, early WoW), I was fiercely anti-RMT. I thought it was a blight on gaming, much as you do now. Then external things changed for me, and I found myself in a position of breaking the rules and selling something virtual on eBay for real cash (Gaia Online gold, if you must know). I did it, made a few hundred dollars, and felt guilty about it. Then a friend of mine invited me over to play UO, which was, by that time, a really old game. And RMT was active and allowed. Not exactly encouraged, but there were no rules against it, and he was essentially paying his monthly bills with it.

And then EQ2 launched their experimental "Exchange" servers, where RMT was expressly allowed, provided that you used the official channels for it. I played it, I paid my subscription for several months by selling items in-game, and it all finally clicked with me.

There were still people raving about how RMT was ruining EQ2, even though it was segregated away from them, on servers they weren't even playing on. There was no level of RMT that was acceptable to them - the very fact that it existed and was condoned, even within very strict controls, was enough for them to utterly flip their lids. Is this reasonable? When RMT doesn't have any impact on your gameplay at all, is complaining about it really a complaint worth listening to?

Here's a few points to consider.

* RMT exists. The only way to truly prevent it is to prevent all trading across the board. From the smallest trades, where Bobby gives his buddy Jimmy a spare Sword of Vorpal Dicing that he wasn't using for Jimmy's sandwich (which is RMT, in a sense - you're using real-world assets to trade for virtual assets), up to the big-time gold-sellers, once trading is possible, RMT is possible, and it is quite literally impossible to prevent.

* Diablo has always had a barter-system economy. Friends freely pass items among each other, acquaintances haggle for fair trades, and even total strangers try to haggle each other into a favorable deal. It's one of the cornerstones of Diablo, and one of the things that made Diablo 2 such a smash hit.

* A combination of duping, hacking (super-powerful items with modified stats), and third-party RMT ruined the Diablo 2 trading economy. Because Blizzard had no appreciable ongoing income from Diablo 2, they couldn't freely commit resources to it. They still dedicated some resources for patches, and released patches to try to kill duping several times. When the dupers worked around the patches literally within days of each patch going live, Blizzard decided that there wasn't anything that they could do about it with the way Diablo 2 was built.

* In order to try to control cheating, Blizzard decided that they needed to have dedicated servers, effectively hosting Diablo 3 on Blizzard hardware rather than using the peer-to-peer method of Diablo 2. Maintaining such an infrastructure is expensive - much less expensive than a full-blown MMO, but far more than they'd committed to sustaining Battle.Net for D2 (which they still sustain free of charge, incidentally).

* With the cost of dedicated servers, they needed to do something to fund this ongoing, recurring expense. They could have charged a nominal monthly fee, but research suggests that players are highly resistant to monthly fees for anything less than a top-tier MMO. So how do they fund the Diablo 3 servers?

With these facts in mind, what other method would you suggest Blizzard adopt to be able to offer (and pay for the support of) a clean, cheat-proof gaming environment?

[Nekojin]

Edit: Andara, then why even have the "time-sink" part of the game if you can just pay a bit of money to skip it? It's part of the game.

The difference between the existing system and just selling uber items directly is that with a player-based Auction House, someone has to actually do the work to earn the item. If they trade it to a friend, sell it for gold, or sell it for $10, what difference does it actually make to the game?

And it's not nearly as satisfying as earning it yourself.

To you. And, honestly, to me as well. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a subjective statement, an opinion - not a statement of fact.

[Andara Bledin]

With these facts in mind, what other method would you suggest Blizzard adopt to be able to offer (and pay for the support of) a clean, cheat-proof gaming environment?

That's my biggest beef with those who complain of Blizzard's choice of fix; nobody has a single suggestion for an alternative other than "It should be like D2," and ignoring the fact that D2 was monumentally cheat-riddled.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

To clarify one of my points:

They are. It's a no-subscription-fee MMO, for all practical purposes.

It's not an MMO, strictly speaking. It's a MORPG - Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. It is trying to find a happy middle ground between single-player offline gaming and the full-blown MMO experience.

[kamn]

Wow, something of a derail happened here...

On the subject of D3. I (now) understand why they did it. Im not happy about it, just as I wasn't happy about SC2, but I understand it now. And I support them. If nothing else, its an innovative step to some of the biggest troubles it is facing, both in Diablo and in WoW. Maybe it will show them a way to make everyone miserable, since I doubt there is any way to make everyone happy :P

I am very curious on your thoughts of Piracy and innovation. Does it hurt, kill, help, what?
I mean, some of the biggest mods (Counter strike) literally couldn't be done without piracy. But at the same time, it diminishes revenue to houses already experimenting (if we look at only gaming).

[Nekojin]

I am very curious on your thoughts of Piracy and innovation. Does it hurt, kill, help, what?
I mean, some of the biggest mods (Counter strike) literally couldn't be done without piracy. But at the same time, it diminishes revenue to houses already experimenting (if we look at only gaming).

My short answer is that no, piracy doesn't really hurt in the long run. Most piracy is done by people who won't buy the game anyway. If you have a popular, innovative game, you'll sell copies no matter what.

[lordlundar]

I'd like to hear how they could have designed a system where the game would be as secure as it is to protect the real money trading they have set up that would also allow for a completely offline single player option? Once you get real money involved, it becomes an online only game. It's the state of technology today. You don't have to like it, but the constant complaints with no realistic alternatives are wearying.

^-.-^

You answered yourself there Andara.

a completely offline single player option

The problem isn't the duping, it's allowing the single player and multi player to cross over. By cutting one off from the other completely which is doable (MP characters are stored server side while SP are stored on the users machine) that problem is cut off.

And I'll cut off the "but what if someone wants to hot seat into a game?" question right now. If someone wants to do that, then they use the MP mode. People wanting an honest MP experience will be fine with the restrictions. In fact, the only ones who would be put off would be the ones who want to cheat the system.

[Andara Bledin]

Piracy in and of itself likely doesn't have nearly the effect that many people tend to claim. Plus, it depends a large part on the type of piracy.

Any type of piracy that involves money changing hands (such as people buying duped copies of movies) is a serious issue in that people are willing to pay for the product and are (sometimes unwittingly) contributing to criminal activities, and the actual stake-holders are losing out on that revenue.

Purely digital piracy where no money changes hands is a far more nebulous issue. In a not-insignificant (and potentially quite significant) percentage of cases, those who procure the items without paying the copyright holders will often convert into customers. Some studies suggest that a "try before you buy" atmosphere actually leads to higher profits for the rights-holders than the standard "buy blind" model.

Also, if you go back to the old Napster "they're making us lose money" argument from the recording industry, the numbers tell a different story. While it is true that for that calendar year, the industry only reaped about 90% of the profit they had compared to the year before, they only produced about 75% of the content. This was revealed by someone within the music industry who believes that the stance on music sharing is backwards.

^-.-^

[Jaden]

To you. And, honestly, to me as well. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a subjective statement, an opinion - not a statement of fact.

I'm still for all intents and purposes done with this conversation, but I'd just like to say this is all opinion at this point. Like I said, we all understand how it works - it's just you guys are ok with it and I'm not. I don't see why this has to be a huge thing. Yeah, yeah, debate forum, but we already debated all that we could - at this point it's just a difference of preference. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your preference, nor do I think it's any lesser than mine. We just feel differently about something. Simple as that. I've explained my side, you've explained your side, and that's really all that we can do.

As for the Guild Wars thing, I'd like to point out that it had PvP. So you had to work to stay competitive in PvP...or you could just buy some skills and there you go. That's the part that pissed me off the most. It wasn't fair to the people who played the game legitimately. To be fair, I think they eventually changed it so that bought elite skills could only be used in PvE.

Anyways, as for the OP: I don't think that piracy is necessarily hurting the industries anywhere near as much as they claim, but for me, it's a moral issue. It's like, would I ever shove a CD or a video game in my backpack and walk out of the store? Of course not. And I don't really see the difference between doing that and pirating. I don't like the money-grubbing major labels and publishers either, but stealing is stealing, so I won't do it.

[Nekojin]

I'm still for all intents and purposes done with this conversation, but I'd just like to say this is all opinion at this point. Like I said, we all understand how it works - it's just you guys are ok with it and I'm not. I don't see why this has to be a huge thing. Yeah, yeah, debate forum, but we already debated all that we could - at this point it's just a difference of preference. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your preference, nor do I think it's any lesser than mine. We just feel differently about something. Simple as that. I've explained my side, you've explained your side, and that's really all that we can do.

People phrasing their opinions as though they're objective facts (which is how your comment came across, whether you intended it that way or not) is a pet peeve of mine.

And some of it is opinion, some of it is fact. Talking about how we feel about RMT is opinion. Talking about potential solutions, and the ramifications of those solutions, is more on the fact side of the table.

As for the Guild Wars thing, I'd like to point out that it had PvP. So you had to work to stay competitive in PvP...or you could just buy some skills and there you go. That's the part that pissed me off the most. It wasn't fair to the people who played the game legitimately. To be fair, I think they eventually changed it so that bought elite skills could only be used in PvE.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the people who bought their skills still had to learn how to use them, and you still had an inherent advantage in experience.

[Jaden]

People phrasing their opinions as though they're objective facts (which is how your comment came across, whether you intended it that way or not) is a pet peeve of mine.

Fair enough. If I came across that way, I sincerely apologize. That type of thing bothers me as well

[Andara Bledin]

The problem isn't the duping, it's allowing the single player and multi player to cross over.

Yes, but at that point you've got to develop two completely separate systems for the same game because you can't have the same content available in the offline game as in the online game and you can't have the same processes to assimilate the character and item data because both would lead to vulnerabilities in the online play.

At that point, you have to develop two completely separate games that only share video, audio, and story components and that's just not going to happen, particularly when the vast majority of people will put up with the always online and those who will just not get the game at all are a tiny minority.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Purely digital piracy where no money changes hands is a far more nebulous issue. In a not-insignificant (and potentially quite significant) percentage of cases, those who procure the items without paying the copyright holders will often convert into customers. Some studies suggest that a "try before you buy" atmosphere actually leads to higher profits for the rights-holders than the standard "buy blind" model.

I like the Paradox Interactive stance on it.

They let you pirate all you want, really. But you can't view subforums for the games (except AARs) and you'll be frequently asked, by other members, to register when you post on the forums (if you indicate you're actually playing a game.)

Also, obviously, you don't regularly get patches, and a lot of patches in these games actually add features (1.05 of CK2 added 'cause of death' to your ruler, which is really nice, although it also had a shit-ton of bugs)

I think that the Valve guy when they made Steam said that people needed to stop seeing the pirates as criminals, and start seeing them as legitimate competition. They can offer your game for free. What can you offer to compete with that?

[Jaden]

I think that the Valve guy when they made Steam said that people needed to stop seeing the pirates as criminals, and start seeing them as legitimate competition. They can offer your game for free. What can you offer to compete with that?

This is basically how I feel. I like the GOG/Valve method of combating piracy quite a lot. Not only does it not hurt the consumer, it's also just a more effective way to deal with it. Most of the other piracy combating methods only serve to encourage piracy rather than discourage it.

[Andara Bledin]

Brad Wardell over at Stardock believes that the key is to offer a superior experience to customers than non-customers. To that end, they try to keep offering updates, patches, and releases to those who have registered.

^-.-^