SERIAL GANKER

The key thing is that DF is an MMO with FPS aspect...

2013-04-27T08:32:49.869-07:00

The key thing is that DF is an MMO with FPS aspects. So pure FPS fans might not enjoy it because character power and progression still matter, unlike in a FPS.

But overall, DF really is a twist on UO, with better combat.

Good day! Saw your comment on Syncaine's blog...

2013-04-18T06:25:26.893-07:00

Good day!

Saw your comment on Syncaine's blog, and followed it, and I find this system intriguing. Sadly, I'm still trying to complete patching, so it may be a while before I can get into it.

Because of durability loss as well as consumable u...

2013-04-16T09:12:07.648-07:00

Because of durability loss as well as consumable use, Darkfall PvP is also negative-sum (or winnter-take-some). There really isn't a difference between having some items not drop on death and having all items lose durability.

That said, the value lost in a 'death' in EVE is a far higher proportion of the total value than it is in Darkfall. In EVE, you *can* make a profit doing PvP - I did exclusively for years - though it was extremely difficult.

I threw out 100k because that's the number ass...

2013-04-04T16:05:52.534-07:00

I threw out 100k because that's the number assuming that the utility on skills increases. Which, based on what Tasos said recently, sounds like will happen. In current beta state, there isn't much point to go beyond 50-60k depending on role.

100k prowess is a lot man. I don't think anyon...

2013-04-04T15:23:11.131-07:00

100k prowess is a lot man. I don't think anyone but the 24/7 crew will hit that in the first month.

But yea, I agree with everything else. Hopefully AV does as well and the stuff that is not in right now comes sooner rather than later, and sustains the population at a decent level.

I took a hiatus from MMOs which inevitably leads t...

2013-02-20T08:28:59.221-08:00

I took a hiatus from MMOs which inevitably leads to a hiatus on a blog about MMOs. :)

Hopefully, NDA lifts soon and I can provide more specifics.

In a game like DF where repeated actions increase skills, it's difficult to get rid of afk macro'ing completely (particularly with the new mice/keyboards).

That said, the issue has been severely mitigated. The problem with DF1 was that you couldn't be viable WITHOUT afk macroing. In UW, that's definitely not the case and the advantage from skilling up this way is relatively short-lived.

Nice to see signs of life here. I look forward to ...

2013-02-20T01:35:25.293-08:00

Nice to see signs of life here. I look forward to NDA lifting. I've always been interested in Darkfall but was rather put off first time round by the idea of macro afk skilling.

The groups describe the different possible behavio...

2010-09-17T22:00:57.623-07:00

The groups describe the different possible behaviors. But what they don't describe is the size of those groups.

Now I think where we disagree is that you believe there are lots of Mikes while I think that's a much smaller group.

As for piracy.. I think the idea that "gamers are driven to piracy by expensive games" is grossly overstated as a cause of piracy.

I would argue that people DON'T pirate games for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with price.

1) they don't know how, or
2) they find that pirated games are buggy or lack features, or
3) they don't want to break the law, or
4) they find theft morally objectionable, or
5) they believe it's a security risk.

I would go even further and say that if someone has no qualms or problems with any of those issues -- THEY ARE ALREADY PIRATING GAMES.

I would also argue that, for most people, $20 is just not enough money to eliminate the qualms that the average Joe might have about pirating games.

@Sid: 'I would argue that all rationalizations...

2010-09-17T05:05:50.325-07:00

@Sid: 'I would argue that all rationalizations, boycotts, and angry rants aside -- when push comes to shove, people will cave to their impulse and buy the game for no other reason than because they want to play it.'

Those are the ones that will pirate the game, I think. Like I said, why buy a lower-quality game for more money if you can get a higher-quality game for free?

Sorry for the double post. I forgot to address that last point.

@Sid: I'm not assuming anything. (A) is Mike....

2010-09-17T05:03:12.355-07:00

@Sid:

I'm not assuming anything. (A) is Mike. He said straight out that he would not buy as many games if he couldn't resell. (Mike may actually be a combination of (A) and (C). He may not choose to pirate the game. Perhaps I should have included a (D).) (C) is me. I'm also not going to buy new games that I cannot resell if they turn out to be shit, or if they contain features that I disapprove of (looking at you, Starcraft 2). Only I won't pirate them either.

However, I'm no longer going to condemn piracy, as every pirated game is a vote against the 'new order' of gaming.

If (A) instead realizes that he cannot legally ...

2010-09-16T10:49:31.148-07:00
If (A) instead realizes that he cannot legally resell the game, he makes the decision not to buy, since he no longer has a legal avenue to recoup part of the loss in the event he dislikes the game. Further, (C), who could afford $40 for a used game, but not $60 for a new one (or was instead unwilling to pay more than $40 for a game), buys no game. Only (B) buys the game. The developer recieves $60.

There is truth in that and I would agree that it's worth amending that (A) resells to (C). And (B) represents the group that doesn't resell at all.

BUT -- keep in mind that I am making no claims as to the size of any of these groups. I would hazard that (B) is the majority.

And you are also assuming that no (A)s would choose to buy it anyway or wait for a discounted price.

I would argue that all rationalizations, boycotts, and angry rants aside -- when push comes to shove, people will cave to their impulse and buy the game for no other reason than because they want to play it.

@Sid: Dude, did you read his response? He very spe...

2010-09-16T06:21:52.941-07:00
@Sid:
Dude, did you read his response? He very specifically said that if he could not resell games, he would buy fewer games and be more choosy about the ones he buys.

Here's the scenario:

If inital purchasers (A) and (B) buy a game new for $60 and then (A) sells it used to secondary market (C) for $40, the game company recieves $120.

If (A) instead realizes that he cannot legally resell the game, he makes the decision not to buy, since he no longer has a legal avenue to recoup part of the loss in the event he dislikes the game. Further, (C), who could afford $40 for a used game, but not $60 for a new one (or was instead unwilling to pay more than $40 for a game), buys no game. Only (B) buys the game. The developer recieves $60.

Then, (A) discovers that he can download the game from a torrent site for free. He does so, and the rise in piracy is noted by the game company. Their next game ships with some annoying DRM designed to combat piracy. The increased development cost of the DRM software drives the price of the new game up to $65, and the DRM pisses off players, thus lowering the quality of the game.

(A) pirates this game, as he did the last one, and discovers that not only is the game free, it lacks the annoying DRM. He shares this information with (B) and (C). (B) decides to pirate the game, because why pay $65 for a lower-quality game when you can get a higher-quality version for free. (C) refuses to pirate the game because piracy is stealing, but he also will not pay $65 for a game, especially not one with restrictive DRM. The game company sells no games and thus makes $0. Furthermore, they spent extra money to develop the 'anti-piracy' DRM.

@Mike: How do you possibly figure that? Consider ...

2010-09-14T18:44:45.683-07:00
@Mike:
How do you possibly figure that?

Consider that everyone buying full price will continue to buy full price. Since they received ZERO compensation from the used sale, there is no lost revenue from those sales.

And if just *1* of those people who would have bought the game used instead buy it new -- well, that's a positive outcome for the software developer.

Let's take a hypothetical situation with four gamers each representing what I believe is rational consumer behavior.

Each month, Gamer "A" always buys a New game for $60. Gamer "B" and "C" like to buy two Used games for $30. And Gamer "D" likes to wait until the retail price of a game is discounted off the full $60 (down to $40 or even $20). Gamer "D" doesn't want to buy Used, but he also doesn't want to buy full price.

Under this scenario, the devs (and retail distributors) net $60 from Gamer "A" and $40 from Gamer "D". They net nothing from B and C who made purchases in the secondary market.

Now let's take Used games out of the equation.

Gamer "A" still buys new, Gamer "D" still buys a discounted copy. Gamer "B" is pissed off and just decides to pirate it. But Gamer "C" decides to act like Gamer "D" and buy a retail copy when it eventually gets discounted for $40.

The net upside for the developer is +$40 even with one gamer choosing to pirate the game.

"But the longer term ramification is that the...

2010-09-14T09:46:26.821-07:00
"But the longer term ramification is that the companies and individuals producing this software will be more justly compensated. "

No they won't. They'll get no more than they do currently. Probably less.

If I can no longer get a rebate on my $60 game purchase by transferring that license to another party then...

1. I'll be a lot more choosy about which games I buy and

2. I will buy fewer games.

Also sjonnar is correct, expect an increase in piracy.

Oh, I absolutely agree on the piracy thing. It'...

2010-09-13T08:27:31.420-07:00
Oh, I absolutely agree on the piracy thing. It's also unlikely to stop the secondary market entirely.

And no.. I don't think we'll see "better" games as a result but I do believe we'll see more games.

In any event, that's not really my point as to why I think it's a good ruling. Namely, I think it's a fair ruling about WHO OWNS THE Intellectual Property.

What do you own? You own a license to use. And a license is not a free card to do whatever the hell you want with the software.

That said, I do have some issues with how licenses are protected by copyright law. Namely, that it's a criminal offense to violate terms of the license.

It rubs me wrong that what amounts to a CONTRACT between you and the developer is enforceable by prison time and fines. No other CONTRACT is protected that way.

That's what was really bothersome about the Blizzard v. MDY case. The ruling there was that language in the "Code of Conduct" is to be considered part of the license.

So, as an extreme example, you could now make a legal case that "swearing" in an MMO is a violation of Copyright.

'...DRM, thus lowering the cost of new titles....

2010-09-13T04:51:39.282-07:00
'...DRM, thus lowering the cost of new titles...'

That should have been 'thus lowering the quality of new titles. oops.

Do you truly believe that game developers will now...

2010-09-13T04:49:28.740-07:00
Do you truly believe that game developers will now produce better quality products as a result of this ruling? And I thought that I was a naive person.

Let me tell you what I think will happen: This ruling will result in a massive spike in actual piracy, for two reasons.

The first reason is that, with the used game market gone, players who want inexpensive games will be forced to wait months or even years for the prices of new games to drop to an affordable level. Meanwhile, pirated versions will hit torrent sites within weeks at most. Considering the average consumer's deeply ingrained sense of entitlement, a large portion of these people will opt for 'free game now' as opposed to 'cheap game two years from now'.

Second, a very large percentage of gamers will be very angry upon hearing that they don't own the software they paid hard-earned money for. They will make the decision to, rather than pay Big Videogames $60 for their 'permission' to play, pirate a game, and thus 'own' it.

Therefore, with piracy 'suddenly' on the rise, game developers will spend even more time on intrusive and frustrating DRM, thus lowering the cost of new titles, and will pass along the increased costs of DRM development to legitimate buyers, thus raising prices. So quite the opposite of recieving higher quality for less, legal customers will get lower quality for more.

Ergo, I will not be buying any more games until this ruling is overturned, and I hereby withdraw all past condemnations of pirates and software piracy. Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum, boys. Go get busy.

It is the companies responsibility to fix a broken...

2010-09-02T20:37:27.508-07:00
It is the companies responsibility to fix a broken game that a person paid for. Whether or not it's the companies choice to support it past the original purchaser is the question Sid brought up.

It's not as much a problem today, but back in the early 2000's(when the internet became commonplace in most gamers homes) it was common for devs to release a patch the day of release that would fix things they didn't have time to put into the ROM.

This is a pretty damn good concept Sid. It solves a lot of concerns in one fell swoop. I hope something like this comes along.

Because someone paid for it initially, and they...

2010-09-01T08:08:38.486-07:00
Because someone paid for it initially, and they promised support for the game, not the purchaser?

No. They promise support to the original owner for as long as the original owner wants it.

Why should they be promising to provide ongoing to the original owner for as long as he wants it then the secondary owner for as long as they want and then the tertiary owner for as long as they want it and so on?

"Why should a company be indebted to provide ...

2010-08-31T14:54:38.067-07:00
"Why should a company be indebted to provide ongoing support for a product you didn't pay them for?"

Because someone paid for it initially, and they promised support for the game, not the purchaser?

...not that I know how many actually promise that, but that's one answer to the "why" question.

@Scott: There have been court cases that have said...

2010-08-29T09:49:04.911-07:00
@Scott: There have been court cases that have said that limiting a person's ability to transfer ownership of the license is bogus, but the license itself is protected under Copyright Law. And as such, the terms in the EULA are very enforceable and even punishable by criminal action (prison time & fines).

That's part of what was so scary about Blizzard v. MDY (Glider). The court effectively said that Blizzard could include certain terms in Terms of Use (a separate legal document) in the EULA (the one protected by Copyright law) and upheld the idea that YOU do not own even the copy loaded into your computer's memory and any alterations to that copy are a violation of Copyright Law.

That said, my main point is that I think recent approaches by EA and THQ to limit support to second-hand owners is an appropriate and legal one.

Why should a company be indebted to provide ongoing support for a product you didn't pay them for?

This sounds like the most reasonable method of det...

2010-08-29T09:46:10.942-07:00
This sounds like the most reasonable method of deterring multiple purchases of one "boxed/jewel-case/ROM" . To be honest, I see methods like Steam being the only future of PC gaming purchases. It's a win/win situation. If the consumer can wait it out they will be able to buy a $60 game for $40-30 and the people that designed the game get something instead of nothing.

As for the consoles, something similar will need to be used. Maybe, as the cost to produce USB/SSD storage drives goes down there will be a way for consoles(and maybe PC) developers and publishers to limit the amount of "owners" one copy of their game can have. Since that form of media can easily be written to opposed to say CD/DVD ROMS.

There have also been court rulings saying the whol...

2010-08-29T07:22:19.765-07:00
There have also been court rulings saying the whole "buying a license" thing is bogus. Those EULA's we love to quote are completely unenforceable.

Isn't what you're saying more or less the tactic EA has started using? People who bought Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age: Origins have immediate access to all DLC via a code in the box. People buying it used do not, but for roughly $10 they can "buy in" and have that access. The system is currently a bit confusing (at least on XBL, and that may not be EA's fault) but I prefer opening things to customer choice rather than Ubisoft requiring a constant online connection.

Just a thought towards the "software and patches" though. Not all software gets patched. Not all of that which does gets comprehensive patches.

The previous book I finished was by a long-time professional author and professionally edited and published, yet still had several typos. If a revised edition is published (who knows, maybe when we're all digital they can stream fixes?) correcting those, is that considered "support?"

What about musicians who may remaster or re-record one of their own songs? Isn't that "patching" their song, in a way?

I dunno about that. Whether transferring a license...

2010-08-29T05:36:27.452-07:00
I dunno about that. Whether transferring a license or a piece of property, (and I'll always argue property; I bought the game with the expectation that I would own said game upon payment to the vendor) the fact remains that you are transferring it, not copying it. You forfeit ownership and someone else acquires it; one sale, one copy in circulation, one end user.

If companies should choose not to support used games, I believe the free market will take care of that in time. Used game markets will refuse to buy games that will not be supported in the future, and so fewer people will purchase the game new, knowing that they cannot resell it if they do not like it. Depending on the percentage of the intended market that refuses the game, the monetary punishment for this kind of behavior may be severe enough to put a stop to it.

That being said, though I disagree with your opinion, at least you made a rational argument, as opposed to 'Anyone who buys a used game is a PIRATE and a THIEF!!!11'

Like you've said, the points you make are base...

2010-08-23T07:14:23.632-07:00
Like you've said, the points you make are based on the people you've met in games so far.
I cannot agree with the theory at all because I play MMOs and in the wow guild I am in, I am surrounded by well-educated and successful people - from business associates over college teachers to owning their own companies. I dont know whether the fact that it is a competitive raidguild I'm in matters, maybe it is different in laidback guilds.
I reckon if you're ambitious in real life you're likely to go for a more hardcore guild too.

If anything influences your lack of knowing successful people IRL who are also gamers, I think one very big aspect there is that gaming is still stigmatized as lame and geeky and hence nobody admits freely that he also likes to slay orcs and goblins after work. a shame too, because like this the image of gamers will never change.
a lot of gamers are forced into anonymity which the latest open ID debacle around WoW has proven.