Avast!

By Shamus Posted Friday Feb 15, 2008

Filed under: Video Games 80 comments

Jay Barnson linked to a startling article by the Director of Marketing at Reflexive Games, stating that of the people playing their game (Ricochet Infinity) 92% of them were pirated copies. Do read the full article to put that number into perspective.

The Jolly Roger!
I’ve railed against anti-piracy measures before, and I’ve made it clear that no matter how alluring the game is I’m willing to go without rather than pirate it or tolerate onerous DRM. I don’t pretend to know a lot about how piracy works because I don’t engage in it myself. Still, I never would have dreamed the piracy numbers were anywhere near that bad. The article is sketchy on some details, and I’m curious what DRM they had in place originally and how it worked.

Let me try to put some spin on that 92% figure:

* This was well into the lifespan of the game, and it sounds like they were just looking at a snapshot of how many pirated copies were being played at the moment. It could be that a great number of people paid for the game when it was new, but that it has since fallen off the charts and out of notice on various casual game portals. Everyone that wanted the game and was willing to pay for it had done so. They bought it, they played it, and moved on. Therefore the only players still around are pirates who downloaded the game recently. I gather that it takes a while for a torrent to spread around. So as time goes legit sales fall and pirated copies proliferate. It could be that shortly after release that the ratio of pirates to legit users was reversed. More importantly, the all-time ratio might not be nearly as grim.

* It’s possible that a portion of that 92% were people that actually owned a legit copy but circumvented the DRM because it was annoying, or it interfered with their use of the product. (Like having it installed on their PC and laptop, for example.) Again, the original article is just too vague.

* The study didn’t (couldn’t) include people who didn’t take the game “on-line”, whatever that means. This is a breakout game for crying out loud. Okay, it’s a very elegant and sexy looking tenth-generation descendant of breakout, but still: I dunno what the “online” portion is about. If it’s some sort of PvP then I could imagine the more casual moms & dads (who paid for the game) would stick to the single-player stuff (and thus not show up in the study) while the kid in his parent’s basement (who didn’t pay for the game) would favor the part of the game that lets him call other people “fag”, since that’s obviously the big draw with online gaming.

But even if I was right about all of the above, I doubt it would bring that piracy figure into the single digits, which is where I would have guessed it was.

Are the numbers this bad everywhere, or just in casual games? Brad Wardell, founder and president of Stardock, has maintained that piracy is about convenience more than money. I’d imagine that finding a torrent to download and install a 6GB file for something like STALKER would have to be pretty danged inconvenient. A 6GB download would take longer than just driving to the store, anyway. By contrast, I think Ricochet Infinity is one of those games where you download the “demo” for 40MB and then just enter a serial number of some sort to unlock the whole thing. In the case of that sort of game, piracy is far more convenient. (Not that I’m saying this is a valid excuse, I’m just saying that maybe (hopefully) piracy isn’t quite as bad for other sorts of games. Just being “big” might be a sort of inadvertent anti-piracy measure.)

 


 

Perhaps *Not* the Root of All Evil?

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Feb 13, 2008

Filed under: Links 23 comments

As a follow-up to Monday’s story where Call of Duty 4 was blamed for a Marine’s disappearance, we have a nice story with a different point of view:

Video games provide relief, therapy for soldiers in Iraq.

See also: This roundup of Fox News stories related to videogames over at Jay Barnson’s place.

 


 

When Uprights Ruled the Earth

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 12, 2008

Filed under: Video Games 26 comments

The 70’s and 80’s made up the Paleozoic Era of Videogames. It began with the simplicity of creatures like pong and breakout, and eventually gave way to a myriad of massive arcade beasts. Ravenous for quarters, these games ruled the earth until the mass extinction event that was the arrival of home console gaming. Oh sure, there are still a few of those old dinosaurs around today, but the gaming world is now dominated by consoles and (to a lesser extent) personal computers. Many modern arcades are little more than quarter-fed museums.

In case you don’t remember the game, here is a really terrible re-creation of Centipede.

This makes for fascinating reading. It’s a series of documents from Atari in 1983, covering the development and deployment of Centipede. (PDF) In it, Atari employees discuss the merits of replacing the trackball with a joystick, how well the game performed against other Atari games, and various strategies that were emerging from players on how to play. I was also really surprised to see a section talking about how to attract more (Japanese) females to their machines. Even back then, they were looking for a way to reach the elusive “female gamer”.

I’d forgotten how innovative Atari* was at the time. The rotary controller of Tempest. The trackball in Centipede. The surreal landscape of Marble Madness. I’ve remembered Atari for their low-quality titles for the Atari console and general short-sightedness that (thankfully, in retrospect) gave rise to the Nintendo console, but in the early 80’s they were really looking for new ways to lure you away from your quarters make games fun and interesting. In 1983, they were still evolving.

Still, as good as Atari was in the early 80’s, it was Namco that ruled the day. Pac-Man was the Tyrannosaurus Rex of Arcade Games:

Hat tip: Jay Barnson.

* It might might be unfair to relate the Atari Console with the Atari arcade games. The history of the Atari brand is nearly impenetrable.)

 


 

Tolkien estate sues New Line Cinema

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 12, 2008

Filed under: Links 44 comments

A British Pound.  Just like the kind that New Line never paid to the Tolkien estate.
The title says it all.

Actually, it doesn’t.

The Tolkien estate is notoriously conservative (in the business sense) with the rights to LOTR. After the disappointing mess that was the 1978 LOTR movie, it was decided that the books would “never” be made into a movie again. The books were a tremendous success, so why risk debasing them by allowing them to be converted into (probably terrible) movies? The books represent some of the greatest works of fantasy ever, why risk associating them with crap?

This is a pretty reasonable position, and it wasn’t easy to lure the Tolkien estate estate away from this line of thinking. Last time they agreed to make a movie they wound up with a half-finished project which strayed far from the books and was widely panned. This time around they simply never got paid.

At the end of the article we learn that Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz and Peter Jackson’s production company both had to drag New Line Cinema into court to get their rightful cut of the proceeds. It looks like the New Line Cinema policy is to not pay their bills and make people sue them for their rightful cut. That’s an unsustainable way of doing business. If you lose, you have to pay extra, plus the cost of fighting the losing lawsuit. If you win, nobody will want to do business with you in the future. As it stands, the Tolkien estate is suing not just for their money, but also to take away the rights to make “The Hobbit”, which New Line had managed to secure. If New Line loses, they lose not just a heap of money in punitive damages, but everything they could have made from The Hobbit.

I know it’s a common practice among movie companies to engage in a little creative accounting to make it look like projects never make money, but the more they gross, the harder it gets to do this. By the time your films gross 2 billion globally, it’s probably time to admit that you had some left over. I can understand trying to cheat the estate by under-paying them, but giving them nothing? There is no other way that can go but into court, with the odds strongly against New Line.

I would really love to know what New Line is thinking. It seems like they are being very short-sighted and self-destructive.

It also seems like we’re not going to be seeing The Hobbit anytime soon, if ever.

(Thanks to Davesnot for the link.)

UPDATE: Justin Alexander corrects some of the details in the comments below. The central fact remains, though: New Line didn’t just burn their bridges behind them. They burned the bridge they were standing on.

 


 

My Animated Ads in IE7

By Shamus Posted Monday Feb 11, 2008

Filed under: Random 44 comments

Here is an interesting problem:

In IE7, some of the ads here on my site don’t show up for me. Specifically, the animated ones show up as a blank white rectangle. They work just peachy in Firefox.

The odd thing is that the same ads work just fine on other sites. I use the same advertising service as the Webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del, and over there I can see animated ads just fine in IE7.

So the problem only arises for:

  1. Animated ads
  2. On this site
  3. Using IE7.

All other ads work fine.

This makes no sense to me. For those of you using IE, can you look at the ads in the sidebar (I’m not trolling for free clicks, I just need you to look) and tell me if you see blank white boxes showing up? Or if you see ads playing which have animations?

If this is only a problem for me, then it’s no big deal. If the problem is more widespread then I need to figure out where things are going wrong. Either way, it’s one of those oddball mysteries that bugs me.

 


 

The Root of All Evil

By Shamus Posted Monday Feb 11, 2008

Filed under: Rants 54 comments

Let’s see:

  • A Marine goes off to war.
  • He is injured in an explosion. He spends 13 weeks in the hospital recovering.
  • In the explosion, he personally witnesses his best friend’s decapitation.
  • His injuries are extensive enough that he is granted medical retirement.
  • He returns home to the states, where he begins hallucinating and having flashbacks.
  • Sitting at home playing Call of Duty 4, he suddenly gets up, leaves the house, goes on a motorcycle ride and disappears. His motorcycle is found along the side of the road sometime later.

So what headline is the story under?

Missing Ex-Marine’s Family Says Video Game May Have Sparked Disappearance

Yeah. The videogame. I’m sure that was the problem.

LATER: I’d closed comments because I was just sure there would be that one guy who couldn’t resist using this post as a launching post for talking about The War. I’ve reconsidered, but please do observe the no politics policy.

LATER STILL: Link fixed. Duh.

 


 

With Great Power…

By Shamus Posted Friday Feb 8, 2008

Filed under: Nerd Culture 119 comments

I enjoyed the discussion the other day on the various uses and uselessness of super abilities. It is surprisingly difficult to benefit the world, even when you wield fantastic powers. Imagine if you were granted the following:

* Incredible strength. Enough to, say, throw several tons. You can throw a tank, assuming you can get a decent grip on it instead of just ripping off bits of the hull.

* You can fly. Supersonic speeds, but not “light speed” or anything like that. About the speed of a fighter jet.

* You are functionally indestructible. A solid hit with a cruise missile would stun you. Maybe a nuke would kill you, but you’re impervious to conventional weapons, immune to fire, can tolerate extreme cold, and can hold your breath for hours. It would take dedicated effort on the part of a major government to put you down.

But that’s it. You don’t have super sight or hearing or telepathy or a sixth sense or any other bonuses to your perception. You’re just strong, you can fly, and you’re invincible.

Okay, that’s cool. But how do you make the world better?

I’m annoyed at how useless I would be, in the big scheme of things. I couldn’t solve any of the world’s major problems. I couldn’t even solve the small ones.

What about hotspots around the world where fighting is going on? Well, I don’t think I could be trusted to do a lot of good there. If I went to Darfur, what could I do? Without knowing the language(s) and having a solid understanding of the various tribes, I wouldn’t be able to identify the sides in any of the numerous conflicts. I would have to rely on someone else for intelligence, and I’d run a very real risk of being used and misled. Even if there was someone I could trust to guide me, one man alone can’t watch all 493,180 km² of Darfur. The best I could do is guard a single group of people. That would be nice, but it wouldn’t put a dent in the death toll.

So what about drugs? They kill thousands every year and gang violence (fueled by drugs) kill even more. But I couldn’t break the power of drugs over the addicts of the world. I could try to stop the flow of drugs, but how would I go about it? The DEA has agents who know the business inside out, working 24/7, and they aren’t able find most drug shipments. I would have no way of finding really large caches of drugs. Guarding the border of the US (yes I’m being selfish and just “helping” the US right now) would be even harder than Darfur. If drug mules can outwit and out-maneuver the DEA, then they can surely route around me.

Forget about stopping random crime. The classic scene of a superhero stopping bank robbers sounds nice, but when was the last time anyone robbed a bank with machine guns? It’s always one guy who walks in with (maybe) a gun and walks out with the cash. The police usually catch those guys anyway. They don’t need my help. Even if I had some way of getting to the scene of the crime, this isn’t a comic book. The bad guy wouldn’t shoot at ME. If he had half a brain he’d take a hostage, and now instead of the police picking him up without incident a few hours from now, we have this tense standoff that could get someone killed. Way to go, superguy: You just made things worse. Other types of random crime aren’t any better. I have no way of knowing about the crime until after it’s taken place. I won’t be able to reach the scene much faster than the police (imagine trying to navigate by flying around where you can’t see street signs or building numbers) and won’t be any good once I get there.

So random crime doesn’t work. What about organized crime? John Gotti aside, crime bosses aren’t usually that well-known. Even if they were, what would I do? Drag him to the police? The police already know where he is. They need admissible evidence before they could detain him, and I don’t have any way of getting that. Would I take justice into my own hands, and hurt or punish him outside of the system? Hmmm. That leads down a dark road. I’d better hope I never “punish” the wrong people. There is also the question of how my vigilantism would be viewed by society at large. What am I going to tell people? No, really! He’s a bad guy! Trust me!

If there was a good, clear war with well-defined sides of good and evil where everybody wears uniforms, I could probably help. Something along the lines of World War II. But wars like that are rare. Worse, my presence in the world might just convince the aggressors to use different tactics instead. They might resort to terror or nukes, and I’d be helpless again. Just the fact that there is a superhero could make the war worse.

I like the idea of helping a local group of fire departments, although even that line of work is dangerous. Sure, I’m fireproof, but the people I’m trying to save aren’t. I have to know how to get in, find them, and extract them without them getting burned alive, crushed by debris, or suffocating. (And without knocking down the building in my search.) That’s tricky business. Still, with practice and a large enough area of involvement I might be able to make my powers useful.

Acting as a life-flight “helicopter” would probably be my best bet. I wouldn’t need a huge landing spot, and I could get there faster than a real helicopter. I could very quickly find the ambulance (the flashing lights would guide me nicely) and I could just grab the gurney (or whatever) and go.

So here we are with incredible super powers, and the best I can do is sit by the police scanner and help out in the occasional emergency. I might save a couple of lives a year. That’s great, and I’d be happy to do it, but it seems pretty tame in comparison with the incredible powers given. In fact, I think my list is pathetic. Let’s see if anyone else can do better.

So now it’s your turn: How would you make the world better with the powers listed above?

Responses are likely to be long. If you don’t want to pour all that text into the comments, feel free to post on your own blog, link, spread the love around. I’ll link back.

(I know I mentioned Darfur above, which can easily lead to a political exchange. It probably goes without saying, but let’s avoid that.)

LATER: More here. And here.

And here is another great response.