Report: Crysis 2 Leaked

[DArtagnan]

It devalues the product, it prevents those people from saving up and paying for it, it sends the message that it is okay to play it for free, etc.. Even a pirated copy that is not a lost sale can be harmful in all manner of ways.

But it's supposed to devalue the product - or rather the next product, in this case.

There's no specific message sent, as it can be interpreted in all manner of ways. People have been trying to define piracy as some kind of black-white evil of the industry, but that's not the only explanation in my world.

However, as long as I know why I pirate when I do - I have no interest in what others interpret it as. Most people clearly haven't got a clue - so their opinion is of very little interest to me.

More to the point though my opinion is that if you ain't putting something in, you shouldn't be getting something out. Why should people not funding the industry get to reap the benefits of the industry? Call me petty but that just isn't right.

In an ideal world and an ideal industry - I'd agree with that in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, there are more things to take into consideration than paying for that which you get. Because you're also voting for the future - and you have to consider the effect of supporting whatever game you're interested in playing or trying.

I don't view publishers as the enemy, they fund game development. Indie games are awesome but at the end of the day I also want to play big-budget games, and to make big-budget games most developers need a publisher, they are an integral part of the process and them making money means more games for us.

I don't view anyone as an enemy. I just see what people are doing, and then I try to decide if I should support them.

If someone dislikes corporate games to the point where they don't care if they are still made or not then why play them? Why pirate them? Seems like a waste of time… so just don't buy them AND don't play them. If you want to play them then you should support them, simple as that.

It's not about the games themselves, but the industry and where it's headed. Corporate games can be interesting, or even great - though it's rather rare for me to experience that these days. But if you actively support what you think is wrong, just because you want to pay for that which you spend time with - then you have to accept that you're helping the industry become what it is becoming - or what it has become.

That's what doesn't sit well with me, and I've actually been very supportive of a detrimental direction of the industry. Because I generally buy way too many games on impulse - without thinking things through. I'll probably even buy Dragon Age 2 - just because I'm interested in trying it out - hoping against hope that EA/Bioware do good things with the money.

I'll end up regretting it again, I'm sure.

 

[JemyM]

Indie games are awesome but at the end of the day I also want to play big-budget games, and to make big-budget games most developers need a publisher, they are an integral part of the process and them making money means more games for us.

To the contrary. The goal of making profit means less games for us.

As long as the goal is to make money rather than games, the market eventually begin to behave like a planned economy without a government. A generalized concept of a "gamer" stereotype is created and developers aim at meeting this stereotypes demands. When all major publishers do this, and developers need the publishers funding to produce games, eventually all games looks and plays the same. Eventually the publisher thus decide the market rather than follow the markets demands. The loss of diversity cause people who do not fit the archetype to either give up gaming or never try it. The loss of people who enjoy different kinds of games only diminishes the market, enforcing the gamer stereotype.

A few years ago I thought the market would expand, creating new and innovative designs that created games for people who weren't yet gamers, such as older people or women. This did not happen. Instead creativity, puzzles and strategy have been diminished to fit the above stereotype. Those who enjoyed such games are thus no longer seen as a part of the market.

If someone dislikes corporate games to the point where they don't care if they are still made or not then why play them? Why pirate them? Seems like a waste of time… so just don't buy them AND don't play them. If you want to play them then you should support them, simple as that.

This means that you think the most rational solution to the overarching problem is to simply let the hobby die.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

But it's supposed to devalue the product - or rather the next product, in this case.

There's no specific message sent, as it can be interpreted in all manner of ways. People have been trying to define piracy as some kind of black-white evil of the industry, but that's not the only explanation in my world.

However, as long as I know why I pirate when I do - I have no interest in what others interpret it as. Most people clearly haven't got a clue - so their opinion is of very little interest to me.

Well pretty much everyone breaking the law has a reason or justification that makes them think they're right, and they generally ignore those who try and point out otherwise. It doesn't surprise me you share that opinion.

To me though, like I said, it is a simple equation. It's not a matter of gray areas and immoral laws. If you don't put anything IN you shouldn't get anything OUT. If you don't want to support corporate gaming then fine, great, but then you shouldn't reap the benefits of corporate gaming by playing those games for free. Why would you even bother if you dislike them so much and feel they are ruining the industry? It makes no sense.

Either you enjoy playing them or you don't. If you do, pay up and put something in. If you don't then stop playing stuff you don't want to play, not only because it is piracy but also just because it is an incredible waste of time.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

As long as the goal is to make money rather than games, the market eventually begin to behave like a planned economy without a government. A generalized concept of a "gamer" stereotype is created and developers aim at meeting this stereotypes demands. When all major publishers do this, and developers need the publishers funding to produce games, eventually all games looks and plays the same. Eventually the publisher thus decide the market rather than follow the markets demands. The loss of diversity cause people who do not fit the archetype to either give up gaming or never try it. The loss of people who enjoy different kinds of games only diminishes the market, enforcing the gamer stereotype.

A few years ago I thought the market would expand, creating new and innovative designs that created games for people who weren't yet gamers, such as older people or women. This did not happen. Instead creativity, puzzles and strategy have been diminished to fit the above stereotype. Those who enjoyed such games are thus no longer seen as a part of the market.

It's been about money since it started man. The reason people made Might and Magic and Baldur's Gate, shit the reason people made the original D&D, was to make money. Indie developers right now making classic style RPGs and whatever else are doing it to make money. You need to get over that, it's capitalism, it's how the whole thing works. It has downsides of course, but is there a better alternative? Communism sure ain't it.

The key thing is that you don't have to buy the games, you don't have to support their efforts and the games they make. If you don't like the games they make and don't like their tactics then just don't buy those games, don't support those publishers. At the same time though don't pirate the games either, because like I just said not only is it illegal copyright infringement, it's also just a stupid waste of time to play games you don't like.

If you do like them then come to terms with that and pay up.

This means that you think the most rational solution to the overarching problem is to simply let the hobby die.

I don't even know what this means. CRPGs are either still around and worth playing (and supporting) or they are not. That's just the facts man, there is no room for debate there. If you like playing Dragon Age, Two Worlds, The Elder Scrolls, Risen or whatever other games then put something IN and support them, then get something OUT, the gameplay.

If you don't like those games then find other ones, be it Dead State or Avernum or whatever else. Put something IN to those indie devs and get something OUT. If you don't even like those then the hobby is already dead for you I guess, because no one is making anything you want to play.

Wherever you stand the point is you either want to play something or you don't and if you do you should chip in for the opportunity, or else you are just a leech.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well pretty much everyone breaking the law has a reason or justification that makes them think they're right, and they generally ignore those who try and point out otherwise. It doesn't surprise me you share that opinion.

I'm not sure they're necessarily ignoring those who try to point out otherwise.

It's really a shared misconception of having the right answer to everything.

To me though, like I said, it is a simple equation. It's not a matter of gray areas and immoral laws. If you don't put anything IN you shouldn't get anything OUT. If you don't want to support corporate gaming then fine, great, but then you shouldn't reap the benefits of corporate gaming by playing those games for free. Why would you even bother if you dislike them so much and feel they are ruining the industry? It makes no sense.

I'm not sure why you don't understand. So I'll try again.

Let me give you an example:

Dragon Age was a good game, worthy of purchase. That's my opinion.

I bought it expecting a decent game, and I got one that was even better.

The problem is that EA/Bioware used the success to head in the completely wrong direction, from where I'm sitting. That tells me what they're about - and whether they actually deserve support.

It might very well be that Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age 3 are good games as well, though most likely they'll be increasingly casual and streamlined.

So, I have the choice of buying them because they're entertaining - at least for a little while (I doubt I'll finish them) - or not buying them, so I can vote against the way EA/Bioware are dealing with their success.

If I buy them, I could "feel good" paying for that which I might potentially get to enjoy - but I'd also have to deal with "feeling bad" because I've actively supported a direction that I despise.

So, I might download a torrent and test it out - and then decide if I think it's as bad as I fear. If I do that, my purchase would have to depend on my overall evaluation of the game, and everything outside of the game in terms of what they're doing.

Do you understand how a game can be good, while still worse than what came before - and that by supporting such a game - you're consciously and deliberately supporting the wrong thing?

It's the way the industry is constructed that's the issue. I can't influence it in any sensible way - so I have to go out of my way to research things and understand the history of it, and how marketing works - to even have the slightest chance at doing something I can feel good about.

I'm not the sort of person who can just close my eyes and pretend everything is as simple as I'd love for it to be. I envy people who buy everything and feel like they're doing good. But you must understand that someone like me, who despises commercialism, capitalism, opportunism, and money as a goal - just can't do that all the time.

Either you enjoy playing them or you don't. If you do, pay up and put something in. If you don't then stop playing stuff you don't want to play, not only because it is piracy but also just because it is an incredible waste of time.

See above.

Yeah well I actually enjoy a lot of modern games. I don't mind sending EA and such money when they make games I enjoy playing. Are games overall as good as they were 10 years ago? Not really. Are they still fun and worth playing though? Yeah, a lot of them are, to me anyway.

Yeah, they seem to be getting worse - and you've supported it and you're still supporting it.

Note that I'm not judging anyone, and I very rarely do. I can see this from both sides, and I can perfectly understand why people feel best by paying for everything they buy. Especially if you live in the US, where you're basically scum if you question the capitalist mindset by not supporting it.

If they aren't for you then okay, that's fine. I see where you're coming from. Don't support them either, you're right that it would be stupid to do so. Why pirate them though? Again, if you don't like them then why play them? It is the essence of hypocrisy.

No, hypocrisy is about delusion of acting holier-than-thou. What I'm doing, is essentially 100% pragmatic - in terms of what I think is the most beneficial approach. Even if I fully realise my actions will never really matter, and it's mostly just my personal little way of not supporting that which I hate.

It has nothing to do with morals and I generally don't have much use for that concept - since it's too subjective to really talk about with much success.

"I dislike the games you make and everything you are doing to the industry but I also play your games. I hate them but I keep playing them! Arg! Rage!"

You really have a hard time not putting people in tiny boxes, don't you?

 

[ToddMcF2002]

I don't think this really changes anything. As a major release, Crysis 2 would be cracked on release anyway. People who would download the cracked release are the same people who would download this leaked version.

 

[GothicGothicness]

It's been about money since it started man. The reason people made Might and Magic and Baldur's Gate, shit the reason people made the original D&D, was to make money. Indie developers right now making classic style RPGs and whatever else are doing it to make money. You need to get over that, it's capitalism, it's how the whole thing works. It has downsides of course, but is there a better alternative? Communism sure ain't it.

Really? and why do you think people publish indie games for free? that they spent years on? to make money?

Why do you think a lot of indies makes indie games on top of their regular work and are satisfied with a return on investment?

Probably not to make money?

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Dragon Age was a good game, worthy of purchase. That's my opinion.

I bought it expecting a decent game, and I got one that was even better.

The problem is that EA/Bioware used the success to head in the completely wrong direction, from where I'm sitting. That tells me what they're about - and whether they actually deserve support.

It might very well be that Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age 3 are good games as well, though most likely they'll be increasingly casual and streamlined.

So, I have the choice of buying them because they're entertaining - at least for a little while (I doubt I'll finish them) - or not buying them, so I can vote against the way EA/Bioware are dealing with their success.

I know you want to believe that you have some epic insight that I am not grasping but I promise you that I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. For one thing Bioware makes the games and THEN sells them, meaning your purchase is as much a payback of their initial investment as it is profit.

Focusing on the profit and what they do with it, the issue with your point of view is similar to anyone who pirates. You can justify whatever you want to justify, as I said in my previous reply. You will find reasons to be upset with game companies and then not want to support them to justify your piracy. Like the guy who cheats on his wife (she never shaves her legs anymore!) or the guy who robs a bank (the man is keeping me down!) you will come up with something to justify downloading a game, liking it, then never paying for it (they made the UI on the consoles and ported it over!).

When you remove the entitled and spoiled opinion that these games are yours to do with as YOU please, then your entire argument collapses. At the end of the day these are Bioware or whoever else's games, they offer them to you for a price. You can either buy them or not buy them... feeling like you are entitled to do anything more than that is narcissistic.

I'm not the sort of person who can just close my eyes and pretend everything is as simple as I'd love for it to be. I envy people who buy everything and feel like they're doing good. But you must understand that someone like me, who despises commercialism, capitalism, opportunism, and money as a goal - just can't do that all the time.

Does your amazing insight that you feel so superior about give you any ideas for a better system? That's my main issue with anti-capitalists like yourself, you focus on the negatives of capitalism and then offer no real alternative. As I said before communism certainly isn't it, and even in a heavily socialist society you still need to pay for games and fund developers and publishers, and since the government would have more power they would focus more on making sure you do that, not in giving you better options.

Give me some radical new idea that breaks the tripod of capitalism, socialism and communism and I will support your "OMG dude I see what you can't see about the system, man!" condescension.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Really? and why do you think people publish indie games for free? that they spent years on? to make money?

Sure... to open up new opportunities, to catch the eye of hiring dev teams and publishers, to gather greater interest in their next project, that they will charge for. I am sure there are completely altruistic game makers but 1) the effort they put in is probably a lot less than someone doing it for profit, and 2) they are probably very rare.

I'm not an anti-capitalist, I think Jeff Vogel wanting to make money on Avernum is a good thing because it means he will make it the best game he can for the audience he is targeting so that he can make the most profit possible. If he slacks off and makes a poorer game than usual then he will not be rewarded as much. That is actually the essence of capitalism, and it works better than any current alternative.

 

[zadokAllen]

If he slacks off and makes a poorer game than usual then he will not be rewarded as much. That is actually the essence of capitalism, and it works better than any current alternative.

If that was true we would play only fantastic games.

Also, capitalism works quite well - for those lucky enough to be in the top 1%

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

One m,essage by this leak I think only few people actually see is that of power : The pirates present themselves as a powerful force which is able to crush (or at least) leak games "by will" - and this feels very much like raketeering by some mafia.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

If that was true we would play only fantastic games.

Your idea of fantastic is not everyone else's, people differ. More people want simple console games than deep CRPGs, that's just a fact of life. Luckily there is money to be made off our niche and people like Jeff who want to make it.

 

[Couchpotato]

If that was true we would play only fantastic games.

Also, capitalism works quite well - for those lucky enough to be in the top 1%

Hopefully some person invests a new system for the benefit of everyone, but that is to much to ask when all you want is more money.Its all about human greed it will never go away. What we have is never enough we always want more. It will probably be our downfall.

 

[zadokAllen]

Your idea of fantastic is not everyone else's, people differ. More people want simple console games than deep CRPGs, that's just a fact of life. Luckily there is money to be made off our niche and people like Jeff who want to make it.

`Fantastic` is an abstract - but also quite universal idea. Not really quite "mine".

You seem to be proposing a concept that if you work hard to make a good game (motivated by money or whatever else) you`re bound to be rewarded. That would be great, just how come we`ve got all these good games out there that sell zilch?

 

[zadokAllen]

Interesting angle from the Torrentfreak

 

[JDR13]

Really? and why do you think people publish indie games for free? that they spent years on? to make money?

Sorry, but indies are not an industry, that's why they're called "indies".

 

[JDR13]

You seem to be proposing a concept that if you work hard to make a good game (motivated by money or whatever else) you`re bound to be rewarded. That would be great, just how come we`ve got all these good games out there that sell zilch?

That's a good question, but it really has nothing to do with piracy. Whether or not the game is "good" doesn't give anyone the right to steal it.

 

[zadokAllen]

That's a good question, but it really has nothing to do with piracy. Whether or not the game is "good" doesn't give anyone the right to steal it.

No, it doesn`t - I thought we were off the piracy issue on this one.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

`Fantastic` is an abstract - but also quite universal idea. Not really quite "mine".

You seem to be proposing a concept that if you work hard to make a good game (motivated by money or whatever else) you`re bound to be rewarded. That would be great, just how come we`ve got all these good games out there that sell zilch?

Not really "good"... I am saying if you make a product that appeals to a market you will be successful. Bioware have a market they appeal to quite well, it just might not include you. Jeff Vogel has a market he appeals to as well. They are different sizes and thus the budgets are very different and the returns very different but they are both making money by making a product for a market that enjoys it.

Are the recent Transformers movies good? Not in my opinion, I stopped watching the first one halfway through when the rapper robot appeared. They appeal to a large market though, and Michael Bay has shown he knows how to make that happen, hence he is successful.

 

[DArtagnan]

I know you want to believe that you have some epic insight that I am not grasping but I promise you that I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. For one thing Bioware makes the games and THEN sells them, meaning your purchase is as much a payback of their initial investment as it is profit.

If you want to continue this debate, I'd prefer if you kept to the point - instead of imagining that I feel superior because I have another point of view.

As for their initial investment, it makes zero difference. It's the outcome that matters, and especially the future outcome.

Focusing on the profit and what they do with it, the issue with your point of view is similar to anyone who pirates. You can justify whatever you want to justify, as I said in my previous reply. You will find reasons to be upset with game companies and then not want to support them to justify your piracy. Like the guy who cheats on his wife (she never shaves her legs anymore!) or the guy who robs a bank (the man is keeping me down!) you will come up with something to justify downloading a game, liking it, then never paying for it (they made the UI on the consoles and ported it over!).

You have no argument, just baseless claims about me finding some reason instead of actually believing that I mean what I say.

That gives us very little reason for debate, because I have zero interest in exchanging with someone who can't at least pretend that I mean what I say.

If you need to imagine all these alternative motivations, then so be it - but it won't really bring you closer to understanding where I'm from.

When you remove the entitled and spoiled opinion that these games are yours to do with as YOU please, then your entire argument collapses. At the end of the day these are Bioware or whoever else's games, they offer them to you for a price. You can either buy them or not buy them… feeling like you are entitled to do anything more than that is narcissistic.

Am I feeling entitled? I wasn't aware of that.

Is this what happens everytime you step unto shaky ground with someone in a debate? I mean, it's quite revealing of what you really think - and you were obviously never open to considering that another might have a good point.

Does your amazing insight that you feel so superior about give you any ideas for a better system? That's my main issue with anti-capitalists like yourself, you focus on the negatives of capitalism and then offer no real alternative. As I said before communism certainly isn't it, and even in a heavily socialist society you still need to pay for games and fund developers and publishers, and since the government would have more power they would focus more on making sure you do that, not in giving you better options.

¨

Why must I have "amazing" insight? I just happen to have an opinion that differs from yours. It doesn't have to be amazing, does it?

Yes, I have an idea - and I've gone into that on countless occasions around here.

However, you don't seem to be able to carry a debate without lashing out based on your view of "pirates" as cardboard characters. Not really interesting to me.

Give me some radical new idea that breaks the tripod of capitalism, socialism and communism and I will support your "OMG dude I see what you can't see about the system, man!" condescension.

I wouldn't mind - but you don't seem to be open towards me. So, I suggest you read up on my ideas - mostly in the off-topic section - if you're interested.

I don't feel like wasting my time going through it here with you.