"Only" 28% of gamers avoid games because of copy protection

only 28% hahaha.


That is like saying you have a great game people are willing to buy at $50 and a million people want to buy it so they get 50 million dollars for it, wait, wait. It has copy protection and 28% don't even buy it. That adds up tooo, ummm, 14 million dollars less then what they would recieve. CHUMP CHANGE?

If the party conducting a survey has an agenda they will phase the questions and report the results in a way that supports their view. ECD wanted a survey supporting CD copy-protection, so they report "72% of consumers are ‘not actively avoiding’ buying games that have copy protection." instead of "28% of consumers are ‘actively avoiding’ buying games that have copy protection."

Stardock's discourages piracy of GalCiv2 by requiring registration with a valid serial #, in order to download the many free updates, post game release. This works well for those with broadband internet access (like myself), not so great for those limited to dial-up but then those same gamers would face slow downloads for updates to copy protected games, as well.

I bet the other 72% doesn't care because they DL cracks to get around it- which are easy to find. The only real inconvenience is that you patch a few days slower then everyone else.

That said, SD's policies have their issues- but no system now can be perfect. I prefer SD's model to the current model most companies use.

I'll say this, if I can't find a crack for the game, I won't buy it.

My contention: The number of people who end up buying the game due to being thwarted by copy protection is far FAR less than the number of buyers lost due to the presence of the copy protection.

My hat is well and truly off to you good sirs.

Unfortunately Galciv2 was broken when released, it was crash prone and had severe memory leaks, imho, one could even espouse stardock was afraid of how buggy their game was and chose not to put copy protection on it because they knew it was being released in an unfinished state, but instead of copy protection, bugs + serial # required for game updates have the same effects as any other copy protection mechanism, it just takes a few days longer for the cracks to show up. Thats all they are doing, if they were really not concerned about piracy they would not require serial # for game updates.

In fact some of the best games ever made had no copy protection what-so-ever, Civ2 and Alpha centauri come to mind.

Either way I would say galciv2's release was not stellar by a long shot, if Galciv2 had been released for consoles with the bugs it had with when it shipped for the PC, the people that allowed that to happen would have been in a deep pile of crap.

IMHO stardock I think the stardock team knew galciv2 had major bugs in it but most people who don't play more marathon like sessions would not see them very often. Eithe way stardock is building goodwill with its customers, I also think the fact that stardock is a SOFTWARE company and doesn't rely solely on making games has a big impact on how they treat gamers as their customers.

IMHO the good will and reputation you build up makes people want to support you regardless, although some more cynical might say serial # req for patch updates basically is saying the same thing: we're accusing updaters of piracy beforehand, else why the serial # check?

All surveys are wrong theres just too many variables for it to be acurate at all.

I like the fact I can play GC2 without the cd in my drive.

In fact the only part of my original package I use is the tech tree still, oh yea and the copy protection serial number, so GC 2 does have a form of copy protection.

I have been playing computer games for 25 yrs now and no copy protection system as ever put me off playing a game.

It's simple really, if the game is good enough, I will play.

I'll say this, if I can't find a crack for the game, I won't buy it.

This has become my decision rule for all new purchaces since protection methods started blacklisting third-party software. I couldn't see straight after the first time I saw one of those little windows telling me to uninstall software from MY computer.

Azeroth, GC2 isn't a console game. Consoles are still a horrible platform for anything requiring more brainpower than a fish.

I wasn't a fan of 4x games until Galactic Civilizations 2. The ship builder rocks. The AI is decent. The game gets rolling quickly. I wish it had a less restrictive economy so my custom ships aren't so frakking expensive but that could mean I just have to play smarter.

Lack of CD restrictions and the accompanying Star Farce controversy is what made me a customer. It started as a political contribution and now I'm a fan.

There's no soul in games anymore since Hollywood moved in. Hollywood doesn't want to entertain me. They want to extract research data to discover what makes Wheel of Fire open his wallet. I get nothing in return except spyware and malware.

Screw them. Independent titles are the only way to go.

I enjoyed that last editorial note "Evil Game Systems is not a criminal organization and Brad didn't specifically call them criminal assclowns."

Azeroth, the number of people who had problems with GalCiv II out of the box were fairly small, especially as a percent.  No game, especially a PC game, is going to run perfectly out of the box on all systems.  But the game didn't ship with any known bugs that could be considered significant.

In fact, the only significant issue, which affected about 5% of users was the GPU heat issue which caused random crashing (especially when it had to go through the models during a save game) but that wasn't a bug in the code but rather a compatibility issue.  We had a public beta for the game. The gamma group told us weeks before the game was ready for release. We were essentially just play testing the game without code changes for the last month. 

Incidentally, the reviews of the game were based on the 1.0 out of the box version, no updates required.

I realize it's a bummer for those people who ran into some problem out of the box. Every PC game these days (particularly 3D games) inevitably has some % of systems that have to be worked around.  But to say that Stardock knew the game would have problems on your computer and shipped it anyway is pretty insulting and completely false.

As for requiring a serial # to download updates, there has to be some way to make sure the person downloading the updates actually paid for the game. As I said in the article -- I don't have a problem with copy protection. I have a problem with copy protection that inconveniences users and makes them feel like crooks.

There's more effort to create an account to post on a typical website than there is to get a GalCiv update.

For the life of me I don't understand why everyone has this infatuation with heavy-handed copy protection. IMHO the concept of a user who bought a legitimate copy because he was thwarted by copy protection is one of those myths dishonest vendors of bondage-ware use to peddle their stuff. This idea ignores the fact that the "evil pirate" in fact has two options when he initially runs into copy protection:

a) Buy the legitimate version
Download a crack

Guess which one he will choose?

Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept copy protection under the following circumstances.

1) The vendor shall make un unconditional promise to replace my game media for life and pay for all shipping expenses.

2) The vendor's copy protection mechanism shall not install any low level kernel hooks which may compromise my system stability. Alternately, in the event my system stability is in fact compromised, the vendor shall compensate me for the time I lost making repairs at my standard consulting rate, two hours minimum, as well as any additonal components I'm forced to purchase and other reasonable expenses.

Kudos to Stardock for their stand. The best protection against piracy is building a fan base through quality games. Make these games worth the $50 and I'll pay.

I must say I agree with most of Brad Wardel's opinions on the matter. Ironically, those games that had the most oppressive protection often ended up delivering the weaker games. Not to mention that every once in a while, a protection program may go haywire and believe you are running a pirated copy, thus shutting you out. Some protection mechanisms actually made me feel like a criminal as if a gamer just can't be up to no good.

The no-copy-protection aspect of GalCivII was part of the reason I bought the game. Not because there wasn't a protection present but because it showed an attitude of actually trying to earn the money gamers spend on their software. It showed in a continious stream of updates to fix bugs, tweak game balance, improve playability and upgrade the AI. In a way, the lack of copy protection was a plus, because it showed me I was treated as a gamer, not a criminal.

I wouldn't trust the survey all that much. First of all, it was undertaken by a company that has stakes in the outcome. Had they reported 72% actively avoided games because of copy protection, they'd be hurting their business. The wording of their question points into the direction of them wanting to show that copy protection is a good thing (or at least, doesn't hurt sales that much).

As mister Wardel already mentioned in the article; 28% of the surveyed population actively avoided software based on the copy protection. But it failed to mention to what degree it influenced their behavior. Still 28% seeing protection as the determining factor is a lot.

Copy Protection was just a small annoyance for a good while. Input a serial number here, done. Not bad. But as of late some of the systems are way to intrusive. I have most of Valves games up to Steam coming along. Even though I'm still an avid Team Fortress player, I will never buy another valve product as long as their cuurent system for single player games are in place. Call of Duty series is another I won't be dealing with as the installer searches your PC for anything it considers cracking tools.
I love Stardock's system It doesn't require online re-activation if I stick a piece of RAM in my system or any of the other pain in the ass things I've seen used.
I just really hope that more companies catch on to a similar system as seing how I have a folder full of no-cd cracks for games I own. I don't think the current systems are working that great anyway.

I really am not that informed on how the bottom line of profit and loss comes into play as it deals with gaming companies. However, if you believe that all the software companies that have gone out of business because of insolvency then I am guessing there will be a considerable number of them joining the ranks. If you are running close to borderline as is, and dish out say 5% to incorporate copy protection from a third party, then add the 28% profit you lose, then your bottom line profit is slashed by one third. I do hope the company has been paying unemployment insurance while you had a job.

For me, copy protection in games isn't an inconvenience, it's an impenetrable barrier. While I do have a desktop, I do a lot of gaming on my laptop, so I can sit on my couch in front of the TV and play, or play on airline flights, or even play while waiting for a flight at the airport. My laptop is an IBM X Series, which has no CD drive. Unless I'm actually sitting at my desk, I also have no internet connection either.

Any game which requires either a CD in the drive or internet authentication is simply (and literally) unplayable for me, unless I want to play it on my desktop. I hear Space Rangers 2 (despite having an awful name) was actually a fantastic game. Unfortunately I'll never know, and they'll never get my money, because it uses Starforce and requires that the CD be in my non-existent CD drive. It's a bit of a bummer. Fortunately for me, there are other good games out there to play which aren't as punitive to legitimate customers, so I've got plenty of perfectly fine alternatives.

I wonder if there's an alternative customer that they picked up to replace me? You'll understand if I don't lose too much sleep at night worrying about that though...

Azeroth, GC2 isn't a console game. Consoles are still a horrible platform for anything requiring more brainpower than a fish.

where did he say something about GC2 being a console game?  

And if you ask me consoles are ten times better than a computer, you don't have to wait a half hour to install the game, and my favorite part is you always run your games at the best graphics with better preformance than a computer, and you don't need to spend a fortune to buy a console.

and you don't need to spend a fortune to buy a console.

I guess you've never bought a console, have you Azrune?

While I don't really mind copy-protection, I find it irritating when it interupts my normal activities on my computer or takes up any extra utilties except on installation. Stardock's way of doing it is nice and easy, my only worry is a sudden loss of info on my comp. At which point, I'll lose my stardock account since I won't remember the password, etc, for the life of me. At least with a authentication code, I don't really have to worry about my computer going nutzoid.

my favorite part is you always run your games at the best graphics with better preformance than a computer

You can put the games on "max" graphics because the developers never give you higher graphics options than they know the box can handle. The game COULD look better, but they haven't implemented any graphics options beyond what they know the box can deal with at a reasonable frame rate.

PCs will always have a graphics lead on consoles for one reason - consoles have a lifespan of several years, and they contain hardware from the time they were FIRST released. They are never updated. Meanwhile, graphics cards on the PC advance by leaps and bounds while the XBox, and now the XBox 360, stagnate with hardware that's years old, and was relatively cheap even when it was new.

How long until you see a game like this on a console?

WWW Link

It certainly won't be on a 360 or any of its competitors. You'll have to wait until whatever comes AFTER the 360. Judging from the gap between the Xbox and the Xbox 360, that will be sometime in 2009. That game ships for the PC in a couple months.

Yes, I'll grant that consoles are cheaper. That's what happens when it's old hardware, sold at a loss by the manufacturer.

And as Frogboy was implying, the type of games you get are completely different on the two. I'll take deep PC games over shallow console candy any day.

And if you ask me consoles are ten times better than a computer, you don't have to wait a half hour to install the game, and my favorite part is you always run your games at the best graphics with better preformance than a computer, and you don't need to spend a fortune to buy a console.

While I do think PC games could take a page from consoles on loading game content quickly straight from a disc without needing to copy gigs upon gigs to the hard disk, the graphics point is a false one. If you were locked into running every game on your PC at 640x480, you'd get very nice framerates there as well on intensely graphical games

where did he say something about GC2 being a console game?

Right here:

Either way I would say galciv2's release was not stellar by a long shot, if Galciv2 had been released for CONSOLES with the bugs it had with when it shipped for the PC, the people that allowed that to happen would have been in a deep pile of crap.

In fact the only part of my original package I use is the tech tree still, oh yea and the copy protection serial number, so GC 2 does have a form of copy protection.

The serial # for GC2 isn't meant as a copy protection at all. You can copy the game to your hearts content, install it on as many computers as you want, but you won't be able to update the game or get the extra content as easily without being able to log on and download it.

While I do think PC games could take a page from consoles on loading game content quickly straight from a disc without needing to copy gigs upon gigs to the hard disk,

Unfortunately many people don't seem to realise just how slowly data is transferred from an optical disk compared to a hard drive. Also, PC games are by nature much more complex, both graphically and technically. You simply wouldn't be able to play today's games with all the bells & whistles, as well as the gameplay complexity straight from a disc, not on today's hardware.

The only reason console games run straight from the disc is because they are programmed to use up less memory, which is why most console games have smaller levels (but more in-between loading) and also much lower texture quality.

The serial # for GC2 isn't meant as a copy protection at all. You can copy the game to your hearts content, install it on as many computers as you want, but you won't be able to update the game or get the extra content as easily without being able to log on and download it.

Well, you shouldn't forget that since v1.1 there is an activation procedure that checks that the serial id you use is associated with your e-mail. But this check is needed only once per windows installation.

you always run your games at the best graphics with better preformance than a computer

Better than your computer, maybe.

What 4X games do you play on your console?

I believe that "Azune" is Latin for "fish thinker."

Optical transfer rates are horrible. Have you ever wondered why the xbox has a hard drive? 640 by 480?! You jest. That's 1990 PC standards. 640 by 480 is the resolution of your TV making it mandatory to write games in that resolution. If you have any respect for the fact that you will need your eyes for your entire life, you'll get away from console resolutions.

I'm running GC2 at 1680 by 1050. Furthermore...

I'm not waiting for anything with my computer. It didn't cost a fortune either. Building your own PC costs about $600 and a little time/effort compared to paying four times as much for Mommy Dell to sell you an equivalent machine preloaded with garbage software.

Dell, like xbox and PS, lock you into one specific form that can be replaced/repaired by only the manufacturer. Standardized parts, easy upgrading... why would you ask a corporation to build something as simple and critical as a PC?

Consoles are for casual gamers that either don't know any better or don't know how to get better experiences. Console gamers are, by and large, too stupid for GC2.