Regarding CD Projekt's Two-Faced Behaviour

[enitaplap.18]

Silly thing such discussion about things that no one said. The problem is some people do not refer to CEO word's but they own "vision of it". Read it again and again. I need a help i see nothing about leaving pirates, or anything about them and legal actions. Only thing is about not bothering costumers. Please read what he said not your imaginary 'bout it
Great discussion about nothing really. And such a move was announced so long before release.
Cheers [OpeningBeer] Pssss...

 

[Jackinthegreen.152]

The way I humbly see all this is that the title of this thread is a little on the overreacting side... We can interpret the CDP CEOs' words kind of how we like it... Maybe he said that companies shouldn't go after Pirates because it was a waste of time, not necesarily because he thought it was "counterproductive" of "gamer-unfriendly", much less unfair. But yeah, we are not inside his head, so we only can speculate on what's "really" behind those words, besides just an opinion.

Be as it may be, I dont see this as a "two sides of the coin issue". When smbdy gives a personal opinion, I think it should be regarded as a personal opinion, no matter how we interpret it or what role that person has in the company. One very different thing is the policy CDP has chosen to fight Pirates, as a company...

Perhaps it's my impression, but I think here some folks pretend the management should behave "not immorally". But corporations are not moral nor immoral, they simply have no morals; independently of which person is their president they are machines set to make money... everything else comes second. They basically dont think of nothing but yearly revenues... If they made 2 million dollars this year, but smbdy makes some figures that they could 've made 500.000 more, they say "Damn, we LOST half a million dollars this year". I mean, CDProject may have a very different creative or development philosophy than the likes of Activision or EA, but their management moves by the same standards and goals, attracting investors, keeping the books out of the red line, and making more revenue each year.

So as much as I understand and share to some degree the concerns regarding how the so called "bulling" tactics may derive in injustices, the call for the CDP management to regard "consumer rights" more important than their profits is really naive. If such tactics are seen as so damaging, what consumers should do is move their butts, get involved, and demand for a change in the legislation, where such tactics be banned or made illegal (I'm talking in general here, nobody in this thread should feel Im addressing to them pesonally at all regarding this). But again, asking for corporations to "be kind", strikes me as unrealistic. Just MHO.

And as long as CDP is not breaching the law with this, but in fact protecting its rights, I dont see anything fundamentally wrong here.

 

[227]

I need a help i see nothing about leaving pirates, or anything about them and legal actions.

Referring to pirates: "But statistically speaking that’s just a fraction and we should not be bothered with them."

That precludes chasing pirates (they're incompatible because to chase them down is to bother with them), so there's one possible meaning.

But yeah, we are not inside his head, so we only can speculate on what's "really" behind those words, besides just an opinion.

No offense, but I find this to be an incredibly weak argument. Based on that, no one could ever be held accountable for the things that they say because no one but the speaker could possibly know what they had intended to say. That's like saying that no one can ever be banned on these forums for advocating piracy because they could have possibly meant something else, or been speaking sarcastically. It doesn't work that way and we have to live with the things that we say, especially when what we say is as abundantly clear as in that article.

So as much as I understand and share to some degree the concerns regarding how the so called "bulling" tactics may derive in injustices, the call for the CDP management to regard "consumer rights" more important than their profits is really naive.

Again, this isn't a discussion about what they're doing. I made my opinion on what they're doing perfectly clear in the last thread, but I consider blatantly lying to consumers worse than any of that. I don't care if profits are their number one priority, but I expect them to not make those profits by trying to capitalize on good will generated from purposefully misleading statements. If he had stayed on the original "we will fine pirates but not inconvenience paying customers" message, this thread wouldn't exist and the only problems would be the ones that were brought up in the other two threads, but instead he outlined an entirely different way of approaching piracy while acting contrary to it.

And as long as CDP is not breaching the law with this, but in fact protecting its rights, I dont see anything fundamentally wrong here.

Lying is legal, but it doesn't mean that anger toward it is unjustified, just like those who have experienced game-breaking bugs don't have their arguments and frustrations nullified by the fact that including bugs in a released game is legal. No one's saying that they broke the law, but misleading consumers for good will is incredibly shady, hence this thread.

 

[andr01d]

The chances of that being true are so ridiculously slim and dependent on a series of contractual screw-ups so profound that they border on being actively malicious that it's not even something I can justify considering. Don't forget that even in the one-in-a-million chance that something like that hypothetical scenario is the case, there's still no explanation for saying one thing and doing another when simply saying nothing at all (or something general, but I'll touch on that next) was an option, so no, it wouldn't change my opinion.

You sure that the chances are so slim? - I mean, I'm no insider but the way I see it it's pretty common to use DRM to fight piracy in the gaming industry. CDP does not want to have DRM. I'm sure the industry (especially the publishers) doesn't like that. So in order to strengthen its position on the market CDP has to play by the rules and do at least something against piracy.

Saying nothing wouldn't automatically lead everyone to jump to wild conclusions, I have serious trouble believing that every single other company but CDP had made statements about this, and even if they had to say something, the question that those things I've been quoting were in response to was vague and general enough that it wasn't even a question about his company until he brought it up. A general answer about the industry as a whole would have certainly sufficed.

And saying nothing would really have been better? Wouldn't the outcry be the same? Wouldn't people just say: "By removing the DRM and focusing on good games with good support (CDP's apparent actions in the past) they made it pretty clear for me, that they would never bother with fighting piracy. But now they do! - Let the hating begin..."?

That interview was less than a month ago, and the time frame of the actual conversation has to be around two weeks of the article since it links to another article that's referenced that was published on November 17. If what you're saying is true, that means there was a significant period of time where they were chasing pirates using a method that wasn't 100% certain. That's not really relevant anyway, since it's not about what wasn't said, but what was said.

And that's not what I meant either. From what I read into the RPS article CDP was checking their actions for a long time before the even wrote a single letter of demand. So maybe, yes, they were already trying to take actions but hadn't secured the accuracy of those (and so didn't take any actions until they were 100 % sure). The way I see it, the information that they weren't 100 % sure would have brought on an even greater shitstorm. So they said nothing about it. (Disclaimer: I'm just talking about possibilities here.)

From Wikipedia: "To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth."

When he said that his company doesn't bother with pirates, CDP was actively engaged in a campaign against pirates. A lie is exactly what it was.

And together with the following.

Referring to pirates: "But statistically speaking that’s just a fraction and we should not be bothered with them."

That precludes chasing pirates (they're incompatible because to chase them down is to bother with them), so there's one possible meaning.

Yeah, that's what lying is about. But your quoting him wrong (which strengthens my belief that you are so determined to prove him a liar that you don't read what he said and try to interpret it differently). He said "We SHOULDN'T bother with pirates." not "We DON'T bother with pirates." There's a slight difference: While the second says that this is the actual way his company has taken, the first can be seen as a mere personal opinion.

No offense, but I find this to be an incredibly weak argument. Based on that, no one could ever be held accountable for the things that they say because no one but the speaker could possibly know what they had intended to say. That's like saying that no one can ever be banned on these forums for advocating piracy because they could have possibly meant something else, or been speaking sarcastically. It doesn't work that way and we have to live with the things that we say, especially when what we say is as abundantly clear as in that article.

Ah, well, there's a slight difference again. While the forum rules state that advocating piracy in any way is forbidden, i. e. even if you do it sarcastically, and (mods correct me if I'm wrong) if the accused can convince a mod that he really meant something else, they drop the ban, the interpretation and accusation of something a CEO said in order to make his company look good (by leaving out the bad parts not lying about them, mind you) are something else. In this interview there were no rules as to how serious his words had to be taken (maybe he was only stating his personal opinion in some parts). I mean that's what those interviews are all about. It's all: "Hey CEO tell us what you/your company does think of DRM!" And so he does.

Again, this isn't a discussion about what they're doing. I made my opinion on what they're doing perfectly clear in the last thread, but I consider blatantly lying to consumers worse than any of that. I don't care if profits are their number one priority, but I expect them to not make those profits by trying to capitalize on good will generated from purposefully misleading statements. If he had stayed on the original "we will fine pirates but not inconvenience paying customers" message, this thread wouldn't exist and the only problems would be the ones that were brought up in the other two threads, but instead he outlined an entirely different way of approaching piracy while acting contrary to it.

Lying is legal, but it doesn't mean that anger toward it is unjustified, just like those who have experienced game-breaking bugs don't have their arguments and frustrations nullified by the fact that including bugs in a released game is legal. No one's saying that they broke the law, but misleading consumers for good will is incredibly shady, hence this thread.

You always sound as if there is either one way or the other. Isn't it so that CDP can do both? And that the first doesn't affect the second?
So they didn't tell us about it. That's not a big deal because we simply don't have the rights to know everything they do.

And once again: For me they didn't lie but simply let out some parts of the truth. That's normal, that's life, deal with it!

 

[dmcaldw]

Well I have come to the conclusion that the argument is how you take the point of treating piracy statement . I think the point should be argued that if a consumer pirated the game first then bought it is all forgiven that is what it sounds like he is saying .

Stupid me took it it to mean that by offering value , customer service and support , plus extras it was a deterrent for pirating hence a way of "treating piracy."

The not bothering statement pertained to the few thieves that were always thieves . First off those few true pirates are a few steps ahead of the law anyway . The wanna be pirates no mention . He covered both ends of the spectrum but not the middle, the ones they are going after was he lying? "NO."

 

[227]

You sure that the chances are so slim? - I mean, I'm no insider but the way I see it it's pretty common to use DRM to fight piracy in the gaming industry. CDP does want to have DRM. I'm sure the industry (especially the publishers) doesn't like that. So in order to strengthen its position on the market CDP has to play by the rules and do at least something against piracy.

Does this make it any clearer? Yes, the chances are impossibly slim because it's against everything GOG stands for. If a company demands DRM, that company's game doesn't go up. It's that simple. Also keep in mind that what they're doing is Witcher 2-specific and thus completely unrelated to those companies.

And saying nothing would really have been better? Wouldn't the outcry be the same? Wouldn't people just say: "By removing the DRM and focusing on good games with good support (CDP's apparent actions in the past) they made it pretty clear for me, that they would never bother with fighting piracy. But now they do! - Let the hating begin..."?

It's a remote possibility, but the thread would have ended once it was made clear that the fining business was their plan all along and they hadn't said anything contrary to that. This thread exists because they did.

From what I read into the RPS article CDP was checking their actions for a long time before the even wrote a single letter of demand.

Checking their actions? They've been fining people for months, so at the time of that article they had already checked with all of the companies, since the quote in the RPS article made it clear that this checking had been done prior.

He said "We SHOULDN'T bother with pirates." not "We DON'T bother with pirates." There's a slight difference: While the second says that this is the actual way his company has taken, the first can be seen as a mere personal opinion.

Sigh, this is getting incredibly semantic and you continue to take the lines one at a time and thus out of the context of the larger point he's making. He makes several points, the "shouldn't bother" line being the first, and then backs up those points by using the first game as an example, capping off the entire thing with, "That's how we treat piracy." That line includes the previous paragraphs of general statements that he backed up in the final paragraph (which should be clear if you read the whole thing together), meaning it includes the "shouldn't bother" line. Both statements are connected.

When you take the whole thing together this is what it says: "We shouldn't be bothered by piracy, we weren't in the past and it worked out well for us, and that's how we treat piracy." The entire thing is one point.

Ah, well, there's a slight difference again. While the forum rules state that advocating piracy in any way is forbidden, i. e. even if you do it sarcastically, and (mods correct me if I'm wrong) if the accused can convince a mod that he really meant something else, they drop the ban, the interpretation and accusation of something a CEO said in order to make his company look good (by leaving out the bad parts not lying about them, mind you) are something else.

You're taking that example somewhere it wasn't meant to go. It was simply an illustration to show how it's not unreasonable for individuals to be held accountable for the things they say, not a 1:1 comparison.

You always sound as if there is either one way or the other. Isn't it so that CDP can do both?

When you can find a way to not bother with something while pursuing legal options against it, I'm all ears.

 

[andr01d]

Does this make it any clearer? Yes, the chances are impossibly slim because it's against everything GOG stands for. If a company demands DRM, that company's game doesn't go up. It's that simple. Also keep in mind that what they're doing is Witcher 2-specific and thus completely unrelated to those companies.

Ah, I should have made it clearer that I meant CDP as a whole business and not only GOG or future TW games. Those two are only parts of the whole thing.
Ok. Let's drop it. I only wanted to further or support the point: "What if the had to do this on behalf of Namco Bandai or any other publisher for that matter after the DRM fight?"

It's a remote possibility, but the thread would have ended once it was made clear that the fining business was their plan all along and they hadn't said anything contrary to that. This thread exists because they did.

Really? Would it?

Checking their actions? They've been fining people for months, so at the time of that article they had already checked with all of the companies, since the quote in the RPS article made it clear that this checking had been done prior.

Sorry... I don't exactly know all the timeframes here... My bad.

Sigh, this is getting incredibly semantic and you continue to take the lines one at a time and thus out of the context of the larger point he's making. He makes several points, the "shouldn't bother" line being the first, and then backs up those points by using the first game as an example, capping off the entire thing with, "That's how we treat piracy." That line includes the previous paragraphs of general statements that he backed up in the final paragraph (which should be clear if you read the whole thing together), meaning it includes the "shouldn't bother" line. Both statements are connected.

When you take the whole thing together this is what it says: "We shouldn't be bothered by piracy, we weren't in the past and it worked out well for us, and that's how we treat piracy." The entire thing is one point.

Nah, it's simply that I take those things apart because you put things together that may not be there.

The not bothering statement pertained to the few thieves that were always thieves . First off those few true pirates are a few steps ahead of the law anyway . The wanna be pirates no mention . He covered both ends of the spectrum but not the middle, the ones they are going after was he lying? "NO."

That's what I was always trying to say.

You're taking that example somewhere it wasn't meant to go. It was simply an illustration to show how it's not unreasonable for individuals to be held accountable for the things they say, not a 1:1 comparison.

Like your reading meanings in the CEO's words?
And here I stand, once again, by my words: It doesn't matter what someone says but what they do.

When you can find a way to not bother with something while pursuing legal options against it, I'm all ears.

To put on a trollface: Well, they have the law firm for botherin'.


But seriously: He didn't talk about the pirates that are now mainly targeted. So all in all he just said: Well, we are not bothered by all those pirates who would always pirate.

And to be so picky about contradictions is a little over the top here I believe because--well, to be honest--the sentences "We shouldn't bother with piracy." and "That's how we treat piracy." are a little contradiction all by themselves, aren't they?

 

[227]

Really? Would it?

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, yes. I'm willing to change my opinion based on new information, and that article from May where he states that they'd fine pirates was definitely new information for me.

Nah, it's simply that I take those things apart because you put things together that may not be there.

I don't think that taking something out of context is quite the same as putting something into the larger context that it's a part of, but no one ever wins a semantic argument so we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That's what I was always trying to say.

In that particular line, he divides pirates into two camps: those who will always steal, and those who can be made into paying customers, given the right deal.

So what the two of you are saying is that the CEO believes that they shouldn't bother with those who always pirate, but those who can be convinced to buy legal games by being provided with incentives are the ones who should be fined? Okay, definitely looking forward to the explanation behind this line of thinking.

Like your reading meanings in the CEO's words?

There's a huge difference between a weak analogy to make a larger point and a large, specific chunk of text with a sweeping declaration at the end. There's no need to be disingenuous.

And to be so picky about contradictions is a little over the top here I believe because--well, to be honest--the sentences "We shouldn't bother with piracy." and "That's how we treat piracy." are a little contradiction all by themselves, aren't they?

No, not at all. Definition of treat: to behave toward or deal with in a certain way. Not bothering with piracy is a way of behaving toward the issue, so the two are complementary.

 

[andr01d]

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, yes. I'm willing to change my opinion based on new information, and that article from May where he states that they'd fine pirates was definitely new information for me.

And did it change anything? (Just asking...)

I don't think that taking something out of context is quite the same as putting something into the larger context that it's a part of, but no one ever wins a semantic argument so we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Why it's both means of interpretation. And that was my point. Interpretations are bound to the interpreter's way of thinking.

In that particular line, he divides pirates into two camps: those who will always steal, and those who can be made into paying customers, given the right deal.

So what the two of you are saying is that the CEO believes that they shouldn't bother with those who always pirate, but those who can be convinced to buy legal games by being provided with incentives are the ones who should be fined? Okay, definitely looking forward to the explanation behind this line of thinking.

From me or from CDP?
For me I can say. Well it's definitely better than DRM or having to stay always online to play the game.
I didn't buy the game (TW2) because they were promising to be not treating piracy by fining pirates but because I loved TW1 and thought all teasers and trailers for TW2 to be awesome. And TW2 turned out to be awesome so for me there simply was no disappointment. But then once again: I don't care for what they said. I only care to buy only good games with good gameplay and a deep story that are fun to play.

There's a huge difference between a weak analogy to make a larger point and a large, specific chunk of text with a sweeping declaration at the end. There's no need to be disingenuous.

There may be some difference, but it's my point that both are interpretations. And I only wanted to show that those may be wrong.

No, not at all. Definition of treat: to behave toward or deal with in a certain way. Not bothering with piracy is a way of behaving toward the issue, so the two are complementary.

Alright. Sorry, English is not my mother tongue, though I try to be as good and mindful of such differences as I can.

And all in all my point is still, that he said (as it seems to me) that they won't bother with those hardcore pirates because there's nothing to gain by fighting them. He didn't say a word about anything else by which you may be offended because he didn't tell everything. But I don't think that you may accuse him of being a liar.

 

[Garrison72]

It seems the majority of the people replying here have completely ignored the first post in the topic, or only read a couple of sentences in the beginning before they grew impatient and decided to vent their frustrations; about a subject that wasn't even the intention of this thread in the first place, none the less. I can't be bothered going over it again, so I'll just ignore these people.

Well isn't that convenient.

Kindo, you are the one ignoring some hard facts. The time to get incensed about this was when they made the announcement before the game was released. Now they're just following through. CDPR is known for off-the-cuff remarks. They've been doing it for a while now:

-claiming Bioware got the whole romance bit from them. Not true

-bashing Bioware in one article, praising and even admitting influence in the next.

-they claimed they would hand Namco Bandai their ass. They lost.

-they claimed TW2 would be a bonafide PC game. It's not, evidence of crossplatform preparation are obvious.

-they claimed the main quest alone in TW2 would be 30-40 hrs, and a completionist run would double or triple that number. A gross exaggeration.


I know this is trivial stuff compared to the piracy issue, but I'd like to remind everyone that there's lots of people at CDPR, and unlike other developers/publishers, there seems to be a degree of individual freedom when speaking their mind. Will it bring a few contradictions? Yes. Is it still a good thing? Hell yes it is.

 

[soldiergeralt]

people who think proprietors shouldn't be allowed to protect their product are fools.

This sounds like Marcin's personal opinion, the mans a gamer and a developer who knows his audience. Stockholders however may hold a very different opinion (uninformed by gaming and internet experience) and merely see their dividends being affected by rampant piracy thus prompting efforts to recoup their lost profits.

that's an intelligent and detached analysis of the situation. people who feel betrayed need to wake up. just be glad you're not paying for horse armor. that bethesda comparison the op made was idiotic.

 

[secondchildren]

that's an intelligent and detached analysis of the situation. people who feel betrayed need to wake up. just be glad you're not paying for horse armor. that bethesda comparison the op made was idiotic.

Let's just not insult anyone, neither a people nor his\her own opinion.

 

[227]

And did it change anything? (Just asking...)

Yep. That's when I started looking at the dates on the articles and realized that it was the same person who had made these completely opposite statements, leading to a the last couple pages. Now, had he not said the things that he did (or at the very least implied in the subtext, since you're arguing against the meaning I picked up from his words) in November, that would have been the end of it for me.

From me or from CDP?

You and dmcaldw. It seems like a huge leap to say that he was talking about more than two groups when he explicitly puts everyone into just those two groups. There's "almost any gamer," and then the "fraction" that are the exception to that and will steal no matter what. What would be the point of going after those who could be made to pay? To scare them into paying? He already said that incentive was enough to turn them into paying customers. It makes no sense that he would argue that they could be made to pay by finding the right offer for them, then chase those particular individuals while leaving the hardcore pirates (who seem like the ones who should be punished more than anything) completely untouched. Besides, if the fining is about protecting their IP rather than making a quick buck, wouldn't whether or not someone could be made to pay be irrelevant?

And all in all my point is still, that he said (as it seems to me) that they won't bother with those hardcore pirates because there's nothing to gain by fighting them. He didn't say a word about anything else by which you may be offended because he didn't tell everything. But I don't think that you may accuse him of being a liar.

It all comes down to how you read that section of the article. If you read each part independently, then I can certainly see how one could draw the conclusions you have. If you believe like I do that the first parts are making general claims that are later expanded upon with personal experience and thus connected (and claimed to be their strategy by that last line), then one could draw a completely different conclusion. I suppose what this whole thread boils down to for me personally is that it's one more thing, and it's starting to be a bit much when taken all together. Like slimgrim listed, there have been plenty of lies and half-truths. This isn't the straw that will break the camel's back, but I'm certainly going to take future statements with a grain (or maybe a sea) of salt.

 

[original182]

Basically you're upset that CD Projekt once said piracy is an unfortunate part of the game, and now they are going after pirates.

Why would you be upset about this?

CD Projekt has every right to go after pirates who illegally pirate their games. Who in their right mind would let people get away with pirating their software? Pirating was never acceptable to begin with, and now you're upset they want to stop it? I don't understand your post. You understand that piracy is wrong, yet you condemn CD Projekt for doing something about it.

There is no two-facedness about this. Now, if CD Projekt starts putting DRM into their games, THEN you can complain about them being two-faced, because it does affect you negatively. They did not put DRM in because piracy is an unfortunate phenomenon that happens, and you shouldn't punish honest gamers by putting it in.

But them going after pirates doesn't affect you one bit. They still don't put DRM in their games. They give you free updates and don't charge you. They have done everything they can to CONVINCE people to buy their games. But there are still a select group of people who will steal regardless, thus proving that people steal not because of poor quality and DRM, but because they are thieves.

If you want to get mad at CD Projekt, could you at least get mad on something that is actually relevant? Instead of blaming CD Projekt, you should blame the pirates for being so cheap that they prefer to steal the game and take advantage of CD Projekt's generosity.

If you don't steal, then you have nothing to worry about. Which makes me think that maybe you OP, have been pirating games and feel threatened by lawsuits.

I say bring on the lawsuits. This is the only language that pirates understand.

 

[tommy5761]

@ original182
Let`s not be judgmental by accusing anyone of piracy . Every one is entitled to their own opinion on this issue , while you may not agree with some of the comments made please keep it civil .

 

[DelighfulMcCoy]

Why would you be upset about this?

CD Projekt has every right to go after pirates who illegally pirate their games.[...]

You are missing the point. It's always been about someone saying one thing and doing the opposite, aka lying. Which doesn't exactly make a person trustworthy. Wouldn't you be hurt, if your trust in a belief you hold is injured?

Who in their right mind would let people get away with pirating their software? Pirating was never acceptable to begin with, and now you're upset they want to stop it?

Again, not the point, but I still need to say that this has nothing to do with stopping piracy. Piracy will never be stopped as long as someone is willing to embark on expensive and futile vendettas. Or to punish legitimate customers with DRM.

There is no two-facedness about this. Now, if CD Projekt starts putting DRM into their games, THEN you can complain about them being two-faced, because it does affect you negatively. They did not put DRM in because piracy is an unfortunate phenomenon that happens, and you shouldn't punish honest gamers by putting it in.

Exactly. But newsflash: The Witcher 2 had SecuROM on it at release (except for the GoG version) and when that was announced, people were very pissed off for the first time, because CDPR had been telling us about how they think about DRM in a way, that made us believe, they would never burden us with SecuROM, of all things. Btw. it only got revealed, just how much this not-consented-to-third-party-software (wait, isn't that illegal?) impacted negatively on the performance of the game, because they released a DRM free version on GoG alongside it. I wonder how that was not noticed by the rest of the gamer community... but I digress, it's still not about that.

But them going after pirates doesn't affect you one bit.

Again, not the point, but how does it not affect me to know that they divert money and manpower into a shady pirate hunt instead of towards their next enjoyable product? I say shady, because so far they only target Germany, because the German copyright law allows for exploiting customers.

They have done everything they can to CONVINCE people to buy their games. But there are still a select group of people who will steal regardless, thus proving that people steal not because of poor quality and DRM, but because they are thieves.

Yes, that's what Marcin Iwinski said and that he wouldn't bother with those, who will never be customers, because they aren't a lost sale. Yet, there's a witchhunt in Germany...

If you don't steal, then you have nothing to worry about. Which makes me think that maybe you OP, have been pirating games and feel threatened by lawsuits.

There is no reason to assume that the OP feels threatened, because he was speaking of his lost trust in the company, nothing else.

And then there's the issue of claiming to figure out pirates by their IP, without making mistakes. For one, they even admitted to a wrong accusation, which they solved amicably, but that still does not compute with their 100% accuracy claim.

I say bring on the lawsuits. This is the only language that pirates understand.

These lawsuits probably cost more than they ever gonna earn. And they cost them their face and credibility. Because the gamers that want to believe in a company and stand in for them, recommend their games over and over (thus generating more sales), they are the ones getting slapped in the face and they have the right to be pissed about that and voice their frustration.

 

[gregski]

@ original182
Let`s not be judgmental by accusing anyone of piracy . Every one is entitled to their own opinion on this issue , while you may not agree with some of the comments made please keep it civil .

Just of curiousity - shouldn't all comments be kept civil? Or does it only apply to what users say about other users?

 

[tommy5761]

Just of curiousity - shouldn't all comments be kept civil? Or does it only apply to what users say about other users?

I would hope and wish that ALL comments be kept civil but i know that with certain topics and forum life in general that it will in all likely hood not happen . Just trying to stop something before it goes any further .

 

[andr01d]

It all comes down to how you read that section of the article. If you read each part independently, then I can certainly see how one could draw the conclusions you have. If you believe like I do that the first parts are making general claims that are later expanded upon with personal experience and thus connected (and claimed to be their strategy by that last line), then one could draw a completely different conclusion. I suppose what this whole thread boils down to for me personally is that it's one more thing, and it's starting to be a bit much when taken all together. Like slimgrim listed, there have been plenty of lies and half-truths. This isn't the straw that will break the camel's back, but I'm certainly going to take future statements with a grain (or maybe a sea) of salt.

Alright, that's exactly my whole point.
It all comes down to how you interpret his words. - And that's where I said: "Well, let's try to not interpret anything and only read the words that are there." Because, I know how shit can hit the fan when there are different interpretations. I just have the same problem at university where one professor read too much into my words and is about to give me poor marks because of that.
So here I am, only trying to say: Maybe he didn't mean it all in a bigger context but just how it is written, word by word.

You are missing the point. It's always been about someone saying one thing and doing the opposite, aka lying. Which doesn't exactly make a person trustworthy. Wouldn't you be hurt, if your trust in a belief you hold is injured?

Well, no. Life is what happens when you got other plans. It's become quite normal for me that things don't turn out the way I'd like them to turn out. So for me it's just that something's changed and I have to deal with it.

And another thing: That's just how things with beliefs and knowledge are. If you don't know for sure and feel empty about it, you can believe something to fill the gap. But if you gain knowledge that contradicts your belief you can either adopt to the knowledge dropping your beliefs our go all catholic church in the middle ages on anyone who'd rather turn to knowledge than belief. - Your choice.
I chose to adopt the new knowledge and don't feel hurt about my (now supposedly wrong) beliefs.

Again, not the point, but I still need to say that this has nothing to do with stopping piracy. Piracy will never be stopped as long as someone is willing to embark on expensive and futile vendettas. Or to punish legitimate customers with DRM.

Hm... I know it's not really the point here... but, how do you think piracy can be stopped when everybody should refrain from doing anything against it?

Again, not the point, but how does it not affect me to know that they divert money and manpower into a shady pirate hunt instead of towards their next enjoyable product? I say shady, because so far they only target Germany, because the German copyright law allows for exploiting customers.

Erm... sorry, but how can you judge if it's exploiting? I'm German and I really don't feel exploited by my country's law.
And why is it shady if it was stated pretty clear (in the RPS article) that they chose Germany because they could only here make sure that nobody innocent got fined because only here they get access to the data needed for that?

Yes, that's what Marcin Iwinski said and that he wouldn't bother with those, who will never be customers, because they aren't a lost sale. Yet, there's a witchhunt in Germany...

Sorry to be a little picky, but. It's what you (and maybe some others like 227 and kindo) think he meant. Nobody but he himself knew what he really meant when he said what he did.

And then there's the issue of claiming to figure out pirates by their IP, without making mistakes. For one, they even admitted to a wrong accusation, which they solved amicably, but that still does not compute with their 100% accuracy claim.

Sorry, but that's a little off topic.
But again, it's how you interpret the words here. If you understand that claim about 100 % accuracy the way that only those have to pay (or go to court) who really pirated the game, well then it's true.

These lawsuits probably cost more than they ever gonna earn. And they cost them their face and credibility. Because the gamers that want to believe in a company and stand in for them, recommend their games over and over (thus generating more sales), they are the ones getting slapped in the face and they have the right to be pissed about that and voice their frustration.

And if nobody does anything about piracy how's it gonna stop?

And about that whole trust thing:
How can gamers complain? I mean, who hasn't ever pirated software thus breaking his (in that case even legal) obligations with the industry to show those big bad business guys that they can't do what they want? But if you as a customer once broke the developer's trust by pirating games or software, how can you complain? How can you say they don't earn your trust if you didn't earn theirs in the first place?

 

[227]

It all comes down to how you interpret his words. - And that's where I said: "Well, let's try to not interpret anything and only read the words that are there." Because, I know how shit can hit the fan when there are different interpretations. I just have the same problem at university where one professor read too much into my words and is about to give me poor marks because of that.

There are language intricacies that are difficult to explain, and I suspect part of this is related to some people being unable to pick up on those. English is a complicated language, though for what it's worth, your English is better than many of the people I know in real life who know English as a second language. I'm going to try to show you which parts are connected and hopefully clear this up a bit.

"Like in every society you have a small percentage of thieves. They will rather steal than buy; but statistically speaking that’s just a fraction and we should not be bothered with them. I strongly believe that you can convince almost any gamer to buy legal games if only you have the right offer for him/her."

is connected to:

"I am sure that lots of these guys played TW1 in a pirated version first. I am really happy they liked it so much that when they had a chance and could afford it, they decided to get a legal version."

The second quote is an example from the first game that elaborates on the first quote. Next...

"When analyzing piracy, you should look at every single country. Why, for example, is the piracy rate higher in Poland than it is in Germany? It does highly depend on your average disposable income. 50 Euro for a German gamer is quite some expense, but for a Polish one (who earns on average 3-4 times less) it will be a much more difficult decision. You can ask the same question in every single country, and you will have different answers about the affordability of games."

is connected to:

"In the first year we sold 1M units, and most of it was in the area of $30-50, while the other million (we just reached 2M) was sold over the next 2.5 years."

The "30-50" line and usage of the word "while" implies that the other million was sold for less than $30-50, tying into the idea of price playing a role in whether people buy or pirate. Next...

"Let’s also not forget that the life of the game does not end a week after its release. If you are honest with your gamers, treat them fairly and support your title, they will support you back, spread the word about your game among their friends, and ultimately go get your game – be it on a sales promo at GameStop, Amazon, Steam or GOG."

is connected to:

"Witcher 1 was originally released in 2007, then in 2008 we released the Enhanced Edition."

I don't think that last one requires an explanation. Anyway, after all that he caps the whole thing off with the "that's how we treat piracy" line. This is why that line applies to all of the things that he had said—first he made his general points about the direction the industry needed to head in, then elaborated on how his company was doing each of those things, affirming that that was the method they were using with the last line.

Hm... I know it's not really the point here... but, how do you think piracy can be stopped when everybody should refrain from doing anything against it?

Plenty of people have tried even extreme variants of what they're doing and it's done nothing to curb piracy at all. The only people it acts as a deterrent to are those who have been personally targeted by it, and it's impossible to target even a significant chunk of those who pirated the game. This is a bit off-topic, though—reread the second thread or just Google "RIAA" to see how these tactics don't stop piracy.

Erm... sorry, but how can you judge if it's exploiting? I'm German and I really don't feel exploited by my country's law.

If a location on GOG is anything to go by, DelightfulMcCoy is also German.

How can you say they don't earn your trust if you didn't earn theirs in the first place?

So you're saying that because some unscrupulous individuals steal games, that's a legitimate reason to be dishonest to paying customers? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.