If I had to guess, you likely mixed up the main game and the 'Expansion pass' they're offering. The main game has a release date of May 19, 2015, while the expansion pass has a release date matching what you noted.
The lack of DRM actually likely decreased the availability of the game on pirate sites, if their previous game is any indication.
There is an interesting detail to this story. Like all GOG.com games, the version of The Witcher 2 released in 2011 shipped without DRM – pirating it would have been little more complex than sharing the file. However, it was also published in the US as a boxed, on-disc game by Atari. This version shipped with SecuROM copy protection. “Most people in the gaming industry were convinced that the first version of the game to be pirated would be the GOG version (as it was DRM-free), while in the end it was the retail version, which shipped with DRM,” notes GOG.com’s Managing Director, Guillaume Rambourg.
But why, then, would the DRM-free version of The Witcher 2 be ignored by pirates, when it was an open target? Marcin Iwinski, CEO of CD Projekt Red, responded:
"You would have to ask someone at the pirate group which cracked it, but I have to admit it was a big surprise. We were expecting to see the GOG.com version pirated right after it was released, as it was a real no-brainer. Practically anyone could have downloaded it from GOG.com (and we offered a pre-download option) and released it on the illegal sites right away, but this did not happen. My guess is, that releasing an unprotected game is not the real deal, you have to crack it to gain respect and be able to write, “cracked by XYZ.” How would “not cracked by XYZ, as there was nothing to crack” sound? A bit silly, wouldn’t it? The illegal scene is pretty much about the game and the glory: who will be the first to deliver the game, who is the best and smartest cracker. The DRM-free version at GOG.com didn’t fit this too well."
It’s perverse, but perhaps the fun of file sharing – especially when done for status and bragging rights rather than serious financial gain – is in frustrating efforts by content owners to stop it. Within two hours of its release the DRM was cracked. Meanwhile, GOG.com’s DRM-free version hid in plain sight, too tempting and easy a target.
I didn't make any such claim. Just that they would, like you say, have made some money from piracy.
You didn't no, but the first comment in this thread did make that claim, and they're hardly the first. It's annoying correcting the same idiotic claim over and over again, and some of the irritation may have seemed directed at you, but it wasn't, it was aimed at the boneheaded line that's been repeated and debunked I don't know how many times by now.
Not ALL their money, but not NONE either.
True, but like I noted above, with a company their size, that's pretty much a given and expected. There's just too much to keep track of to ensure that none of those that use their services are doing so in illegal or dodgy ways, the best that can be reasonably expected is that they would cut off those that they discover or are informed are involved in illegal acts.
The ads offered by shady companies that pay pittance, even compared to 'standard' ad rates? The ads that Google wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, not only because the pay out would be ludicrously low, but because of the legal hassle it would cause if they were involved with them?
A company doesn't grow to be Google's size by acting like idiots, and they would have to be incredibly stupid to want to have anything to do with ads hosted on sites that regularly attract legal attention from governments around the world(and in fact as I understand it they are incredibly quick to pull ads from sites that even might not be 100% legal). Why open themselves up to that risk, for basically pennies, when they could steer clear of the mess entirely?
However, assume for the moment that Google was indeed stupid enough to be involved with offering ad services to torrent sites and the like. I can pretty much guarantee that the payouts from every last site of that sort would be a drop in the bucket compared to their other sources of income, which makes the absurd claim of 'Google makes all their money off of piracy' about as accurate as saying that the government makes all of it's money off of illegal drug deals.
Does some of the money come from an illegal source? Quite probably, build a system(government or otherwise) large enough and it's pretty much ensured to happen, but the vast majority of it comes from legitimate sources, so claiming that the minority source is the only, or even 'just' the main source isn't even close to being accurate.
You comment is reported because it's wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, and people don't feel like explaining for the hundredth time why it's a wrong, especially to someone who wouldn't listen to a thing that was said because you've already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will change it.
Almost, though there's the not so small difference that the phone book chooses what to include, whereas Google just grabs and indexes everything. There's also the tiny difference in scale between a couple thousand entries for one, and billions for the other.
Nailed it. They could have used this to their advantage, offered 'official' approval via a dirt cheap license, and taken advantage of an event that had been going on for several years at this point to connect to their fans and gotten a free PR boost.
Instead they broke out the lawyers, shut the event down and demanded repayment for 'damages', with the result being they end up looking like greedy control freaks.
You are not going to win a primary by making potential terrorists feel silly rather than afraid.
The point of the non-military aspect to the 'fight' isn't to make them feel 'silly', it's to remove even the 'potential' from 'potential terrorists', and keep those sitting on the fence from joining the opposing side in the first place.
Decimate recruitment for terrorist groups, keeping them from renewing or increasing their numbers or even better causing them to lose members, eliminate any support they might have had from the public by showing people just how bad they are, and you remove a huge chunk of their staying power. At that point you can basically just wait them out, use the military to contain them, and they'll lose as the core fanatics die out and aren't replaced.
Now, some might argue that you can do this via purely or primarily military force, by killing the ones in the groups and inflicting enough fear in the public such that they can't renew their numbers, but I'd argue that's a failed strategy, utterly ignoring basic human psychology. Fear transitions to hatred and anger very easy, especially if you put someone in a position that they think they have nothing to lose or have to act if they want to defend themselves or others.
Sure you can kill one enemy, but if doing so convinces five other people that were undecided that you are the enemy, you've failed spectacularly if you're looking for something other than endless 'Side A kills people on side B, Side B kills people on Side A, Side A kills people on Side B...' If you want to deal with the problem for good, you have to get the public on your side, and you cannot do that with force and threats.
First define 'War on Terror', in particular what or who is the opponent. Does the opponent in the 'War on terror' have a pulse? Is it something that can be killed? Because if the answer is no, completely, then no, you're not going to be beating it militarily any time soon.
You might be able to defeat the living half, the lesser half, but if the ideology that powered it is left intact(and you can't kill an ideology with guns), then at most you've bought yourself a reprieve, a bit of calm before more people replace the ones you killed and the cycle starts anew. 'Endless war' is not a victory for anyone but the ones selling the guns.
Yeah, gotta love that argument, I just have to wonder if Woods realizes that his lawyer is basically arguing that he's not nearly as important and/or credible as he thinks he is.
"Your Honor, my client's followers know that nothing he says is to be taken seriously, so clearly anything he says can be dismissed as hyperbole or empty mumbling. This random twitter account user on the other hand is much more credible, making any statements of their's much more likely to be taken at face value, and therefor damaging."
Something which might have made a good argument, had that actually been what happened. They weren't using the characters to make a buck, they were using them to appeal to the fans of the games/movies.
However, even if the party organizers were just in it for the money, so what? The party organizers weren't even close to the only ones affected by shutting down the party, the fans also had something they enjoyed ended, despite the fact that they weren't in it for the money at all, but rather to enjoy a good time with others who shared their interest in the games/movies.
The parties were promoting Pokemon, and if the company didn't employ such rabid lawyers, or weren't such control freaks, they would have seen this as an opportunity to engage with their fans, rather than shut them down.
This harassment of their fans and customers only works because people are too stupid and/or spineless to respond in kind. If a company shows that it doesn't mind stomping their fans into the dirt anytime they show their appreciation in an 'unapproved' manner, then the response should be simple:
See how well they do when their sales start dropping due to their abusive treatment of their paying fans.
I'm all for coming up with ways to stop the spread of ISIS, and to prevent further attacks by the group. But jailing an American teenager over his tweets seems... excessive.
It's not just excessive, it's flat out counter-productive. You fight extremists by showing people that you're better, and showcasing just how bad the other side is. Killing enemy combatants is fine militarily, but keeping them from replenishing their numbers, that is far more effective in the long run.
By going so over the top in their attempts to 'combat' the murderous thugs, the various governments are just making their message seem more legitimate than it actually is. Hearing about how bad some group in another country is is one thing, but experiencing the government cracking down on it's citizens is quite another, and far more visible to those same citizens.
Claims of fighting for freedom against oppressive governments doesn't work so well if the people actually living under those governments don't feel oppressed at all. If people can look around and easily show that the claims being made are bogus, the message isn't going to get very far. If however, the government does act as claimed, even if only in part, then the message will likely find a much more receptive audience.
You beat extremism in the long term by using military force only when absolutely necessary, with your primary tactic that of showing people that your side is the better one, and highlighting just how bad the other side is. Combating it by also acting extremist is just doing the other side's recruiting for them.
So they were getting money from monetizing the video, and now they get nothing. Absolutely brilliant, I can see they're really focused on making sure that the artists make as much money, and get as much exposure, as they can.
As always, watching their actions is like watching someone aim a gun at their foot, pull the trigger, and then start screaming about how painful it is and won't someone punish that guy standing over over there who had the gall to tell them that they were making a mistake, and who is clearly at fault?!
Add another entry to the list of reasons to avoid the parasites at all costs. The sooner they die off the better.