we know he's clearly violent and murderous, and has all the training he needs to become a successful terrorist, even if he does just have a sharp axe (I am completely pro-axe control, btw). I'm just surprised people like him are allowed to walk the street.
Since the biggest pirates also tend to be the biggest spenders on media, Hollywood are doing themselves a favour by encouraging piracy, since it helps their sales. However they are also hurting themselves, because the highest selling media tends to be the most pirated, therefore the more they sell, the more money they actually lose.
The only solution is for the MPAA (and RIAA et al) to implement mandatory entertainment taxes on all the citizens of the planet, to ensure they don't lose money. Without those entertainment taxes, entertainment could cease to exist!
The publisher then claimed its DRM policy was a success, insisting it had seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection".
Note that nowhere in the article is there any mention of increased sales from anywhere except from countries where we couldn't previously - places where our products were played but not bought, so it seems like they have some experience of switching to F2P does actually generate more paying customers but only in countries where no-one buys their games. Which is good for them, but the fact that they don't tell us how good is quite distracting.
I can immediately think of a few questions that might be worth answering to flesh out this situation:
How many people are paying for microtransactions in regions where they couldn't make money before? How does income/profit from F2P/'freemium' compare to the 'old' model? If 95% of 'customers' are actually pirates in both cases, how is that ratio distributed by region (in both retail models)? Are there more or less people (in total and by region) actually playing their games?
If they have this regional data, why aren't they sharing it? How exactly did they calculate their ~95% piracy rate? Can they confirm that F2P actually turns pirates into microtransactioners or are they two different demographics?
Re: You are illiterate and only look at pictures
Patent 5,266,064 is indeed for a meat-cutting machine.
Patent 5,346,711 is not a patent for any mechanical device. It is just directions on where to cut meat by hand with a knife.
Well if he was a marine
we know he's clearly violent and murderous, and has all the training he needs to become a successful terrorist, even if he does just have a sharp axe (I am completely pro-axe control, btw). I'm just surprised people like him are allowed to walk the street.
Actually...
Since the biggest pirates also tend to be the biggest spenders on media, Hollywood are doing themselves a favour by encouraging piracy, since it helps their sales. However they are also hurting themselves, because the highest selling media tends to be the most pirated, therefore the more they sell, the more money they actually lose.
The only solution is for the MPAA (and RIAA et al) to implement mandatory entertainment taxes on all the citizens of the planet, to ensure they don't lose money. Without those entertainment taxes, entertainment could cease to exist!
You know how
religions give out their holy books for free? Perhaps we could get the education system legally recognised as a religion*?
* - This is an insanely bad idea, I only suggest it to highlight a discrepancy that won't be solved with our current attitudes.
Do they care about increasing the number of paying consumers?
It seems not. From Eurogamer:
The publisher then claimed its DRM policy was a success, insisting it had seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection".
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-22-ubisoft-has-endured-a-93-95-percent-piracy-rate-on-pc
Note that nowhere in the article is there any mention of increased sales from anywhere except from countries where we couldn't previously - places where our products were played but not bought, so it seems like they have some experience of switching to F2P does actually generate more paying customers but only in countries where no-one buys their games. Which is good for them, but the fact that they don't tell us how good is quite distracting.
I can immediately think of a few questions that might be worth answering to flesh out this situation:
How many people are paying for microtransactions in regions where they couldn't make money before? How does income/profit from F2P/'freemium' compare to the 'old' model? If 95% of 'customers' are actually pirates in both cases, how is that ratio distributed by region (in both retail models)? Are there more or less people (in total and by region) actually playing their games?
If they have this regional data, why aren't they sharing it? How exactly did they calculate their ~95% piracy rate? Can they confirm that F2P actually turns pirates into microtransactioners or are they two different demographics?
Go with the flow.
Every time you pirate, a gatekeeper has a nightmare about having to lay off one of his personal full-time live-in manicurists.
Every time you 'just go without,' a content creator has a nightmare about becoming one of a gatekeeper's personal full-time live-in manicurists.
"there was a notable increase in reading long-form fiction books"
People still read fiction books? What do you think comics, TV, film, and videogames are for? Books are for non-fiction, you big sillies!