The NEW, Not Very Official, Hammer Out In A Day, Virtual

Visual Novel Community Archive, 2000-2009
#41
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
[quote] Originally posted by Ecchifan:
[b]Look at it this way, for example. Let's say you bought one copy of LMMW and registered it w/ VM. Now if you're able to de-register your copy and give it to a friend, who then pass it along to another friend, and the hand-me-down cycle repeats and repeats and repeats, how many copies will GC have sold? Just one.
Such a usage pattern should raise a red flag and result in human intervention. If someone registers/deregisters a game more than a set number of times, the game is locked, an email goes out (to the original owner) and that person must justify the request. It has the same effect as the current scheme, but it provides for legitimate exceptions. The logistics of physically passing a game from one person to another should also deter piracy among strangers, as now occurs with downloaders.

[/b] [/quote]

but why go through the hassle of having allowing deregistering to begin with? With the current VM system, you can (theoretically) pass on the game twice to your friends. After 2x, GC's implicit position is for your buds to get their own copies.

of course, I'm discounting the scenario where your friends come over to your place, and place the game on your computer. And that's not farfetched if you're at a college dorm.

#42
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Additionally before I answer my own question, don't confuse end of production with end of sales sales, which you and others have done in the past, they are not the same thing and should not be confused. Production could have ended 10 years ago but 200 games could still be sitting in their warehouse waiting to be sold.

Answer to the V-Mate question I asked above, if games prior to this system were ever sold out is seemingly no, therefore the question has not been answered beyond saying "we plan to have a patch" but in reality there never will be one since that end of sales can in theory be continually pushed back with producing more games when the first batch runs out if it ever does run out.

Oh so they put me on a SPAM list for their own products, joyful, that is one extra service I could do without.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-29-2004).]

I'm not confusing end of sales with end of production. The current GC position on the patch shifted from end of sales to end of production (i'm going by vaga's faq, which I will assume to be the current GC position on this matter). I'm only going by what vaga said, and making my own interpretation of his statements on behalf of GC.

but moving from theory to reality, you're correct in the lack of a hard, concrete, set day for a release of the patch. The uncertainty factor is how VM will affect sales. If people who downloaded previous GC releases are convinced to shell out $$$ for them, and people who previously bought used copies are willing to shell out a bit more for a new copy, then it's conceivable that the GC product may eventually be sold out. But even given that optimistic scenario, it's still unlikely, imo, for GC to order a second production run (b/c they are less likely to even break even with sales of that second batch). So to me at least, end of sales is equivalent to end of production, realistically.

I see the patch as somewhat of an act of faith-----that (a) VM will work as an anti-piracy and anti-reselling tool, (b) boost sales of VM linked GC titles to the extent that GC will sell out its stock of the game, and (c) given the economic infeasibility of a second production run, release the patch as a reward to loyal customers who bought the game despite VM.

So if you are skeptical that LMMW or any other future GC title will be sold out, then you have to assume that the patch won't be coming out any time soon.

#43
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
but why go through the hassle of having allowing deregistering to begin with? With the current VM system, you can (theoretically) pass on the game twice to your friends. After 2x, GC's implicit position is for your buds to get their own copies.
Deregistration answers the concerns about user resale. It may lead to more initial sales among nervous customers.

The idea of 'passing on the game to your friends' doesn't sound very practical. It makes any reinstallation that much harder. It doesn't provide your friends with the opportunity to pass the game on to their friends. It complicates account management if your friends decide they want to buy their own V-Mate games.

quote:
of course, I'm discounting the scenario where your friends come over to your place, and place the game on your computer. And that's not farfetched if you're at a college dorm.
Yes, in the college dorm scenario you might have a computer lab with free access to everyone on campus. V-Mate doesn't help in that situation, other than restricting play to three people at a time.

The pirates VM targets are the anonymous downloaders. They have no personal association and are not going to coordinate efforts to share game accounts. This group is not helped by deregistration since GC is able to track abnormal usage patterns.

#44

Yeah, and for targeting them, they cut legs to the off-liners. Very well done.

Let’s see how long it’ll last to them all.

#45

So the J-List statement of “A patch which turns off the VirtualMate system will be released approximately one year from the release of this game, which will completely eliminate the need to access the Internet to play – so there’s no need to worry about not being able to play this great dating-sim in the future.” has now been proven false advertising?

Shouldn’t they get that off the site, then?

#46

Yup. Everybody here keepon talking 'bout market, target and everything else, forgetting all of these variables are based on correct infos. If this info is a fake, then they should remove it.

#47
quote:
Originally posted by papillon:
So the J-List statement of "A patch which turns off the VirtualMate system will be released approximately one year from the release of this game, which will completely eliminate the need to access the Internet to play -- so there's no need to worry about not being able to play this great dating-sim in the future." has now been proven false advertising?

Shouldn't they get that off the site, then?

It hasn't been proven false. . . yet. If there is STILL no patch on October 26, 2005, then YES the phrase would be false. lol

As I said before, the patch is an act of faith. Can you take this promise of a future patch to the bank? no. But that doesn't mean the promise won't be fulfilled. Unless someone here has a reliable crystal ball, we just don't know if GC will come through with a patch or not. Or an "unofficial" patch by any programmer out there.

#48

Tried to post this on the GC BBS, but it won’t let me for some reason.

So let me ask the same question I asked before, albeit a little differently. You mentioned a patch less than 1 year after the game goes out of print, right? Typically how long after release does it take for a game to go “out of print”?

Sorry if it seems I’m belaboring the point, but for us customers, the release date is the only date we know. If GC is offering a patch, I want to have some idea how long after release to expect the patch.

#49
quote:
Originally posted by papillon:
So the J-List statement of "A patch which turns off the VirtualMate system will be released approximately one year from the release of this game, which will completely eliminate the need to access the Internet to play -- so there's no need to worry about not being able to play this great dating-sim in the future." has now been proven false advertising?

Shouldn't they get that off the site, then?

acknowledged. just told peter to take those off.

#50
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
I'm not confusing end of sales with end of production. The current GC position on the patch shifted from end of sales to end of production (i'm going by vaga's faq, which I will assume to be the current GC position on this matter). I'm only going by what vaga said, and making my own interpretation of his statements on behalf of GC.

but moving from theory to reality, you're correct in the lack of a hard, concrete, set day for a release of the patch. The uncertainty factor is how VM will affect sales. If people who downloaded previous GC releases are convinced to shell out $$$ for them, and people who previously bought used copies are willing to shell out a bit more for a new copy, then it's conceivable that the GC product may eventually be sold out. But even given that optimistic scenario, it's still unlikely, imo, for GC to order a second production run (b/c they are less likely to even break even with sales of that second batch). So to me at least, end of sales is equivalent to end of production, realistically.

I see the patch as somewhat of an act of faith-----that (a) VM will work as an anti-piracy and anti-reselling tool, (b) boost sales of VM linked GC titles to the extent that GC will sell out its stock of the game, and (c) given the economic infeasibility of a second production run, release the patch as a reward to loyal customers who bought the game despite VM.

So if you are skeptical that LMMW or any other future GC title will be sold out, then you have to assume that the patch won't be coming out any time soon.

You said both end of product and end of sales in several statements, almost as if they were interchangable.

Maybe, maybe not, they have lost at least (from these and other boards) 60 customers, which means to sell even what they use to plus say 60 additional copies of the game they need to sell 120 to new buyers, then we can start to talk about them nearing all the sales. As to a second production run, you don't make it as many, if say you produce 200 the first time you produce 50 the second time, that accomplishes two things, one you will still likely sell most of those (provided VM works and people do buy) and two you always have one left that is not sold so you can always refuse to give a patch. Yes I don't trust GC right now and would actually bet on them trying something like this, perfectly legal and within the realm of plausable deniability.

I still have a massive problem with that reselling aspect of this, a very massive problem. They won't sell out of stock even if this does work, you and I both know that, we both know that if the market is too small and is surviving only on luck and faith, then even with some more sales these won't sell out. We both hopefully also know that those that cannot download won't buy, given the pirate mentality most will problem be pissed at GC for making it slightly harder and if anything and perhaps ironically so join the boycott of GC, while others are working on a way to crack to so downloads can continue.

I have actually spoken to friends in the computer sciences and they have looked at VM and have told me (none will I mention here) several ways it could in theory be cracked. If these people can figure out these possibilites in a few days of looking at it then I am sure the pirates already have figured out some ways to try at the very least.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-29-2004).]

#51

Add the 45 i convinced, SCDawg.

So i’ll have a chance to play Hitomi after all!!!

I’ve just downloaded another bunch of **********. You can bet i’ll give it a try.

[This message has been edited by Italicus (edited 10-29-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Italicus (edited 10-29-2004).]

#52

Let me throw out another scenario then. Let’s assume that Peter Payne’s estimation of 100 illegal downloads for every legitimate copy sale is accurate. It could be more, it could be less. But just for our economic model, we’ll use 100 pirated copies per legit sale. Now if VM results in recapture of let’s say 5 sales that were originated lost due to piracy or reselling, and the equation becomes 6 sales vs. 95 pirated copies. then they’re still making more sales with the system than without the system.

Now what about the 100 lost sales people here are suggesting due to adoption of the VM system? If VM system will prevent 100 lost sales to piracy or reselling, then GC will at least be breaking even upon implemetation of VM. If VM recaptures more sales through its anti-piracy and anti-reselling protections, than what is lost due to implemention of this system, than it’s a net gain in sales for GC. So in essence, the system has some downside (loss of sales among users who decide not to support VM) but a lot bigger upside. It’s a risk to implement VM, but a justifiable one, imo.

Also, there’s another factor to consider----English b-gamers who would normally skip LMMW (i.e. lack of interest in cat dogs or for another reason) would buy buy this title just to try out the VM system for themselves, and see if they could put up with it or not. Plus, there’s been a lot of negative publicity regarding the system, and how GC announced it; people would be curious and buy it and see if the gloom and doom claims regarding VM are accurate or not. So I wouldn’t use the sales figures on LMMW as either in support of or against implementation of VM system.

#53
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
Let me throw out another scenario then. Let's assume that Peter Payne's estimation of 100 illegal downloads for every legitimate copy sale is accurate. It could be more, it could be less. But just for our economic model, we'll use 100 pirated copies per legit sale. Now if VM results in recapture of let's say 5 sales that were originated lost due to piracy or reselling, and the equation becomes 6 sales vs. 95 pirated copies. then they're still making more sales with the system than without the system.
Let's look at it this way too since you desire to throw out this model. 100 pirated copies per every 1 legit sale without V-Mate, pirates crack V-Mate, the numbers climb to 200 pirates copies per every 1 legit sale with V-Mate, which is a possiblity. I would say that is as possible as the number of pirates going down, given the backlash I have heard from many people on other boards who might be less inclined then any of us not to turn to pirating and if anything find it a quasi-sense of poetic justice to pirate since G-Collections showed little faith in it's customers not pirating.

The system worked in Japan yes, but once again I go on record as saying they only reason it did work and was not cracked (if that is actually true) is no one gave pirates a 'reason' to crack it. If pirating is a lot worse here then Japan, then even having this system in and of itself might be seen as a challenge to pirates and the 'need' to crack increases so despite claims of it being infallible in Japan, I remain very skeptical remembering once again no security is absolute.

Yet getting back to what you were saying about the chance to add from the former pirates, remember if they lose 60 to 100 people, they still need 120 to 200 additional sales just to make 60 to 100 new ones, it doesn't matter where they get them from, they still need them to just equal 60 new ones, and between the people they have either turned off with this system and have prevented pirating, but who would not buy the game anyway and the people they have unintentionally turned to pirating they likely will not get that 5 additional, probably far less.

Also there are very few things which can be called justifible risks, as risks by nature are dangerous and more likely to lead to failure then success. That said the small gain they might get in stopping pirates is outweighed by the large loss that might occur in loss of customers and unintentionally driving others to piracy. I really don't see a large if even 2 out of that 100 that once pirated now buying. Why would they now pay 50 dollars to a company that they did not pay to before? To now get the game since this is the only way? Doubtful, I still say they are more likely to feel restment to G-Collections then an urge to buy these games from G-Collections.

Add to that thought that out of that 100 I would conservatively guess between 80 to 95 percent are underage and cannot buy the games legally even if that is the only way to get them and of the other 5 percent at least 2 or 3 percent either cannot or will not spend the money, which if I am right leaves you with 1 or 2 percent of potential new customers which (discounting the ones you lost) might lead to a small increase in total number of customers but doubtful it will be as large as expected.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-29-2004).]

#54
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
Also, there's another factor to consider----English b-gamers who would normally skip LMMW (i.e. lack of interest in cat dogs or for another reason) would buy buy this title just to try out the VM system for themselves, and see if they could put up with it or not. Plus, there's been a lot of negative publicity regarding the system, and how GC announced it; people would be curious and buy it and see if the gloom and doom claims regarding VM are accurate or not. So I wouldn't use the sales figures on LMMW as either in support of or against implementation of VM system.
Who in the right mind would spend 40 dollars on a game they would otherwise skip just to try out a system they might not like? That is illogical, if they wanted to try it out they would wait for a game they liked hoping it all works out, they won't get more sales that way, if anything they will drive away potential sales as people sit and wait to hear about this system. I for one would have probably not gotten this game, it was a toss up to be honest as cat girls are not my thing, but V-Mate sealed the deal.

I might have been interested in their next three games but I sure as heck would not spend 40 dollars on a game that was a toss up to check out a system that might not be as bad as people are saying.

Do you have the money to waste in that fashion? If you do then I would suggest you invest in development of a new anti-pirating system that does not piss off customers and still works to stop pirates.

#55

Both of you are pointing at the wrong question.

People like me usually buy games because of their stories/plot/graphics/genre etc etc. And guys, this seems to me the third crappy one in a row. Sorry for nekonimi fans, but i dislike the graphics. These graphs, ahem, “sucks”, as well as Idols or CSMT2 ones did ( BTW the reason why i refused to buy Idols was Ecchifan review, MEGALOL!!! ).

You have to calculate also this in the equation.

MY .02 EUROCENTS.

[This message has been edited by Italicus (edited 10-29-2004).]

#56
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
I might have been interested in their next three games but I sure as heck would not spend 40 dollars on a game that was a toss up to check out a system that might not be as bad as people are saying.

Not everyone thinks that way. If a h-game is ridiculed heavily on Something Awful (which I don't read, btw, but it's a convenient example), for example, readers may decide to try the game themselves (probably get it by downloading, unfortunately). Negative publicity does draw consumer interest.

Going back to my previous example involving playing at a college dorm---a group of college kids could chip in 10 bucks a piece and try out LMMW on someone's labtop. You may not spend the 40 bucks personally, but some folks may.

Also, I wouldn't presume that GC will be around to publish and release Hitomi. It may well be the case that the backers of GC, fed up with VM's failure to curb piracy, will simply shut down the business.

#57
quote:
Originally posted by Italicus:
Both of you are pointing at the wrong question.

People like me usually buy games because of their stories/plot/graphics/genre etc etc. And guys, this seems to me the third crappy one in a row. Sorry for nekonimi fans, but i dislike the graphics. These graphs, ahem, "sucks", as well as Idols or CSMT2 ones did ( BTW the reason why i refused to buy Idols was Ecchifan review, MEGALOL!!! [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] ).

You have to calculate also this in the equation.

MY .02 EUROCENTS. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]


[This message has been edited by Italicus (edited 10-29-2004).]

Oh, NOW I'm the bad guy, eh? *cry* As an aside since you brought up my review, let me say that I'm a believer in honesty. And if I see something that doesn't make sense, I wouldn't hesitate to mention it in my reviews. So I'm sure folks at PP, GC, and Hirameki aren't always thrilled with me and my reviews. But that's not what I'm concerned with; my concern is what's good and bad about a release, and ultimately whether it's worth shelling out your hard earned money to buy.

As for the graphics, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone will like the way females are drawn by certain companies. I personally don't like the way Zyx draws their chicks, but that's just my personal tastes. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

#58
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
Not everyone thinks that way. If a h-game is ridiculed heavily on Something Awful (which I don't read, btw, but it's a convenient example), for example, readers may decide to try the game themselves (probably get it by downloading, unfortunately). Negative publicity does draw consumer interest.

(...)

Also, I wouldn't presume that GC will be around to publish and release Hitomi. It may well be the case that the backers of GC, fed up with VM's failure to curb piracy, will simply shut down the business.

You failed to answer my question, I asked if you had the money to waste in that fashion, not how could it be done, so what's your answer? Yes other may which is the key word and nothing I would put my money on them doing based on those people I am friends with and know that play such games.

Yes negative publicity draws interest, but it also makes people hesitant to spend about 50 dollars on something which is drawing so much negative attention focused on a system and a company that is repeating the same things over and over and sometimes changing it's mind not to mention leaving the door wide open to someday say "ha ha we lied about the patch". Even those people that support it are saying the same things as the company, merely saying "it can stop piracy it's good" and "I'll support GC because if they go out there is only PP left", not rousing endorsements of the system to even partly negate the negative comments.

It might be my way of thinking, but few I know would spend that much on this gamble, if they were going to blow 50 bucks they'd rather do it in Vegas then on this system. Remember too even if Something Awful is writing those reviews there are other sides that point out a lot of good things of these games, there is very little the other side has pointed out that is good about this system, merely (once again) it might stop pirates, it reduces the price 10 dollars and it puts you on a spam list.

No, not by Hitomi or even Pick Me Honey, they will release the next three games since all of them are perhaps being published now, but they will be it, if my guess is correct.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-29-2004).]

#59

Damn, my bet on only two years of surviving was too optimistic, then…

#60
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
Let me throw out another scenario then. Let's assume that Peter Payne's estimation of 100 illegal downloads for every legitimate copy sale is accurate. It could be more, it could be less. But just for our economic model, we'll use 100 pirated copies per legit sale. Now if VM results in recapture of let's say 5 sales that were originated lost due to piracy or reselling, and the equation becomes 6 sales vs. 95 pirated copies. then they're still making more sales with the system than without the system.

First, let me point out that Mr. Payne said "dedicated fans," not customers. They're hardly the same thing! There's at least a 10-fold difference, I would think.

quote:
Now what about the 100 lost sales people here are suggesting due to adoption of the VM system? If VM system will prevent 100 lost sales to piracy or reselling, then GC will at least be breaking even upon implemetation of VM. If VM recaptures more sales through its anti-piracy and anti-reselling protections, than what is lost due to implemention of this system, than it's a net gain in sales for GC. So in essence, the system has some downside (loss of sales among users who decide not to support VM) but a lot bigger upside. It's a risk to implement VM, but a justifiable one, imo.

VM will lose customers across the board, not just here. Americans don't like "spyware." Whether V-mate is or isn't is irrevelevant, because that's how it will be seen. The only thing balancing this is the lower cost. And I don't think that will be enough to compensate.

quote:
Also, there's another factor to consider----English b-gamers who would normally skip LMMW (i.e. lack of interest in cat dogs or for another reason) would buy buy this title just to try out the VM system for themselves, and see if they could put up with it or not. Plus, there's been a lot of negative publicity regarding the system, and how GC announced it; people would be curious and buy it and see if the gloom and doom claims regarding VM are accurate or not. So I wouldn't use the sales figures on LMMW as either in support of or against implementation of VM system.

Eh...this doesn't make sense. Why would anyone buy something just to see how bad it is? Maybe they might throw away a dollar or two for a laugh...but $40. Doubtful. The average consumer, if he understood what V-mate was, would never want to purchase something that has the potential to create a hassle.