C&C 4 requires constant internet connection
The upcoming Command and Conquer 4 will require a constant internet connection in order to run, apparently.
Rather than being an anti-piracy device, EA Community Manager Aasron Kaufman claimed that the game has certain features in common with an MMO game and will use that always-on 'net connection to track player progress through the game.
"As of right now, you need to be online all the time to play C&C 4," Kaufman posted on a fan forum (via Voodoo Extreme).
"This is primarily due to our 'player progression' feature so everything can be tracked. C&C 4 is not an MMO in the sense of World of Warcraft, but conceptually it has similar principles for being online all the time. While some may be taken aback by this, we've been testing this feature internally with all of our worldwide markets."
This also re-affirms the fact that Electronic Arts is making Command and Conquer 4 a PC exclusive title, with no console spin-offs planned for this particular instalment.
Command and Conquer 4 is due out next year some time, though we're not sure yet if it'll get a retail release too or be a purely digital title, like the C&C Red Alert 3: Uprising expansion. Let us know your thoughts on the game in the forums.
Previous Article
102 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyPeople will still bitch though :D
Screw EA, they have destroyed one of the best RTS game series there ever was....
i moved to my summer placement, and only living there for 3 month. it's really hard and expensive to get a connection for such a short period.
(managed in the end with a really nice neighbour who agreed to share his fiber connection)
we moved to a new house first of July for new accademic year, and until now, my housemates are still living in the house without a connection because of the 2 weeks needed by BT and O2.
the fact is, even it seems like everyone has internet. require a singleplayer game to have constant internet connection is still wrong.
this just sounds like a bad excuse, 'player progression' sounds like something like stats in BF2 or the likes, something that are mostly useful for competitive online play, but for singleplayer (assuming there will be one) mostly useless and not required to be online.
In the end an excuse, but in the end it will properly have no effect on pirating, give it two days and there's a crack.
And what happens if someone turns on a microwave?!?
So it would be to hard to keep your stats on a file on your PC, and upload them when you want to play multi player.
I spy the DRM monkeys flying overhead.
Gonna have to skip this one i think.
Seriously, if your internet doesnt work for some reason what do you do with a computer? play some game? ohh wait you can't if its C&C4.
For anyone who wants to argue I must be a pirate due to my dislike for anti piracy measures that hurt honest Customers, have a look here in the thread with the 10 most torrented games in 08.
Makes me wonder why Pipex (or someone else) haven't tried blocking World of Warcraft, either - patches on that game are delivered via P2P aren't they?
Theoretically.
They might justify it by providing 'value added' extras like, "Stuck on this bit of this mission? Click here for hints or videos of Pro's playing this map!"
I'm gonna pass on this game. EA have managed to kill a great series. :(
Hopefully the internet storm that this starts will be big, messy and leave EA doing a quick U-turn.
Kimbie
Probably because the majority of us are with ISP's that either limit the users monthly usage (allowance) despite being 'unlimited' or in the case of Pipex completely block certain applications completely.
Of course there is always the argument that why should a SINGLE PLAYER game NEED constant internet access?!
The simple point here is that the game should not require this unless you happen to be playing it in multiplayer.
When will developers/ publishers realise that is DRM like this (lets face it the real reason here is to prevent piracy) that causes people to pirate the game in the first place. Perhaps one day they will realise that key to making a decent profit is to both not treat your customers like they are criminals AND make a decent, unique, and thoroughly enjoyable game for once (something EA seems incapable of).
Hey, wait. Now that you mention it.. i WILL pirate this game. EA has ****ed me over one too many times. I will NOT pay them for this because i KNOW that they will eventually pull the plug on the servers. They always do.
A CUSTOMER LOST IS A PIRATE GAINED! ARR!!!
I don't believe the amount of information would be a problem, it's not like they need to transport several GB to update.
however as a anti piracy measurement, it's gonna be as useless as usual, anything that has been programmed can be reprogrammed.
The only thing DRM does is punish those that by a retail copy. DRM is the sole reason why I don't have GTA4, any why I almost dropped Fallout 3 (until i found out Windows live was not a requrement)
Are you really that naive?
Two examples of why your argument just isn't enough:
Pipex have just made themselves an excellent example of why having an internet connection is not enough - they block Steam completely during what they define as 'peak' hours - you need to have an internet connection you can trust 100% for a game to require something like this.
My cousins have recently had a great deal of fun with their internet connection when BT managed to flick a wrong switch in their local exchange and disabled their broadband for close to three weeks before BT finally found the problem. Three weeks of no internet because an engineer flicked a switch he shouldn't have. Good luck playing a game if/when all games require this sort of nonsense and something like that happens.
It's like EA just don't want to sell any copies of this game, so they made a complete pig's ear of the entire franchise, alienated their customer base, then deliberately limited its appeal by restricting access to only a certain number of gamers.
Way to go, EA. Way to go. If I was their CEO I'd be seriously be considering firing this bunch of incompetent halfwits, as they clearly have no idea how to make a video game successful.
LOL, Naive? What I said is fact. One guy had an issue with his interbnet for a few weeks, how often does that happen? LOl, please, thats the best you can do, I know a dude who had an intenet issue for a couple weeks, WAAAN< cannot playa game for one wek, no different then when Xbox live goes down for many, or Steam, etc... None issue, being made an issue by Pc gamers who shoot themself in the foot. 99% of Pc gamers will not even know it requires an internet connection while they play, it will play just as is, if you have an issue do not buy it, it is a requirement on the box, not rocket science. IMO, PC gaming is going to be all online based because PC gamers value nothing and think piracy is their birth right. Blame pirates for this.
Then don't buy it , it is a requirement stated on the box, there is more then enough gamers online to sell a game that requirse internet, this is 2009, not 1996. Steam, WOW, many other games require online, hardly an issue with reagrds to sales in this day and age.
I won't be.
Sounds like it's gonna be arse anyway.
I would have to disagree, I don't know where you live but this may be true most places, however I lived just a year in the US (KY) and honestly thier internet is some S**** several were still on the old dial up and the rest was unstable at best. you can't say people has to pay for a dialup phone line just to play a single player !
for most of us I do see your argument, personally would it be no problem, as long as the game just need to connect to a (stable) server. But if they want some program running om my pc constantly, then that is when I begin to have a problem.
Thinking that everybody has a great connection is naive, however I believe that things like this is going to be more common over the next few years.
It seems to be the case a little too ofthen.:(
More often than you'd think when it comes to British Telecom. You're not too good at reading, either, are you? I said cousins. Notice the s on the end. That was a family of five, and apparently most of their neighbours as well that were left without internet. So no, it's not 'one guy'.
To be fair to EA, they label their games that require a 'net connection a lot better than some others. The 'online activation required' warning on the game 'Legendary' is tiny (less than 1/3" square) and blends in remarkably well with the games' box art. Fortunately I spotted it before I unwrapped the thing.
...
DXR_13KE... you're probably right.
LOL, you know a coupel peopel, WOW. Call the press, means zilch.
Once again, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT like GPU, CPU, if you have an issue simply do not buy, not hard to udnerstand. There is more then enough gamers with stable HS connections to sell millions of copies. Who said anything about having to pay for anything, do not buy the game and move on, not sure why people get bnt out of shape about requiring a net connection, many types of software outside of games require registration and verification online and has for years, With the way piracy is on PC that's prob where everything is heading.
require an internet connection for single player game is crazy and stupid. so is requiring internet connection in LAN events. (looking at you, Blizzard)
i don't know how old you are or what kind of internet situation you've got. but not everyone's situation is as stable as living with your parents. be considerate and read what other people posted.
btw, putting posts in paragraphs makes it much easier to read. just a heads up :)
I think you misunderstood me a little there. You sounded like you expected everybody to have a good connection, wich was what I wanted to prove wrong.
I did not say that there was no market for it, on the contrary a service like Steam should be more than enough evidence that the market is there.
That the games are going to be more and more online is just the development, and personally not a problem, I just dont want to have to make several accounts and install five diffrent programs in order to play a game, so logging into a server is no problem. In the end, as a developer I might have done the same.
Sure not every single computer playing person in the world has an internet connection, so they don't buy the game.
Interestingly a large number of the people in this thread who state "not going to buy it due to this internet requirement" finish their statements with something like "I never get EA games as they are ****" or "the game looks like it will be **** anyway"... so if you weren't going to buy the game anyway, why should you care?
I don't use steam but if virgin was to shut down access to WoW servers I would put my money where my mouth is and change ISP.. not whine about it... I mean most of us can get internet access from a wide range of ISPs, not just one or two.
I mean seriously is this method of DRM not a whole hell of a lot better than most other systems?
Personally I think this is the best way to implement DRM as it should mean no secondary programs running on your system, no rootkits and all that other ****.. just the game verifying your serial code when it starts.. or every now and then.
The game will obviously get cracked so that an internet connection is not needed, but that is hardly the point, look at it this way: This type of DRM will most likely be less intrusive for the people who actually paid for the game.
What *is* a problem for me, is what guarantee are EA going to give me that this system cannot be hacked and used for nefarious purposes? I.e. exploiting back doors and security holes to gain access to target PCs. If they're going to design a system like this, it needs to be tighter than a duck's *rse.
I'm not going to buy the game either way - I went off the C&C series a while ago.
The model may actually work too. I quite fancy an RTS that has persistence qualities like an MMO.
And we dont complain that an internet connection is required to play WOW now do we !
What worries me is that it was hard enough getting C&C3 working properly through my router when multiple people were at the house to play others online and host games, so without LAN play C&C4 better improve in this area.
That's not what we're worried about. At least not me. It's the fact that EA shuts down server support for their games after a few years.
By that time they probably feel that they have gotten all the money out of the game they can... so three things will/can happen:
1. they release a patch which removes the internet connection requirement, unless its actually needed for game play.
2. they release the server software and someone else will host
3. most likely thing is that you have already gotten sick and tired of the game and are playing C&C 7!
A fourth option is that you use one of the 50 cracks which will be available and disable the internet bit that way
I still miss Generals : (
Even though it works with Hamachi it's impossible to get a decently sized group together.
QF absolute T.
You know it's amusing, marketing 101 tells you that you find a niche market in a crowded marketplace and you cater for the top 20% of your audience because they bring in 80% of your income. If you want to cater for the lowest common denominator then by all means, build a game that will run on PCs built 5 years ago but it will be crap. Hell, you guys don't even know what this new always online feature will do! At least wait until they reveal what it is before slating it!
naeh, It's mutch more fun talking about something you don't know anything about :D
I remember when the latest Unreal Tournament game came out I found it really annoying that whenever my net connection dropped (remember during Single player, you had to be connected to the Gamespy server) the game would kick me back to the menu and would lose all the single player levels and bonuses I'd completed since the last save.
Word as singleplayer game, Outlook as multiplayer game. so you won't want to be required to be constantly connected to the internet.
another could be a mobile phone need plugged in to function. this is a metaphor of being tied down to something unnecessary.
PC gamers isn't killing PC gaming. it's the publishers who put unnecessary DRM and making pirate's life easier, legit buyer's life harder.
look at 2Dboys who made World of Goo, they didn't put ANY DRM and the game sold very well. it's the quality of the game that matters, and often, publishers blame poor sales on pirates instead of bad game design. (in Gears of War PC port's case, bad multiplayer system: Games for Windows Live)
And DirectX 11 :D
OT: While I don't really care about a need for constant connection, the reason behind it seems, well, stupid. To say that it is " for your own good", or for the benefit of the game, just sounds so much like a parent scolding a child.
DRM is DRM.
I've no problem with that. If it stops piracy - which is what this is about - then good for them. It's better than that securom guff.
Everyone I know has permanent 365 days a year internet connections to their PC's. So, where's the fire?
Actually 9/10 copies of World of Goo were pirated.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/14/90-percent-of-world-of-goo-installs-are-pirated/1
Unlucky wuyanxu, maybe you can provide a better example of a company not using DRM that isn't rampantly pirated by kids and chavs?
anyway, my point is: unnecessary DRM is the end of PC gaming, and this is the prime example.
It was only pirated outside of Steam and not in Steam I'm pretty sure ...
Maybe someone could clarify that?
And Steam requires internet connection most times except for when in offline mode ...
Wow ... similarities ... to this story ... but no boycotting Steam ... Hmmm ... intelligence .... not ... found ... here.
IIRC that study didn't consider non static IP addresses and customers that pirated and then bought the game....
Anyway, even if the numbers were that high, how much money did they save by not licensing or making a DRM system? if they implemented a DRM system would this number be lower?
And this would have to be a situation where the features enabled through net connection would logically require a net connection.
Done like this, it's a win on many sides: actual DRM would be unnecessary, and a quality game would have had to have been produced, therefore it's a win for us as well as game designers who like to do good work. It would strengthen EA's brand and help shake their bad reputation. It would also allow the executives who are so concerned about piracy to pat each other on the back, as this would reduce that as well, though without the conventional DRM.
I swear, it's like the majority of people running EA don't seem to understand business. Let's see if this product changes that.
No we dont becuase its a godd*** MMO. Which in case you didn't know mean massively multiplayer ONLINE. You can't play a f***ing MMO without an internet connection period becuase it wouldn't be a MMO! So no s*** Sherlock of course we don't complain it requires an internet connection!
I think the people that are complaining them most are mostly concerned about the single player aspect of the game and don't have much interest in the multiplayer. you shouldn't have to have an internet connection to play a single player game it makes no sense other than to try and stop piracy. Which it won't.
Leper - you've been told before.
It was always a pipedream...
how the hell did they turn a classic RTS into an MMORPG?!?
Not trolling, a troll is something bad.
You have been lurking, you are a lurker.
I think.
they should have just announce it as an MMO if they wanted the public to embrace their so called feature,lol
Correct ;)
C&C is dead to me. The last one I got was C&C3 and it was disgraceful compared to the previous.
I don't game online alot. Hell at my apartment the ISP cuts out ALOT and mostly we have speeds around 56k when everyones on.
So I won't just bother with alot of new games that need this.
Atleast with the classics everyone in the place can play thanks to LAN.
/me hides under covers
Actually I worked on a game at EA where the idiots literally didn't put the fact that it required a monthly fee on the box. It was an MMOG. On the second release they put it on, but in very very very small print.
I stand corrected. I shall continue "lurking". That is all.
I really have. I hate DRM in all forms, I believe that if you pay for the content, you should be allowed to do anything you want with it short of reverse engineering it. Yes, that means I believe you should be allowed to make a floppy hat out of the latest game.
I don't think, though, I have any more fight left in me. DRM is creeping.. No, thundering, into all my favourite games. SCII forcing everything through Battle.net, Constant net connection for C&C4, DoWII using Steam and G4WL, online only games etc.
At this stage, so long as it doesn't try and hog my bandwidth, I'm not sure I can bring myself to care.
How many times do you need a game installed? I would hedge my bets here and say that most people (I mean mass market here as well, not just hardcore gamers or the Bit-tech crowd) will have a game on no more than one or two systems at a time. As long as they offer a way to "de-activate" a copy of a game, e.g. by uninstalling it, then I'm not too bothered about install restrictions. Most modern games that I buy only ever get installed on one machine at a time - mine.
Even with Spore (I installed at least 7 times. Same hardware, nearly) and never hit the "omgnoactivation" thing.
Hell, I even activated my Vista 64 OEM three times without issue, on three different hardware sets.
I am currently replaying my purchased MW4 games (MW4, BK, Mercenaries), those are 2000-2002 released games.
I have installed those several times on my systems, I lended to a couple of friends and to my cousins. I wouldnt do that if they had limited activations DRM.
Its not the same thing.
OK, I'm going to come right out and ask this; you say "most games" - can you give me examples? I've never had an issue with me hitting the activation limit on any kind of DRM, let alone games (not even iTunes), so I've never had a problem.
Some quick research I've done in the last 10 minutes turns up two recent games which use DRM: Spore and Red Alert 3. Spore allows you to only have 3 installations of the game at any one time and authenticates when it is first installed - no further authentication is needed (I'm assuming it's linked to the user account); RA3 allows only 5 authenticated PCs at any one time. Both of these are now coming out with patches to remove the authorisation from that current PC; how this will work, whether it's setting a software flag or uninstalling the game, I don't know and frankly I'm not bothered as I don't own either of them. It seems that - in these two cases at least - publishers have blundered, realised their mistake and worked to put things right.
As to what systems other publishers or developers employ, I haven't got a clue. Frankly, three installations or activations sounds like a pretty long lifespan to me. Gone are the days when we need to re-install Windows every couple of months to keep it running smoothly. Unless you're running a test-bed system, that kind of maintenance is rarely necessary these days. As for not being able to loan the game to friends, this is the price we pay for rampant piracy. It's fair to say that piracy in PC gaming is far more prevalent than on consoles - simply because of the ease with which games are obtained (no need for a modchip or special DVD burners, etc). DRM and anti-copy protection measures are here to stay as they are a necessity. As long as people know they can get something for nothing we will have piracy - and for as long as we have piracy, we will have the need for anti-piracy measures.
If you were in the shoes of a game developer or publisher, you would want the right to protect your assets (and therefore your livelihood) as well, or you'd face being penniless. For the record, I think DRM stinks - badly - so I'm not out to defend it, merely to point out that people have to protect their interests. The music industry is starting to turn itself around on all the stupid anti-piracy measures they used to employ, so perhaps the games industry could take a few lessons there.
PS, my source for the above is at the following 2 pages: http://www.amazon.com/Most-have-wrong-understanding-facts/forum/Fx1HJE2RTRO2AI9/TxF2HIP7F895ET/1/ref=cm_cd_lm_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B0016BVY7U & http://kotaku.com/5051514/steam-drm-vs-spore-drm
It's not in the same league as always needing an internet connection to play a single-player game and we are talking about different platforms & markets, but since we're discussing DRM & copy protection it seemed a salient point.
About six. I ket forgetting username/password/emails used. This was before I finally clocked onto the concept of forwarding them all to my main account..
About the only constant would have been IP address, I think.
BioShock, Mass Effect, Spore, Crysis Warhead, FarCry2, Command&Conquer Red Alert3, Alone in the Dark, Dead Space, Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark, Burnout Paradise Ultimate, Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, S.TA.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, Egosoft's X3: Terran Conflict, Sacred2 Fallen Angel, and Anno 1404.
There may be more, I just dont remember.
Of those, Bioshock and, I think, all of the EA games are now capable of activation revokes. If you remember to do it before formating the system.
Some digtal distributed games have limited activations, others dont.
As long as the system is not formated, Securom will keep the record of the game activation on that system. Securom doesnt uninstalls itself when the game is uninstalled.
Thats why installation of a game may not be activation of a game.
This DRM does not work, it helps piracy, it kills second hand sales, causes problems and hassles to games buyers (revoking activations and upgrading hardware).
If you can't see it from the point of view of publishers and developers, then you're really missing the point here. It's all well and good saying "DRM is bad", but DRM and copy-protection measures are simply necessary on the PC.
Consoles already have adequate anti-piracy measures built into them; usually, they can only run code which has been signed by the console manufacturer - the implementation methods differ, but the general principle is the same. Therefore the developers/publishers don't have to worry about building in DRM or copy protection, because the systems are already there and it's a lot more difficult to break. Sure piracy is going to happen, but it's not usually a simple affair for the average person: generally you need some kind of hardware modification, purpose-built hardware, modified firmware, hacked save game files, etc. All a PC user needs in order to pirate software is an internet connection - no extra hardware, no risking damaging components with flashing, etc.
If you don't include any kind of copy protection, you risk a massive loss of sales revenue due to piracy. Faced with that kind of risk, developers & publishers have to ask themselves a simple question: is it worth all this money and effort, when there's a chance we won't get paid for it?
let me rephrase that:
so... if you insert DRM and copy-protection measures they will be cracked before the game is out for sale, pirates have an easier time playing the game than people that bought it.
if you still cant get your head around that then let me get you a simple example:
Brand X car maker says that it has had it to its head with people stealing their cars, so they spend large amounts of money to add a system that makes the car unusable after a certain number of people have used it or can only be ridden on certain parts of the city (if you drive it out of these parts then it shuts down), etc... things that, on paper, make it harder for someone to steal a car, brand X goes on the news saying that they have defeated car robbers around the planet, HURRAY!!! but wait, suddenly it becomes known that several groups of individuals have made a method by which it is easy to steal the car and they find this method before the cars come out, car robbery numbers don't change, in certain parts they rise.
has brand X invested its money well?
DRM does not prevent piracy!
edit: tell me one DRM system that prevents piracy!
A game you really want has just been released with DRM: what are you, as a consumer, going to do about it? Boycott the game/publisher? Pirate the game out of spite? Buy the game and then rip out the DRM (which is almost tantamount to piracy)? Or simply buy it and put up with it?
I've never said that I'm in favour of DRM - in fact I stated quite the opposite in an earlier post. The current systems we'reseeing are the latest evolution in copy-protection, and copy-protection is here to stay, like it or not. In the future we'll likely see smarter and less intrusive measures, but it'll still be there.
For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Steam's approach. Leaving out issues of pricing and broken patches, I think they've managed to do a good job of authentication. The solution I'd like to see is a similar one across all publishers/developers, coupled with a system for re-selling games and an overall reduction in price.
Problem is if all publishers create a similar system -> Password/Accounts Hell.
Myself, I'd ignore the game (or get it on console instead, eg. Bioshock/Mass Effect). Steam is the only DRM method which I'll actually put up with, although it is causing me a headache at the moment (as I've mentioned above and in the Steam/Pipex thread) but that's not actually Steams fault.
Others I know (who would normally buy the game) would turn to the torrents to get a cracked version which would work without jumping through hoops (which results in a lost sale).
Does steam's DRM system work? of course it does not work! i wont link you to the torrents but you can easily find every game available on steam on any torrent site. Not even World of Warcraft is immune to piracy.
What needs to be done? give good deals to customers! I will buy the steam complete pack as soon as episode 3 comes out, its an awesome deal and they deserve the money, they have made some of the best games i have played in my life.
I wasn't planing on getting UT3, but as soon as i saw it on the shelf at 10 i grabbed it and bought it, why? because its a good deal. The same with unreal anthology that i got for 20, even if i have 2 of the games in the collection.
Proper gamers will buy the games, anyway. Its the feeloaders/parasites that always find an excuse to get the game (ie. they will pirate a game because its a sunny day ot because it is a rainy day).
zero day piracy still exists... in some cases pre-zero day piracy exists...
also refrain from using "parasites", continue with "freeloaders" ;)
They take the developers software, take adavantage of the publishers work and expect the legitimate gamers to pay for the game?
IIRC a parasite is a creature that takes advantage of a host and gives nothing back (in most occasions it hinders the host).
Several studies indicate that individuals that commit piracy are also individuals that spend a lot of money on media, hardware and consumables like blank cds and dvds.
I agree with the term freeloaders, they do freeload, but parasites... that brings several negative connotations that may impact negatively your side of the debate.
in validity the next is what i thing when someone talks to me about piracy:
copyright infringers > freeloaders > parasites > thieves (consider it as a validity spectrum)
When someone says that "copyright infringers are killing game developers" i see that as a completely valid claim and go search data to back that up or ask for data to back that claim, i do this because i know that you will do that and you may or may not rectify your statement after you indicate the source of your data, after you give me the data (or after I find it my self) i will change my views on your subject or rest assured that my views are correct (for now).
When someone says that "thieves are killing game developers" i see it as a personal crusade against another group, congratulations, you have now joined the group of crazy fanatics that includes guys like crazyceo.
My stance on piracy: its a symptom that something is wrong, the correct way to decrease or remove piracy is not to cure the symptoms with band aids and chemicals that will make you ill, you go to the source, if you kill the source and the symptoms are still there then you have not found the source.
Valve pointed out a nice nifty fix for the situation: price reduction, remember the increases in profit?
Lets put it this way:
Considering that COD MW2 will cost £55, will have X profit and will have Y amount of piracy.
If you reduce the price to say....£20, will the value of A increase and Y decrease?
What do you think?;)
edit: i was writing the above in a calm and nice tone and with a smile on my face. It is hard to convey emotions using the internet.
And parasites is what they are, their positive contribution to the system they take advantage of is marginal. The problem you have with the use of the word in this context is only based on the negative conotation it has.
Would the world be made only of freeloaders/parasites, the pernicious nature of them would be obvious.
f (X, Y)=42?
;)
I can agree with everybody's stances on piracy, but although this might not apply to the majority of the buyers, have you considered that some people can't afford to buy games at those prices? Here £55 can be anywhere up to a third or more of the monthly wages for most gamers fresh out of college and with a job (thats 2 weeks wages for a single game). Even with a decent-ish salary thats a fifth of the monthly wages.
When you look at it from that perspective you can understand why you'd be hard pressed to find original games in these parts.
And why there isn't a crackdown on pirated games. Most people i know here would gladly buy originals, but it just costs too much to pay 2 weeks salary for 10hours of gaming... Just my 0.2$
:Edit: woah thread revival, sorry followed it from today's article