Armchair Arcade: Forums / General Discussion / Software Piracy: Fighting the Evil Empire Since 1979

Main Menu

BACK TO NEW WEBSITE
bullet

Current Issue
bullet

Past Issues
bullet

System Matrix
bullet

Forum

AA Store

Industry News
bullet

Submit Article/Art
bullet

Submit News
bullet

Links

About Us

DreamAuthentics

For your custom home arcade machine needs, visit here and use Coupon Code: DREAM220

Sponsored Links

Awards Received

Armchair Arcade -> Forums -> General Discussion

<< Previous thread | Next thread >>

Software Piracy: Fighting the Evil Empire Since 1979

Moderators: Bill Loguidice, David Torre, crcasey, Mark1970, deshrill

Author

Post

Matt Barton

Sun Jan 25 2004, 10:52AM

Location: Tampa, Florida
posts 2680

Hi, folks. I'm about to start a thread here that is pretty common on any forum related to videogames, or even computers for that matter. It's software piracy. Now, I don't know about you, but I know that I wouldn't have experienced 1% of the computer games I enjoyed as a youth if my father hadn't been a software pirate. At most, I would have enjoyed three or four games a year. Instead, I had access to hundreds, on both the Commodore 64 and the Amiga.

My parents were not rich.

Now, one of the advantages the Commodore 64 had over the game consoles of its day was specifically the ability to pirate software. Cartridge? Can't copy. Floppy? Copy that floppy! I'm convinced that a large part of Commodore's success was based on the ease with which people could copy software. This resulted in "communities" popping up all over the world; families befriended families purely on the basis of spreading Commodore 64 software. I can't tell you how many wonderful people I met through my father's software trading. Software trading built communities and brought computers to the people.

The industry has always fought against software piracy in what I consider to be a misguided effort to maximize their profit. They are quick to dredge up statistics that indicate that piracy is resulting in a loss of sales, and always have some "artist" standing by to complain that he can't afford to make the next best project because of all the money lost to piracy. "I need to feed my family, too!" you can hear him saying. The industry and its "pubic relations" men have become so good at what they do, that they have convinced a large segment of our population that it is intrinsically evil to copy digital information without paying someone for the privilege. This is the same mentality that has forced public schools to pay large sums of money to "publishers" for the "rights" to photocopy texts that students desperately need to read.

I work at a state university. I have seen the signs above copying machines that specify, "DO NOT COPY COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS." So, I have to take these materials to Pro-Copy, where the helpful clerk contacts all the publishers, secures the rights, and passes the cost on to the student. In the end, it's cheaper to have the students buy the books, because a publisher has nothing to lose by charging $50 a page to copy a book chapter, essay, or short story. Is the same thing happening in high schools? Middle schools? GRADE SCHOOLS? You bet it is. Disney has even gone after DAYCARE centers that dared to use unauthorized cartoons on its walls. The "culture industry," as Horkheimer & Adorno refer to it, is out to make a buck, even if that means depriving a child. The "bottom line" mentality has led to a disintegration in morality--the present generation has been characterized as a "gimme" generation, that is, a generation that finds no interest in anything but a "quick fix." Sustained critical interest in any topic, whatsoever, is beyond their capacities, and the industry has persuaded them to distrust communities and privilege store bought products and wisdom over anything learned at the home.

Case in point: Halloween candy. Don't trust those popcorn balls from the old lady down the street--they could have razor blades hidden in them or cyanide sprinkled on the top. Only eat candy, like M&Ms, that are still in their proper packaging.

The industry has taught us to be wary of our neighbors; to fear and despise people who share. Remember the Gollum creature in the Lord of the Rings movies? That's what the industry would like to do to all of us, with "our precious" being whatever expensive products we felt gave us purpose in life.

Now, let us return to software piracy. What is it? It is a battle waged, by the people, against the culture industry. Software pirates, to use a term from Star Wars, are the "Rebels" fighting an increasingly hopeless war against the might of an inhuman "Empire" that wants only to crush all resistance and make us all submit to the unholy power of mass capital.

Software pirates, just like teachers making "illegal" photocopies of book chapters for their children, are not evil. They are the people's champions in the war over "intellectual property." Let me discuss that with you for a bit.

What is "Intellectual Property" and why is it such a dangerous concept?

Michel Foucault, a famous author of books very critical of our society, has said that the concept of a "King," that is, the old feudal system of vassals and lords, is still quite strong in our modern democratic socities. Sure, we'd be hard-put to find anyone answering to the name of "King" in our government, but the same power network is still in place, with the "subject" or "citizen" still feeling a moral obligation to strive to make some other man rich, and the rich all looking up to the same few individuals who, indirectly or directly, have the power to make or break their kingdoms.

In the Middle Ages, the feudal system was based on blood and soil. What mattered was control of actual property and the family name that was attached to it. The people worked for their lord, who secured their safety in exchange for a lifetime of thankless work and struggle. In turn, the lords served the king, who secured their security in exchange for strapping on armor every once and awhile and risking it all on the battlefield.

How is this any different from what we have today? The only difference I see is that it is not the lords who strap on armor and go to war to save the empire; it's us! It's the peasants who have to work their lives away, then risk all on the battlefield for the sake of a sham democracy.

Anyway, I digress.

In the modern feudal system, we're less concerned with soil, than with "intellectual property." One thinks of the puzzlement by which the Native Americans were claimed to have towards the European's insistence that natural resources, such as land, mountains, and rivers, were property to be bought and sold. "These are for all of us to enjoy," they may have said. "YES--if you pay us the proper FEE," replied the parasite.

Now, this same parasitical influence has been extended to the most natural resource of all--our very ideas! The very words we say and write have been "commodified" to serve the interests of our "lords," namely, the rich.

At last we can unveil the rich's "bottom line" for what it is: The quest for dominion, the desire to dominate, the mission to not only subjugate, repress, and tyrannize the populace, but to convince the populace that adhering to their "laws" is a moral obligation and the only "good" thing to do.

What I challenge you to do, friends, is to see the war on "software piracy" for what is: A war on the people. See how it mutates even those it supposedly rewards into craven, gollum-like creatures, sucked dry of talent and passionless, with the sole exception of that wretched, hoarse crooning they do for the sake of profit: "Peer-to-peer networking is evil! Stop it or we'll sue all you pathetic fans!"

Metallica once sang a song called "Nothing Else Matters," in which they claimed that we should always be true to what we are. I think this song of theirs has taken on a new and quite cynical meaning, especially now that we know that "what they are" are a pack of greedy mongrels, henchmen, who serve their lords and masters with all the diligence of a feudal knight, hell-bent on crushing the peasant rebellion in exchange for a share of the spoils.

Folks, it's up to you. You may choose, like me, to idolize the early software liberators, who consistently and brilliantly found ways to defeat the industry's most crippling "copy protection," or the stalwart figures who created the world's best information distribution system just to see themselves villified and punished for the efforts. Or, you may pay homage to those swarms of lawyers and CEOs who everyday progress in their mission to, at last, reduce the American citizen to little more than a "perfect consumer," there is no safe place to hide--even voicing a complaint will require the proper fees and the securing of all "rights," not to mention access to a public forum, which, again, will require that the proper forms be filed and licenses obtained.

I will not pay for the privilege to partake of those elements of my culture and country that, above all others, ought to be taken for granted: Art, Learning, and any other "Intelletual Property" upon whose grass I feel like walking on. 'Nuff said.

[ Edited ]

Matt Barton

Bill Loguidice

Sun Jan 25 2004, 11:20AM

Armchair Arcade Co-Founder and Editor

Location: Central New Jersey, USA
posts 4817

Reading old interviews like this, though, breaks my heart to think of "what if" this guy had been properly motivated to continue programming: http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/GOODMAN.HTM
The Bilestoad for the Apple II was something else!

Same thing with Jim Sachs. This guy SHOULD have made MORE C-64 stuff - his visual contribution to the hardware was THAT good: http://www.serenescreen.com/info/author.php

Now, at the same time, I would have never experienced even a quarter of the games I experienced on the C-64 that I did, so I have mixed feelings, and certainly I appreciate having the collection now, but I WISH there was a way these guys could be rewarded for stuff I played a LOT. I bought a LOT, but as a kid, I sure did pirate a lot too (and no, I didn't frequent BBS' for software, I just traded at my junior high school).

As for copying cartridges, you could theoretically do it on the C-64. I don't recall ever getting it to work, or only working once. You could certainly do it quite easily on the ADAM though, though copying to data cassette was actually a pretty poor solution considering the reliability of those things.

The only systems I REALLY majorly "pirated" on were the C-64 and PC. Of course I would still LOVE to get MORE software for my Apple II and other computer systems ANY WAY possible at this point, but I have so much stuff now that it's kind of pointless. I can eventually buy what I want with enough patience, and the there's always emulation to fill the gaps in knowledge. I don't know, I'm certainly a different person now then when I was a kid "hungry" for as many games as possible. I simply don't have the "piracy" itch in me quite as much anymore and am ESPECIALLY against it for modern consoles. This is a tough topic, worthy perhaps of a point/counterpoint type of article. Perhaps one person takes the PRO side and the other takes the CON side. That might be very interesting. Perhaps we should at it to the list?

Bill Loguidice - Armchair Arcade Editor
www.billandchristina.com (includes videogame & computer collection)
www.mythcore.com (creative development company)
www.armchairarcade.com (soliciting articles NOW!)

Buck Feris

Sun Jan 25 2004, 12:10PM

Armchair Arcade Editor

Location: Louisville, KY
posts 1542

There has to be a change in the mindset. Not just the fat cats, everyone. I admit, I don't know if this would ever happen, I am just talking Utopia for a second.

The GNU license and other similar projects have the right idea. There is tons of software available for free. This very website is built around the e107 content management system which is free. E107 is coded in PHP which is a language that is free to use. It exists on a server which is running a free operating system: Linux. The server software is Apache, also free. I could go on for days talking about all the free software that makes the web work, but you get the point.

The problem is that people are EXPECTING to make a lot of money doing this. I realize that many good games come from development houses with large budgets. But how much crap comes form these same developers? Independant programmers make a lot of crap as well. But I would argue that the gem to crap ratio is about the same. End result: in this medium, technology has reached a point where you don't need a million dollar budget to produce a work of art, you just need the love of your craft.

I'm sitting here on a Sunday afternoon working on this free publication when I should be working on my class. Why? Cause I want to contribute and create. You may read it for free.

For every Metallica, there are 20 bands who would be tickled pink if you would just get there music on P2P and listen to it in your car on the way to work. That would make their day. The answer: stop listening to Metallica and give the other 20 bands a shot.

So to reel this in, the programmer of 'Bilestoad' wasn't able to get rich off his program. Would he have still made it if he knew that up front? Like he said, "Its better than building ships in a bottle." This is a great hobby. Great hobbies produce great works of art.

Marketers created this mess. They would have you think that their product is the ONLY one worth having. They would have you think that all these indy start ups are ruining their business. So what? Does that mean that if Hollywood crumbles I will be able to watch a movie that stars someone other than Ben Aflek? Where do I sign up?

If the industry crumbles what will be left is a free internet running on free software, with loving hobbyists crafting free games. Will they be as polished as the so called pro stuff? How many games have you had to patch recently? How many security holes have appeared in M$ products? Polished? BAH! Nuff said.

Buck Feris - Armchair Arcade Editor - buck@armchairarcade

majortom

Sun Jan 25 2004, 06:39PM

Registered Member #49
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2004, 07:04PM
posts 223

Imagine, a world where profit is so marginalized game creators (already underpaid and undercredited)call it quits and exit the corporate game market - Sega, Nintendo, Sony, all the greats - Capcom, Konami, etc. ; all have lost the blue - blooded legacy that are innovators such as Yu Suzuki, and Shigeru Miyamoto due to disenchantment with the new game market.

The new market is this: Games companies have lost too much value in the "new technology bubble burst" as gamers ignore buying new games and, instead wait for months or years for free copies to become available. Game companies seeking some compensation over the new nonexistence of a "pay games" market put R&D dollars behind lobbyists and insure that p2p creators hand over marketing data retrieved by spy / adware found in clients. Expanding upon this small foot in the door of people’s homes, the game companies use this information to move into other markets, similar to Nintendo’s change from a small card company in the early 1900’s to it’s current status as electronic game maker.

After a hiatus of new games coming to market, gamers get their fix in hobbyist creations of pre-existing games (South Park Bros. anyone?) homebrew experiments (anything that could be found at your friendly emu. site such as Dcemulation) and endless homemade maps (how many Warcraft II pud sites are STILL out there, anyhow?) but without large development teams and plenty of cash to sustain them with, gaming stagnates and with it’s generation of hardcore gamers onset of arthritis, gaming dies, becoming a fad that ebbs and flows with each new generation following.
“Hey, Joe ever play videogames?”
“Yeah, but, like, I grew out of it, they don’t really make any new stuff anymore….”

Let’s face it, people like Jeff Minter and others who do small, “one man team” development are staying in creation of new games strictly for the fact that they gain so much personal joy from it, but gamers aren’t necessarily going to enjoy the end result nor may the author when he realizes his fans play his games only if there is no compensation due for it. Paying for a game is a way of showing appreciation for the artist(s) end product, not paying for a game can be a sign of disapproval, Acclaim and THQ were two companies that made horrendous titles attempting to cash in on licensed properties but gamers voted with their dollars and both companies made a surprising turnaround in quality of their games since that point in the mid – 90’s (though I understand that the waning 16-bit market did have an effect, the consequence that Acclaim and THQ were the first hitting the brink is telling).

Sega, after it’s burning of consumers paid the price for their poor hardware showings (segacd, 32x, Saturn) eventually were shown the door by gamers and even today the brand has difficulty selling, despite numerous top flight titles (PSO, SegaGT,etc.).

So who’s market is this? What do gamers want? Will we be pleased with what we end up with? I’d ask everyone to please consider some balance and perspective when thinking of downloading that next iso, I don’t believe that games no longer being sold and marketed getting downloaded for free is a threat to the beloved companies and game creators which have labored to produce memorable titles we all enjoy, hell, my childhood wouldn’t have been complete without beating the piss out of my lil’ bro in a game of Mortal Kombat or discovering the first powerup mushroom in Super Mario Bro.’s (there’s mushrooms in them thar brick blocks!). Hold back your tears for a minute everyone….

It IS important, however, to support the current titles if you wish to possess them. If you respect Miyamoto and the new game, he made, you enjoy, then pay the piper; he’s given you a good song, let him eat his bread.

"So I make my way over to Tibet...and I set myself up as a hoofer."

"A what?"

"A hoofer, y'know, a caddy. So who do you think they give me but the Dalai Llama himself! The grace, the flowing robes, everything.....so at the end, he's gonna' stiff me! And I say, hey! What about a li'l somethin', you know, for the effort? And he says, oh, there won't be any money, but when you die, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me...which is nice.

-Bill Murray "Carl the Greenskeeper"; Caddyshack

Matt Barton

Sun Jan 25 2004, 07:35PM

Location: Tampa, Florida
posts 2680

Ah, but one does not pay the piper these days. What one pays for is what the piper piped; the excitement is assumed to be in the recording of the piping, not the actual piping! I'll gladly pay the piper for the piping; but what's piped ought to be public.

Matt Barton

majortom

Sun Jan 25 2004, 08:16PM

Registered Member #49
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2004, 07:04PM
posts 223

Er..I don't want to nitpick, but could we define, "piping"? Is piping the actual process of creating the game? The playing of the game? I fail to miss the point, are you stating that a game is made and so we are simply paying for a canned tune? I think we're in aggreeance somewhere around here, but I am concerned, do you believe that "current games" i.e. ones still being printed and sold should not be paid for?

davyK

Tue Jan 27 2004, 11:10AM

Registered Member #74
Joined: Mon Jan 19 2004, 07:40AM
Location: Belfast, N.Ireland
posts 902

I agree that the creation of games must be rewarded (unfortunately the rewards seem to go to publishers as opposed to developers).....and I also agree that cultural artifacts should not be denied to those that cannot pay for it.

Some middle ground is required...intellectual property rights should not last for ever. Once something becomes part of culture it should be available for all - for free or for a nominal charge.

How does one define when something is part of culture and the originator has been rewarded sufficiently ? Is that not the argument here?

Davy 'Grey Gamer' Kelly
Where's the retro of tomorrow ?

majortom

Tue Jan 27 2004, 02:05PM

Registered Member #49
Joined: Sat Jan 17 2004, 07:04PM
posts 223

Copyright laws today already include limitations on how long intellectual works can be retained as property by their authors before being released as public domain. Some greedy companies have sought continuations of their copyrights (such as Disney, right now Mickey Mouse himself should be public domain).

Within the music industry, bands only retain hold of their music works for as little as four years, with only marginal royalties awarded after that point. The way to continue hold by bands is to re-release the same material in a different form (such as a "live" cd's).

Our balance is already provided by our current laws, the imbalances come from greedy companies via lobbyists and court trickery or by greedy gamers (and I can certainly understand) unlimitless copying and zero respect....

davyK

Fri Jan 30 2004, 04:11AM

Registered Member #74
Joined: Mon Jan 19 2004, 07:40AM
Location: Belfast, N.Ireland
posts 902

I'm aware that patent's do lapse (the pharmaceutical companies lose exclusive rights to produce a drug after a period of time)..but am baffled how the likes of Disney can keep earning money from images as old as Mickey Mouse.

Clarification is required - the laws obviously need tightening...with a global market view (I remember Ernst Rubik losing out because he only had a Swiss patent as opposed to a global one for his cube).

Corporate power has a worryingly large effect on laws - both at a national and international level.

Davy 'Grey Gamer' Kelly
Where's the retro of tomorrow ?

Rowdy Rob

Sat Feb 07 2004, 02:05PM

Registered Member #62
Joined: Sun Jan 18 2004, 12:02PM
Location: South Carolina, USA
posts 231

Matt Barton wrote: ...
Hi, folks. I'm about to start a thread here that is pretty common on any forum related to videogames, or even computers for that matter. It's software piracy.

(My first post in this forum... enjoying the site! Good work!)

Matt, that was a great post, and in fact you probably "wasted" it by putting it here rather than publishing it in the next issue of AA! Very thought provoking.

I, too, was a significant "beneficiary" of software piracy, particularly on the Atari 8-bit platform. My parents didn't have a clue about computers, so I was a first-generation software pirate. I had a TREMENDOUS collection of pirated software, which I swapped with my schoolmates and various members of my local computer club. I even had connections to pirates who lived in other areas (military bases, etc.), allowing for more swapping and collecting!

However, I am not sure I can go so far as to label software pirates as "liberators." Software piracy DID facilitate good friendships and general advancement of my computer knowledge (and enjoyment). However, I believe that the central driving factor of software piracy was..... GREED. We wanted games, and didn't have the money (or desire) to pay for them, so we copied them. That was the bottom line.

Copy protection was (and is) an attempt to force the "average Joe" to pay for the privelige of enjoying the fruits of the software company's labor. I don't think the software industry is any less deserving of financial reward than any other industry, but it has been one of the most susceptible (if not THE most susceptible) to theft. Software "crackers" were more driven by the challenge of breaking the copy protection code rather than by challenging the political/capitalist system. As a matter of fact, most "cracker groups" often portrayed themselves as sinister and menacing in their "intros" rather than modern-day Robin Hoods.

Categorizing software pirates as THIEVES is where the mental gymnastics start to occur. I've known LOTS of pirates in my life (including the one I saw in the mirror), but very few of them could I outright categorize as "evil" (heck, I can't think of ONE "evil" pirate, to be honest). Distributing software was often done with great generosity and good cheer. I distributed copies of software to others, and felt good about doing so, and so did most other pirates. We were doing a good deed, in our own eyes. (Of course, we expected the favor to be returned at some point too.) We were hardly the seedy menace that the software industry tried to portray us as. We were just "average Joes" with an easy access to a great deal of software wealth.

I don't believe the "feudal lord" analogy necessarily applies in all cases, simply because many of these game companies were upstarts and mom-and-pop operations who hardly had the power or capital to dictate their terms to the masses. The "mom-and-pop" days are pretty much over in the software industry, but many a greate game came from small houses or even singular individuals! (See "Big Five Software" or "Adventure International").

The bottom line: should we pay for software or shouldn't we? Those who bought the games we pirated were really paying for the software for us, in effect buying our copies. The games wouldn't have existed if it weren't for those customers.

Would it be nice if we lived in a socialist utopia where we could create software (and enjoy software) without financial concerns? Sure. But financial survival and success is the reality we live in, and enjoying another's efforts without rewarding them cannot be considered conscionable, much less "liberating."

Just my opinions...

----{ qoj hpmoj o+ 6uolaq aje aseq jnoh llV }----

Matt Barton

Sat Feb 07 2004, 07:02PM

Location: Tampa, Florida
posts 2680

Wow, thanks for the wonderful reply, Rowdy Rob. What a pleasure it is to converse with such a thoughtful individual!

I have never said that artists should not be rewarded for their efforts. I would gladly see them receive the same rewards received by other vital parts of our society; namely, teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and so on. If the work someone does for the community is valuable and necessary--I see no real difference here between making a game, teaching a class, guarding the streets--they are all important parts of creating, maintaining, and safeguarding our culture--then let the rewards be equivalent.

I'm tired of seeing a basketball player earn millions of dollars, yet thousands of teachers going on welfare, and schools shutting down vital prorams, just to make ends meet. Something has to give.

Peer-to-peer networking, and the internet in general, has made it a lot easier and cheaper to distribute data than anything the multi-national corporations have been able or willing to produce. These networks have made the majority of their corporate infrastructure redundant. Rather than start laying off and firing CEOs and middle-managers by the hundreds, though, they have jacked up prices, out-sourced almost every division to "sweatshops" overseas, and launched a legal war on consumers.

Some companies have already seen the future and are gradually shifting to an open-source model of distribution. One thinks of all the "mod" kits out there for major games, and even Microsoft has open-sourced its game Allegiance. People are taking more responsibility for, not only the distribution, but also the construction of their games. I think this is a great thing.

The role of software companies is going to change. We're going to see less products and more emphasis on process; I can see companies taking on more of a training/mentoring/assisting role than anything else. They'll have to wrack their brains to think of ways they can still be valuable to consumers, who have, quite honestly, made them redundant.

What I see more and more of our people on open-source discussion threads asking people to help them customize a program for money. They want "programmers for hire" who can step in, do a quick contract job, release it all as open source, and move on.

Imagine a sophisticated, well-organized network of such "hired programmers," all working on the same game project. Imagine the bits and pieces coming together; the input of the would-be players, the excitement of a community-driven project.

Matt Barton

Buck Feris

Sat Feb 07 2004, 09:20PM

Armchair Arcade Editor

Location: Louisville, KY
posts 1542

The internet has made some interesting things possible. This website costs a whopping $4 a month to run. The software that runs the permissions, forums, database, and whatnot are all free and open source. The author encourages feedback and shade tree monkeying with the system. The server software is a free an open source version of Apache running on a free and open source version of Linux.

Matt, Bill, and I have been collaborating for months. Get this, we have never spoken to each other. All of our collaborations have been electronic. Email, message boards, databases, software, design, authoring...all done for free. The only money spent was $15 for the domain and $4 a month for the space. And here you have an online magazine...

Similar projects are in full swing everywhere. In gaming there are a wide variety of open source 3D engines, platforms, and languages to get you up and running. Sometimes, the best things in life are free.

It will be interesting in the years to come. Think of what online collaboration will be like in 20 years. Clever people are coming up with open source solutions all the time. I mentioned in another thread the idea that there is a theoretical ceiling for consoles and 3D environments. In 20 years, who will be making games?

Case in point: South Park. Those guys used to cut and paste paper to make their animations. They very quickly went to computer for obvious reasons. In the last few years, they found that the same software that was used to make things like Jurrasic Park was available at bargain basement prices. They purchased the software and can now crank out a full episode in 5 days.

Today's software is tomorrow's bargain is the next day's freebee.

Will hardware and software hit a ceiling? Will it effectively drop everything (including responsibilty for game authoring) in the lap of the hobbyist? The day may be coming.

Buck Feris - Armchair Arcade Editor - buck@armchairarcade

Matt Barton

Sun Feb 08 2004, 10:45AM

Location: Tampa, Florida
posts 2680

I think that's a great point, Buck. Really what we're seeing is the creative industry being taken over by consumers. It's great for the industry and the consumers, really. I still think that what we'll see in years to come is a change in the role of game developers. They'll exist for making "Game Construction Kits" and providing manuals, books, tutorials, sample modules, etc., PLUS, if they're SMART, they'll encourage the distribution of player-mods and do whatever they can to stimulate their growth.

People like the idea of getting something for nothing. I say, then, "Well, buy this front-end/interpreter program for a mere $15, then you can play 1000s of player-made mods or games. Oh, and yeah, you could probably pirate the front-end if you wanted, but then you'd miss out on all the great value AD! Books, tutorials, videos, etc...:-) (The high-end stuff that's a biatch to download but would be easy for a company to make and release for cheap!)

It'd also be important to highly reward the "star" programmers who make really great products. Contests, money prizes, etc...

Matt Barton

All editorial content © 2003 - 2006 Armchair Arcade, Inc., all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. All trademarks and copyrights are retained by their respective owners. No content is to be removed or reused from the Armchair Arcade Website for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the principal Armchair Arcade editors, or the original trademark or copyright holders. Armchair Arcade, Inc., is not responsible for the content of any external sources or links. Further, endorsement of any external sources or links is neither implied nor suggested.