Demos these days? SP only with one map, one side, not all units etc. etc. etc.?
Or MP only, in which you can't test anything of the SP functionality?
Or even beta demos, demos not based on the final build of the game, that may contain bugs or other elements not present in the final product??? (Codemasters have done that a lot of times, amongst others.)

But I agree with the concept, although a time-limited full version of the game would be far, far better, as this allows a player to fully evaluate the game, the concept and the overall impression.

Unfortunately, there are way too few options to sharing/pirating and simple demos. A time-limited version would be damn sweet, which you could then upgrade to a full version, at a reduced cost compared to a store version ofc. (The industry has to see that, even if that'd reduce store sales. People aren't dumb enough to buy games online if they're overpriced.)

AND; make all options available in all (or more at least) regions, not just the US. Too many distributors of games/movies/music already do this, and this only upsets and frustrates the end user. The industry has to learn how to get real international solutions out there, as the web isn't really national...

Stardock has the right idea, for sure. Added value to genuine copies of a product is definately worth something, and it makes more people want to buy the product. Also, a competitive pricing is important. If the concept got bigger and more spread, Stardock with Impulse could go a long way, and I truly hope that means the end of the traditional distribution system that most companies use these days. Unfortunately this is a huge market change, and many gaming stores have opened over the years. If digital distribution were to take over 100% of the market, they'd be out of business. But as the distribution system is organized these days, something needs to change. EA/Activision/Blizzard/THQ etc. etc. etc. shouldn't be taking all the money (or the great majority of it), which is the case today, just because they're distributing the product someone else created, especially not if it's distributed digitally, as their costs decrease drastically. (While the developers' costs are pretty much constant.)

That's probably the issue, the distributors are afraid to lose their market share, their money, their position and ultimately their very existence with the technology development. They certainly aren't doing anything to prevent their downfall though... Opression, mafia methods, law creation etc. (á la North Korea/China/Soviet Union) is definately not the solution.

I think you'll find very few people enjoy buying a piece of software or music only to find out it it's a piece of junk, but your argument is quite frankly irrelevant.  It is no matter of yours whether someone downloading a game ultimately caused them to buy it.  The point is whoever owns the IP has the right to decide how and when it should be distributed.  If that owner decides not to allow people to "share" it even if doing so would increase sales that's still their decision to make as it is their hard work that went into creating those simple 1s and 0s.

Hey, that was almost funny...

In theory, your point is very valid. But let's go to a deeper, philosophic state of the issue; why should people be denied something that doesn't cost anyone anything to supply them? (Except the sharer.) If they wouldn't have bought it, none of the outcomes would incur any loss at all. We're talking about the human race, and culture, music, games, movies etc. increases well-being, understanding, intellectual stimuli etc. etc. (Philosophic mumbo-jumbo, but still there's a certain amount of truth in it.) Should that be denied to people who wouldn't have bought it anyway just because the IP owner doesn't want them to have it? Gee, humanity hasn't come very far...

You do realize there are other crimes than stealing in the world. *sigh* Post considered null and void.

Bah, I rest my case, I've got better things to do than debate the being or non-being of piracy and distribution systems. It's very nice to see people with good arguments though, both pro- and con-. Respect

Wow, if youre shopping up all the money, it wont be there anymore. Hence its stealing. It's not like copying a music album which will result in the album still being there for whomever you copied it from.

For the same reason someone shouldn't be allowed to walk into my home and take a nap on the floor when I don't allow him in.  It doesn't cost me anything for someone to take a nap on my floor without my permission.  But it's my floor.  I own it.  If I decide to share it or give it away to whomever to sleep on it then that's my choice.  But if I haven't done so then no one else has the right to just help himself to it.

Alright then, but what if someone was to copy your floor and set it up somewhere else and then sleep on it? Big issue it must be for you, huh? That's the same thing, not the way you mentioned it. the 1s and 0s are IP = Intellectual Property, your floor is simply Property.

These analogies are stupid and pointless.  It all comes down to the fact that someone put a lot of work into the creation of something without equitable compensation for it.  A game being bad, or you "only trying it" doesn't suddenly alleviate all or even a portion of the time and effort put into said product.  It may not be stealing, but pirating is the perverbial spit in the face to a content's creator.

EDIT:  Just to put a little more thought into this, so my thought isn't completely contrued:  Creators != Publishers.  There's a certain...stranglehold (stardock excluded as far as I can tell) that publishers have over content creators that's just as damaging to creations as pirating.  While pirating can the spit in the face of a free creator, publishers can be the warden to the enslaved creator.

This discussion has turned into a pointless validation of personal behaviors, the Law caught the criminals.

The punishment is clear - cope with it - for & against. Good or bad for any reasons.

Won't stop true consumers from spending how they please.

Now, here's an opinion by psychoak which i've learned to highly respect from the clear wordings shown in many earlier intelligent discussions over the past few years!

Ok, maybe it wasn't the best analogy... How about if I counterfeit money? No other money is taken to make it, and all I'm doing is copying real money, so its ok, right?

Well considering that is exactly what the Federal Reserve is doing, which is NOT a government institution but a private company....... I guess it IS ok ?

Last time I heard SHARING was not an illegal practice & everyone ( I DO MEAN EVERYONE ) has at 1 point in time or another shared a DVD/CD/CASETTE/GAME with someone.

Does that mean we are all guilty of copyright infringment?