Atari Founder: PC Piracy About to be Eradicated

[Incandescence]

...Come on.

Oh, I see. I wasn't capable of gleaning those disagreements from your comment that games generally aren't free for honest consumers. While I still feel a little thick-headed in that I can't see exactly where that fact serves as the root for your disagreements, I appreciate your elaboration on them all the same. I'll try to reword what I said so it's more clear what I mean.

Though I'm not a game developer--and even if I were, I would only be able to speak with confidence about the game development companies I had personally worked for--as an interested external observer with an investment in and a hope for the continuing health of the games industry, I've come to believe that sales numbers--for developers--are less important as a source of direct income as they are a selling point to future publishers. What I mean is that the success of each game a developer puts out is an investment into the next game they make, because the more successful the current game is the more investment and support they can get for their next game. I'm talking about a company to company developer-publisher relationship, by the way, not an intracompany thing like big corporations like EA can do now. In a two company developer-publisher relationship, most of the money from game sales goes to retailers and publishers anyway, which is what leads me to think that developers are free to think of sales numbers less as direct income and more as representational of success and reputation--hopefully meaning that developers can look at piracy as less of an absolute evil that must be eradicated.

This is why I was led to exaggerate the possibilities of a relationship between the games industry and pirates that was less an relationship of absolute animosity into a pipedream where we could all get along, which I noted it was. If I'm right in pointing out that developers don't have to worry about sales numbers as a source of direct income but instead a measure of successful exposure, that makes the money part of sales numbers less important than the exposure factor. Since exposure doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the purchase of games, and if more exposure means more successful developers--which means more investment from publishers which means more games and a growing industry--then the games industry is in a position to benefit from a better relationship with the pirate community.

Of course, this dream runs into a problem when the publishers realize they're not making any money from a portion of that exposure, which is why it isn't perfectly realistic. But trying to make amends with your perceived enemies is not always a bad thing.

Finally, yes, I equated "stolen" with "free." Maybe I should clarify that I mean monetarily free. If I successfully steal something like a game, that means I don't pay any money in exchange for the game. By not paying money for a game, I get it for free. That doesn't make it morally right to someone who believes in things like private property, fair exchange for goods and services, and copyright protection, but I was avoiding the moral semantics of pirating games by choosing to look at it from a more monetary point of view. I've seen that people have a greater change of agreeing on something when you argue over the economics of an issue rather than the morals, and I like it when people agree on things. So, yes, stealing means I get it for free. That's the point of theft.

Thoughts?

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Will it stop music piracy and software piracy too? - or is this just directed to PC games because developers think "All PC gamers = dirty pirates, arrr!"?

 

[CarlosYenrac]

So, when the OFLC bans a game, I'm just shit out of luck then?
You can't legally import an RC game in Australia, so yeah, I'm a criminal because I downloaded Postal, and I'm sure as hell not going to have an Australian version of GTA4 when it hits PC's here.. Is that MORALLY wrong, too?
I was happy to accept that I'm a criminal, but it seems I'm a scumbag now too....

By the way, if i CAN buy a game, I will.

 

[Dectilon]

How long before we see a motherboard launched with the argument "no pesky stealth chip!"

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

So, when the OFLC bans a game, I'm just shit out of luck then?
You can't legally import an RC game in Australia, so yeah, I'm a criminal because I downloaded Postal, and I'm sure as hell not going to have an Australian version of GTA4 when it hits PC's here.. Is that MORALLY wrong, too?
I was happy to accept that I'm a criminal, but it seems I'm a scumbag now too....

By the way, if i CAN buy a game, I will.

The only argument to this that wouldn't be in your favor:

Oh yeah?! What was stopping you from getting a plane ticket, and then heading over hear and getting it, then going back?

 

[Anniko]

Ok, so only new motherboards will have this chip?

Oh wait, that means that pirates just will use older mainboards and have about 2 FPS less that a new high end range mainboard with the chip gives them.

Yeah, huh.

Nah, we'll still have more FPS, we'll just have to use liquid nitrogen to cool our systems while they run massively overclocked.

 

[shadow1138]

Well given all of the above I have a Yahtzee quote for those nice not trying to milk me to death companies:
"How about I give you 4? As in ..."

What side of the argument are you supporting with that statement?

Well with the last sentence I just felt the need to vent my years-long anger at the industry right now.With the post I wanted to clear a few illusions some of you westerners have , about the market outside of your respectable countryes.

As for my opinion on the argument -it's a few posts above if you really want to see it.

Take half life 2 for example. With steam and all that it's barely worth it. All they have to do with these chips is make each chip uniqe. Taking away the anonymity. So your games cd key becomes bound to the chip ID and then requires online checks like steam uses to be played. So each time you play the game the game is compared with the CD key and the computers ID chip.

Sure there are ways around it but every step that makes pirating harder reduces the ammount of thefts.

For example alien versus predator 1. To crack that game you took your AVP folder and burned the whole thing to a cd and the game was copied. The game was massivly pirated. Like half life 1. I wonder if anyone actualy paid money for half life 1.

But then you have multiplayer games that use CD keys. Practicly impossible to pirate since you need a uniqe cd key. If you use a cd key that someone elses also uses then one of you can't get online or both cd keys get permanently disabled.

So again. They don't have to make it impossible. Just so much work and the result so unsatisfying that it's just easier to buy the game for most people.

Actually I was surpirsed as to how easyly hackers managed to go around steam. It was funny.As for multiplayer - have you ever heard of specially designed servers that don't check for cd-keys? On every major game. Including WoW.That's right if you feel like it you could play WoW for free boys.


Btw no offence Dejawesp but you're really starting to sound like a corporate drone

 

[GreatVladmir]

Well, all this is gonna do is just delay the pirates by an unspecified amount of time, so it wont erradicate piracy.

I mean, I never buy brand new games, I either buy second hand or bargin bin games, I don't have the money to spend £29.99 per game, and prices are going to rise, they need to rise before they fall. This chip, in my own opinion is just going to be the catalyst for the fall of PC gaming, its going to ruin companies like Valve, who's biggest markets are the PC and also, it will serverly harm companies like EA, Bethesda and Atari.

 

[Arbre]

For example alien versus predator 1. To crack that game you took your AVP folder and burned the whole thing to a cd and the game was copied. The game was massivly pirated.

Same for many id games. CTRL C on folder; CTRL V. The company is still alive, and Carmack is about to send people into space, thanks to one of his personnal fantaisies and huge amounts of cash.
Well, on the other hand, they were there from the beginning, and could always sell their engine, if they wouldn't sell a game.

Besides, as far as CD keys are concerned, there are pirate servers as well.

Uh-huh...

 

[Andy Chalk]

blah blah yadda yadda

The trouble is that sales are a source of income for developers; the only source, in fact. A game's "success" can only be measured in dollar terms because that's the only thing that will attract publishers to a project: The likelihood that it will make money. You can call it unfair or claim that games are excessively overpriced as much as you like, but the bottom line is that if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, investors and publishers aren't going to be interested. It all comes back to money.

If you take your proposal to its logical conclusion, you end up with Rockstar blowing 50 million bucks of Take-Two's money to make GTA V, then putting it online and saying HAY GUYZ ITS FREE!!!1! because that way 27 bazillion people will play it and they'll get even more money from T2 the next time.

Believe me, I'm no champion of current anti-piracy/DRM measures by any stretch. The BioShock activation scheme was a major irritant, copy protection in Mass Effect will probably keep me from buying it and I still simmer with outrage every time I buy a boxed, single-player game that I can't actually play until I "validate" it over Steam. I have an intense dislike for intrusive copy protection, and it's particularly galling because it has roughly zero impact on the problem of piracy. More broadly speaking, the image of major game publishers crying poor while sitting atop giant mountains of cash in a multi-billion-dollar industry doesn't elicit a whole lot of sympathy either.

None of which changes the fact that piracy is both morally wrong and economically detrimental to the industry. Any attempt to rationalize it further is just that - rationalization of an essentially indefensible position.

 

[Asehujiko]

Look at what stardock is doing. You don't pay for the game, you pay for the shiny box art and the patch support. They've sold more then a milion already in the first few months. More then the vast majority of protected games.

The only people being hit by drm are the people who buy stuff legal. drm does not deter pirates, it deters people who get the "please insert the correct dvd" message after inserting the dvd in question or have their dvd drive physhicly destroyed by starforce.

 

[Incandescence]

[less than polite characterization of my post]

The trouble is that sales are a source of income for developers...

I see that you're not interested in my viewpoint except as something to ridicule. I understand. However, I do still implore you to attempt to look at the idea of the developer and the idea of the pirate outside of the biases of the industry.

The logical conclusion that you came to concerning the proposal that I did not make is an extreme and unrealistic one. It would lead to the collapse of the games industry, which would sadden me deeply. The points that I attempted to convey throughout my posts were:

a) Because of their relationship with publishers, developers have a reason to be less concerned about cold hard cash that comes from their games because it's not realistic for a developer to expect to be "rakin' it in" the same way a publisher does.

b) Pirates are not the end-all-be-all of moral depravity.

c) Even if pirates were the lowest of the low, it only harms the industry for companies and consumers to see them only as their greatest enemy because then companies keep wasting their time with silly DRM measures that are not going to do anything except give the pirate who cracks it a nice ego boost.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: For me, points a, b, and c suggest that it would not be entirely ludicrous to stop looking at pirates as a nasty tribe of basement-dwellers that are trying to undermine the industry, and instead look at them as people who choose to steal games for a very specific reason. Once we determine and agree on what that reason is, we can go about trying to include them in the fold of the honest game consumer by addressing their concerns instead of trying to stamp them out like they were some kind of sub-human scourge.

It seems we can at least agree on the third point, which makes me glad.

As far as our moral viewpoints go, I suppose they are irreconcilable. You believe that piracy is morally wrong and essentially indefensible. I have no moral qualm with it and do not think it is a position that needs to be defended from anything or by anyone. It just is.

However, I do have a moral qualm with calling--in my eyes, anyway--a decent human being a "scumbag" and a "douchepit," which is where I guess this all started.

Anyway, Malygris, I had fun debating this with you. I hope you did as well.

 

[Nugoo]

Bloody hell, Incandescence, I wish I was that eloquent.

Malygris, I believe Incandescence's point is that developers get money from publishers who get money from retailers, who get money from sales. Yes, the developers' income does, in the end, come from sales, but it's a rather indirect route, and most of it goes to the retailers and publishers. So for a developer, it's more important to know how many people played your game rather than how many bought it. I honestly don't know how sound this argument is. It depends on which would look better to a publisher, a developer who's made a game that 8 million people have played, but only 2 million have bought, or a game that 6 million people have played, but 3 million have bought.
EDIT: Well, that's what happens when you take too long to post. On a completely unrelated note, English needs a new gender-neutral pronoun.

And now to add something of my own to this discussion. This is a point that people tend to dismiss rather than argue, but here goes: Piracy is not always immoral. I don't mean downloading games in general, because only an idiot would think it's immoral to download a game that you have bought for convenience's sake. I mean downloading a game that you haven't bought. The problem with piracy is that the pirate has not paid the right people for the game. I fail to see how this is immoral if the pirate would not have bought the game if piracy weren't an option. The usual argument is that if the game is worth playing, it's worth paying for. Not only is this not true (as demonstrated by the people who download games as a sort of rental), but it's not always possible to buy the game, be it for financial reasons, a lack of availability, or something else.

 

[Andy Chalk]

[less than polite characterization of my post]

Actually, it was just quicker than quoting everything you said.

I see that you're not interested in my viewpoint except as something to ridicule. I understand. However, I do still implore you to attempt to look at the idea of the developer and the idea of the pirate outside of the biases of the industry.

What "biases" do you suggest the industry has? An expectation to earn money for their efforts? A belief in the right to protect their creative endeavours? Just because the industry is taking a wrong-headed approach to the problem doesn't mean that piracy is in any way excusable or justifiable, and just because software pirates aren't as low on the morality totem pole as Josef Fritzl doesn't mean they're not scumbags for taking advantage of the hard work of others.

You're right, the logical conclusion of your scenario regarding piracy as an industry-recognized measure of a game's popularity would lead to the collapse of the industry. That's the whole point - it's a damaging activity.

It's unfortunate that you feel personally offended because I happen to think that people who rip off game developers because they're too cheap and selfish to pay for their games are worthy of a little name-calling. The fact is that I've been a gamer for a very long time, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the both the work that goes into game development and the artistry that results from it, and I have little patience for people who put the screws to it. To me, this is a very black-and-white issue.

The problem with piracy is that the pirate has not paid the right people for the game. I fail to see how this is immoral if the pirate would not have bought the game if piracy weren't an option. The usual argument is that if the game is worth playing, it's worth paying for. Not only is this not true (as demonstrated by the people who download games as a sort of rental), but it's not always possible to buy the game, be it for financial reasons, a lack of availability, or something else.

Why are you even talking?

 

[Dejawesp]

Btw no offence Dejawesp but you're really starting to sound like a corporate drone

Adding a smilie and "no offence" to something offencive does'nt make it any less offencive.

You don't have to be a "corporate drone" to realise that theft is both illegal and immoral but the least people can do is accept that and not try to pretend they are heroes, saving the world from fascist, capitalist, big corporations. When in fact all they are doing is being cheap.

I have no beef with people who do download games or music. I used to do it alot myself but nowdays I have more money than I do time and if I was to spend an hour of my time trying to get a game for free then I officialy lost money because if I had just spent that extra hour at work then I would have made the money to buy the game and still had some over for a cola.

So it's not out of any moreal oblication that I no longer download games and music but back when I did. I did'nt pretend that it was anything other than clean cut theft. and I did'nt try to justify it with lame excuses like "They have so much money anyway so it's cool to steal from them" By that logic then homeless people would be perfectly justified to steal from you to buy food. More so infact since pirates steal from peoples "bread money" for their own entertainment purposes (games, music) so a homeless person who steals from your entertainment money to buy food would practicly be a hero.

 

[Incandescence]

To me, this is a very black-and-white issue.

I can see you have very strongly held convictions, and I admire you for adhering to them in an age where it increasingly makes sense to many people to pirate a game instead of buy one. I think we can clearly see now where our opinions diverge, and what we disagree most on. Hopefully, there will be a more innovative approach to piracy sometime in the future than "it's right" or "it's wrong" that we both find acceptable; I'm excited to see who the creative genius will be, and what he or she has to say.

The problem with piracy...

Why are you even talking?

Surely we can all afford to be civil in our disagreements.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

To me, this is a very black-and-white issue.

I can see you have very strongly held convictions, and I admire you for adhering to them in an age where it increasingly makes sense to many people to pirate a game instead of buy one.

And it makes increasing sense to steal something that you cannot afford. Oh, wait...

The problem with piracy...

Why are you even talking?

Surely we can all afford to be civil in our disagreements.

Given that you're basically advocating the destruction of his livelihood: I think, perhaps, he has a right to be slightly hostile to your view. Especially as you're arguing on his forum.


The problem with your romanticised anarchy, Magoo and Incandescence, is that you're actually doing the "Thought Police"'s work for them. By continually chanting the mantra of "Information wants to be Free!", you're actually giving firepower to the Larger Companies, whilst destroying the up and coming companies; which I believe is exactly the reverse of what you want.

Company Economics require a certain profit to be made. Now if you're selling N copies at £X, that makes it; but if Mr. R. Jimlad wants to pirate it, they will have to sell N/2 copies at £2X.

You're not changing the Economics, you're just forcing the smaller companies into bankruptcy.

And for writers, reviewers and critics; that's plain rude.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Just for clarity

people who choose to steal games

=/=

honest game consumer

By it's very definition.

 

[noradseven]

this is plain silly u can't stop piracy ever you can only minimize it. Infact the best way to minimize it is to make it so damn easy, and cheap to get games legally, combined with making it difficult to pirate is the true key to success.

Plus sudo arcades are on the rise and I am so happy aka a place filled with consols and traditional arcade equipment that chargers per hour for use, some can also have membership I am a member at one near my house me and all my buds just bought a 360 mem card each, buy 1 or 2 games each that they don't have and trade them around for play it has cost me like $160 total games plus membership plus mem card, and I have played hundreds of hours multiplayer plus single player games on tons of 360 games, heck my one friend went from never playing Guitar hero games to getting to 7th tier on expert, pretty cool plus tons of good gamers to help you out and since its technically not an arcade its not required to pay extra taxes (to stop gang violence caused by arcades or something dumb like that).

I personally have a problem pirating games while cause I can't wait the 4 while my game is shipping in then have to deal with the prob of keeping my data while deleting my pirited copy, infact I have a few games I never even opened cause, I bought it just to support the company, cause I felt bad pirating such a damn good game.

I am happy every step they make against piracy but it should be more positives for not pirating rather than negatives for pirating.