Editor's Note: The Broke Gamer

[Badwolf14]

*snip*

You rang?

Anyway they only claim its "stealing" to try to guilt you that little bit more. Not only is it stupid but does anyone think that pirates give half a rabbits anus what others think of them? Seriously.

Piracy is not stealing.[footnote]Well technically piracy is stealing so technically using the word "piracy" when talking about file sharing is incorrect. But that is a issue for another day.[/footnote] This is not a topic for debate. They are two entirely different crimes. If you are not going to use the correct words then maybe you should get someone to spell/grammar/language check your articles before they go up.

Illegal: Yes.
Wrong: Depends on your own moral code.
Stealing: No.

Anyway, some of my best gaming, book and movie purchases have been made using the bargain bin.
Shit I would never have touched otherwise but only picked up since its like $2 and the cover was pretty so why the hell not.
And some of the free MMOs I have played have actually been pretty damn good. Some are even on par with WoW.
[footnote]Btw, doesn't the escapist tend to suspend people who admit to pirating stuff?...[/footnote]

By copying property that doesn't belong to you (especially when it has a copyright to it which says who can copy, distribute and adapt it) you are still in the end taking that property that doesn't belong to you, some people call that stealing, regardless if you pass it on or not for free or for profit because you copied property that doesn't belong to you. Just like saying that piracy is a form of guilt to make people buy games, it seems like "file sharing" is a way to make people feel less guilty because even though the games were copied without permission from the owner they are giving them away for free.

But about the article, I am basically broke on a day by day basis so I know the feeling of diving through the bargain bin pretty well. Many games that I play today, I probably wouldn't have known about if I could afford all the games I wanted. Same goes with other things like movies and books.

 

[MercurySteam]

I always thought that when people at The Escapist say 'keep out of the basement' they meant that you should never talk about piracy on the forums or admit to it, lest a mod find you and unleash their wrath upon you. To me it seems a bit childish (hear me out). Yes, piracy is a stain on us as gamers, but sometimes it's a subject we need to get out in the open and discuss, much like the many 'Verses Threads' we've all seen here. We've all committed piracy at some point (yes, even me), some more than others though some of us feel guilty and some of us do not. Any guilt I may have had burned out long ago as I've invested thousands of dollars into my hobby (as Russ mentioned, it's a damn expensive pastime) and have gotten to the point where I'm indifferent about it, as I've been through all the phases; having no money for games, having some money for games and having plenty of money for games. It's not hard to see the appeal when you've go nothing left, like how a blunt sounds like a good idea to someone in a lot of pain. I guess I expected people to be used to idea instead of cramming it in the 'basement' so to speak, and calling it off-limits. But I suppose that the more you talk about it the more touchy people become about it.

Moral: Yes it's wrong, but not everyone is able to dismiss it as a foul taboo as most people do.

Man, I needed to get that off my chest.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

The staff of this site get their paychecks form content publishers ...

I'd like to see your evidence of this, or else I label you as guilty of misrepresenting the facts as you seem to think are those suggesting piracy is illegal.

Here is my reasoning for the statement but feel free to correct me if anything is wrong.

This site is supported by advertising. A large percentage of purchasers of this advertising space are content publishers.

If a staff member prints any opinion other than "piracy is illegal, immoral, and anyone engaging in it is a dickbag, end of story" then it increases the possibility of a content publisher thinking the an official statement condones piracy. Since content publishers hate and fear losing control of "their" content/golden goose they will rabidly penalize anyone who doesn't actively and enthusiastically toe the party line.

Therefore even if a staff member personally feels there is room for discussion they can't express their opinion as a staff member. However the staff members that are actually in lockstep with the publishers against copyright infringement can express that opinion freely.

This isn't a slight against the staff or the publication, that is just the nature of advertising supported media. The ones who pay the bills are the ones who call the shots.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Stop calling piracy stealing.
When you people learn?

Piracy is stealing. Get over it.

Stop calling piracy stealing.
When you people learn?

Taking something without paying for it...preeeeetty much the definition of stealing. Granted, in some parts of the world, you quite literally have no choice but to pirate.

I once saw a picture online that made a differentiation. Just throwing another side of the argument out there, it said:

"Stealing: Removing the original"
"Piracy: Making a copy"

It doesn't make it any less wrong, it just means there's a difference.

There's only two technical differences really, one is that with stealing, the retailer also loses some revenue and that somebody who pirates wouldn't necessarily steal the product from a shelf.
Years ago (when I didn't have a regular job) I pirated more than a few games. Now, if pirating wasn't an option, I probably would've not played those games at all. I am also happy to admit that I did buy New copies of the good games (unreal tournament, sims) when I was able to. So if it weren't for pirating, they may have not have made those sales.
I'm not saying this to justify pirating or anything. I'm just wondering if my experience is that uncommon or if publishers have ever thought of taking advantage of the free marketing they get from pirating.

Maybe what they should do is saturate the torrents and p2ps with sample copies of their games. Rooting through everything would discourage the guys pirating because they're dicks who can afford it and it would give those pirating just because they're broke more incentive to buy the real thing when they can.

Maybe I'm overestimating how many people would actually do the stand up thing and buy the game when they can: only pirate because it's really all they can afford.
Am I?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If you buy a game, you have the right to use the game 24/7 from since you bought it till you die and are not owning it any more or you go to jail or something.



As long as you yourself and however people you've shared that game with do not use it more than it is logically possible for it to have been used in the time that elapsed since your purchase (so, if you bought it 3 days ago, you shouldn't have used it for more than the 72 hours that have elapsed between however many people it is shared) you're actually not doing anything wrong or taking anything you don't already own by allowing people to use the game for the time you won't be.


File sharing is a low-tech version of physically lending something through teleportation basically, we can't do that yet since there is no such technology but we simulate it by file sharing.


Letting anyone who is into a game you like play it when you're not playing it and doing so in a way that your game gets the most out of the use you purchased with real money shouldn't make you feel wrong, right?

 

[Russ Pitts]

The staff of this site get their paychecks form content publishers ...

I'd like to see your evidence of this, or else I label you as guilty of misrepresenting the facts as you seem to think are those suggesting piracy is illegal.

Here is my reasoning for the statement but feel free to correct me if anything is wrong.

This site is supported by advertising. A large percentage of purchasers of this advertising space are content publishers.

If a staff member prints any opinion other than "piracy is illegal, immoral, and anyone engaging in it is a dickbag, end of story" then it increases the possibility of a content publisher thinking the an official statement condones piracy. Since content publishers hate and fear losing control of "their" content/golden goose they will rabidly penalize anyone who doesn't actively and enthusiastically toe the party line.

Therefore even if a staff member personally feels there is room for discussion they can't express their opinion as a staff member. However the staff members that are actually in lockstep with the publishers against copyright infringement can express that opinion freely.

This isn't a slight against the staff or the publication, that is just the nature of advertising supported media. The ones who pay the bills are the ones who call the shots.

That's not reasoning, per se, that's a lot of assumptions propped up with ignorance of how the industry actually works.

It's been my policy to not directly respond to every allegation that I or anyone in the employ of this site am on the take or receiving income directly from game publishers because it's just not true and never has been. Some people in this business are, so I understand how one could get the impression we're in that category, but we aren't. End of story. Honestly, that's been raised and addressed so many times that to hear it coming from you, now, suggests you just haven't been paying attention. Or simply enjoy making unfounded allegations as much as you enjoy pirating games

Seriously, we get that complaint a lot, and there's never anything to it. Just an assumption based on some smart-aleck's "understanding" of "how the world works," without any real-world experience in the business to back it up.

Bottom line: Our editorial opinions are not and never have been compromised by relationships with game publishers. Advertisers buy space on the website, but they do not buy our words. They're as free to refuse to buy that space based on their annoyance with our words as we are to write the words we believe in, regardless of their intent to buy space on our site. We have two separate rooms in our office where advertising space is sold and where content is created, respectively. The two sides have as little influence with each other as my opinion that piracy is bad has with some members of this site's non-spending habits. Reviews, news, editorials, features, videos and everything else are solely the product of our editorial team and are not for sale. Period.

Also not for sale: my opinion that piracy is bad for the industry. That's not only what I personally believe, but also just plain common sense. Here's why: If people are consuming a commercial product, which costs money to create, but not paying money to consume it, then the valuation of that product will be effected in one direction or the other. That's straight-up basic economics. Either the perceived price of that product (irrespective of the product's cost to manufacture) will decrease such that the manufacturer will no longer be able to adequately charge for the product in order to continue funding it's manufacture, or the valuation for those who are willing to pay will increase to offset the decline in revenue from those who are not.

On the one hand we enter into a scenario where the up-front payment model will fall away, and publishers will instead be forced to invest in long-tail or incremental pricing such as EA's project $10 or in-game advertising, or chose to implement potentially abusive DRM technologies in order to ensure that those who are playing are also paying. On the other hand, games prices would increase, forcing many lower-income users out of the marketplace and forcing those who are able to absorb the additional cost to shoulder more of the burden imposed on them by pirates. Either way, the very real potential for a videogame market crash exists as a direct result of remedies game publishers are being forced to take in order to continue compensating the talented individuals who are making the games you are not paying for. Either the pricing models and DRM will drive consumers out of the market, or the increase in price will. This is not supposition. This is what happens when market forces collide. Also a risk is that production of lower-tier, casual or youth/non-core games and shovelware will increase since consumers of that kind of content don't typically pirate, so the felt costs of production of that content is actually lower. This, too, could negatively impact the market, since a space overcrowded with low-quality or low-impact games will also alienate the core audience, as we observed in the 1980 videogame market crash. So, as I'm sure you'll agree, no matter how the industry chooses to respond to the growing threat of piracy, it will be the consumer who gets fucked the hardest and it will not be the publisher, nor the developer doing the fucking, but the pirater.

 

[Russ Pitts]

As for piracy ... well, I don't like to talk about that. I'm not proud of it, but I would never have played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault any other way. That was one of two games I've pirated in my life, and I regret to admit I didn't "pay for it if I enjoyed it" as so many thieving pirates claim they'll do.

What was the other one?

You know, I don't actually remember. It was an older title, something I pulled straight off the net before torrents and sharing services made it easy. And well before I had any morals to speak of. I'm pretty sure I did it, then, just to see if I could.

I tried the same thing once with the original StarCraft. It took hours to download and then the computer could even access it. I'm glad it didn't work, Now I'd never steal from Blizzard.
Sony on the other hand...

Good times on the internet for sure. You're taking a lot of risks when pirating stuff. between zombie viruses, legals challenges and simply the investment of time, I've found it to be just not worth it.

Here's the thing, even if you "only occasionally" pirate a game, you're still legitimizing the acts of a person who has either hacked the source code outright, or has purchased a game with the intent of illegally distributing it online.

So, while I may be willing to grant that the act of playing a pirated game is not exactly the worst crime against humanity, in order for one to have acquired that pirated copy, someone else has had to create it. You can't have one without the other.

It's like buying stolen electronics because they're cheaper and not caring that someone else was robbed from in order to make your purchase less expensive. It's only justifiable if you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the world in which you are living and the consequences of your own actions in that world.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Great responses, I don't agree with you but you convinced me to contribute to your beer and pizza fund.

 

[teh_spartan]

you have a "moral code"

I am so glad I don't have one of those it makes life so much more expensive.

 

[tehannihalator]

Thanks Escapist ! That was 20 minutes of enjoyment!
I'm enjoying the shit out of gaming at the moment,but typically I don't spend more than £10 on a game.However it annoys me that nintendo first party titles can be so expensive.For example: Halo 3 and Super Mario Galaxy.Both have a score of above 90/100 on metacritic. Both have had multiple sequels.Both had been released in 2007. Both have sold more than 8 million copies.The prices should be pretty similar right?
Halo 3's price: £6.80 or £5.15 for the greatest hits version.Super Mario Galaxy's price? £25.50 I find this utterly ridiculous for 2 brilliant games that the nintendo one is three times more expensive.

 

[samsonguy920]

I know what you mean, Russ. I am patiently waiting for Bulletstorm to go on sale on Steam to get it. There was one Let's Play on Youtube that was fun to watch but the guy hasn't followed through lately. I'm going nuts.
I did pre-purchase Portal 2, though. But with the 10% discount on that plus the free copy of Portal I could give to a gaming buddy, it was quite the deal.
The price of a lot of new games these days is getting to be insane. It really makes me wonder if companies are just refusing to take the time and really research into what could be done to trim costs. I don't doubt that right now it is actually expensive to put out a top-level game, but one begs the question with the smaller games that only cost $10-$20 and are pretty decent quality, like Magicka and Minecraft, what are the big companies doing wrong?

 

[samsonguy920]

Good times on the internet for sure. You're taking a lot of risks when pirating stuff. between zombie viruses, legals challenges and simply the investment of time, I've found it to be just not worth it.

Here's the thing, even if you "only occasionally" pirate a game, you're still legitimizing the acts of a person who has either hacked the source code outright, or has purchased a game with the intent of illegally distributing it online.

So, while I may be willing to grant that the act of playing a pirated game is not exactly the worst crime against humanity, in order for one to have acquired that pirated copy, someone else has had to create it. You can't have one without the other.

It's like buying stolen electronics because they're cheaper and not caring that someone else was robbed from in order to make your purchase less expensive. It's only justifiable if you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the world in which you are living and the consequences of your own actions in that world.

Well said, Kane. Er, Evil Director, sir. Er, Lord Gaming Master of the Multiverse.*
OT: No, really, that was well put out there. The position of piracy to demo a product that otherwise doesn't have a demo does have its merits, but it only encourages the person who snagged the cracked game in the first place to continue what they are doing. Not to mention those who want to take advantage of downloaders to snatch their personal info or just eff up their computers.
P.T. Barnum would be proud. But the idea is the sucker is supposed to learn from what happens to them, not just continue being suckered by the same thing.
*: These titles hold no trademark or copyright and can be used by the beneficiary for his amusement and ego-boosting. Anybody using them for their own benefit except the beneficiary are subject to his whim and amusement and method of torture.

 

[Bostur]

On the one hand we enter into a scenario where the up-front payment model will fall away, and publishers will instead be forced to invest in long-tail or incremental pricing such as EA's project $10 or in-game advertising, or chose to implement potentially abusive DRM technologies in order to ensure that those who are playing are also paying. On the other hand, games prices would increase, forcing many lower-income users out of the marketplace and forcing those who are able to absorb the additional cost to shoulder more of the burden imposed on them by pirates. Either way, the very real potential for a videogame market crash exists as a direct result of remedies game publishers are being forced to take in order to continue compensating the talented individuals who are making the games you are not paying for. Either the pricing models and DRM will drive consumers out of the market, or the increase in price will. This is not supposition. This is what happens when market forces collide. Also a risk is that production of lower-tier, casual or youth/non-core games and shovelware will increase since consumers of that kind of content don't typically pirate, so the felt costs of production of that content is actually lower. This, too, could negatively impact the market, since a space overcrowded with low-quality or low-impact games will also alienate the core audience, as we observed in the 1980 videogame market crash. So, as I'm sure you'll agree, no matter how the industry chooses to respond to the growing threat of piracy, it will be the consumer who gets fucked the hardest and it will not be the publisher, nor the developer doing the fucking, but the pirater.

I think you got that backwards. The abusive DRM measures gets implemented in any case, and is meant to limit consumer rights for paying customers. The pirates never see the DRM anyway. Of course the developers use piracy as an excuse but they will always be able to do that.

If consumers can get fucked, we will get fucked by the industry - piracy or no piracy.

In short the industry will make as much profit as they can. And if they can't make a profit they will do something else.

 

[Chiasm]

In short the industry will make as much profit as they can. And if they can't make a profit they will do something else.

Only if there is a industry for video games, Which is why so many speak up about this issue. As more and more people pirate games; less money can be made in selling and making video games. Yes companies are looking to profit but then again every business must make a profit just like this web site or with a radio station and even non-profits have to profit.

The local efforts I run to help stop child abuse in my area couldn't run if it wasn't "profiting" with donations, without money we couldn't even afford to get the gas to get from point A to B. Like many have said, "If people don't pay for video games, there won't be many if any"

It's like beepers,everyone know has a cell phone, people stopped buying beepers, and look how many beeper only stores/manufactures there now.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

I prefer the term "Zero Budget Gamer". I chose this username precisely because for the greater part of the last five years or so, I've been out of school(ish, I went back in 2007-2009), without a stable job, living with my parents, yet still finding ways to play games.

Being a big fan of RPGs, it hasn't been difficult to find games well worth their purchase. With only a PS2, PC and DS to entertain me, I've either had to scrimp and save change from every purchase, or return to the old teenage standby of working extra-hard around the house to get a little bit of spending money from my parents. Bargain Bin hunting and borrowing from friends have helped me to experience some of my now favorite franchises. I also religiously replay old games, and every game in my library has been played and replayed at least 2-3 times. I've even managed to scratch my MMO itch by playing several Free MMOs, though none of them had much staying power.

Also, though I'm sure some would call it stealing, I've been a huge fan of Emulation for a long time. Through it, I've been able to play games for systems that GameStop no longer caters to, experience and/or re-live classic games that defined genres or changed how we looked at games. If not for Emulation, I would never have played Earthbound or Chrono Trigger, and would never have gotten into the Breath of Fire, Soul Reaver, or Mana Series.

 

[Bostur]

Only if there is a industry for video games, Which is why so many speak up about this issue. As more and more people pirate games; less money can be made in selling and making video games. Yes companies are looking to profit but then again every business must make a profit just like this web site or with a radio station and even non-profits have to profit.

Well of course I can't disagree with you on that point. The industry seems to me to be going pretty strong from an economic point of view though, but maybe not exactly from an artistic point of view.

The argument I never get, is why the industry believes that punishing paying customers for the existance of piracy is a worthwhile route. I can only assume they use DRM for the purpose of various types of market control. I can assure you it does nothing to prevent piracy, quite the contrary.

The local efforts I run to help stop child abuse in my area couldn't run if it wasn't "profiting" with donations, without money we couldn't even afford to get the gas to get from point A to B. Like many have said, "If people don't pay for video games, there won't be many if any"

But if people stop donating, would you start blaming your existing donators? If you did, that would probably drive them away. In my experience that does happen with DRM and some of the other obnoxiuos marketing schemes from game publishers. People get so sick of it that they get driven away. Either they spend their cash elsewhere or they pirate their games.

In terms of poverty, the theme of this issue of The Escapist (which I think has some excellent points and advice) this whole debate is irrelevant because people without money don't spend money - piracy or no piracy. Preaching morals is pointless in this case.

 

[Marter]

Quick question: How can you admit, in an article, that you have pirated in the past, but a member who states the same thing will receive anything from a warning to a suspension? The Escapist, or at least, those handing out punishment, have stated in the past that even discussing piracy is against the rules, and yet you can do so in a much more noticeable way: In an article.

Just doesn't seem fair. This is why we need set-in-stone rules, which I believe are in the process of being created, if I remember right. But in the meantime, there should not be this type of difference in terms of what an article can state, and what a member can say.

 

[Chiasm]

But if people stop donating, would you start blaming your existing donators? If you did, that would probably drive them away. In my experience that does happen with DRM and some of the other obnoxiuos marketing schemes from game publishers. People get so sick of it that they get driven away. Either they spend their cash elsewhere or they pirate their games.

Agreed there is something wrong with the way bigger publishers are preemptively fighting pirates and used games. It seems the video game industry is slowly becoming more and more like the record industry; with developers the naive bands who the publishers market and sell out.

But at the same time its one of those areas where you have to wonder is it good or bad? With so many studio closures and lay offs maybe the profiteering is the only way the industry can afford to make big name titles. Though one thing is for sure; pirating will only worsen or make the industry even more driven for profits (which will ironically drive more to pirating.)

In terms of poverty, the theme of this issue of The Escapist (which I think has some excellent points and advice) this whole debate is irrelevant because people without money don't spend money - piracy or no piracy. Preaching morals is pointless in this case.

With poverty in mind, its really a shame that publishers seem to forget how huge the market is for "budget" type games. More games should initially be priced around 30$ or so cutting out the used market and making more gamers willing to try their product new; games like Enslaved come to mind or even Dynasty Warriors/EA sports titles.