Jimquisition: Piracy - Trying To Kill It Makes It Stronger

[Melon Hunter]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

That's how a competitive market works; one company sets up a business in a pre-existing market to try and get some of the profits from it. Should Microsoft not have bothered with making the Xbox, as it didn't need to exist, due to the Playstation 2 and Gamecube already existing? Of course not.

In a way, it should have been a good thing, as Steam hold a virtual monopoly over digital distribution for PC games. The problem is, Origin has nowhere near the level of good service and pricing that Steam offers currently.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

Jim isn't saying pirates are right because companies are asses, but rather piracy thrives because companies are asses.

It's pretty evident that the only people who are affected by current anti-piracy measures are the honest customers. They are also the one group the companies should not be stepping on. Their refusal to see that is as damaging as the piracy that forced their hand in the first place.

Piracy is not condonable, but the people who do pirate won't stop because you give them some bad rep. However, fewer people would pirate if they felt the legitimate copy wasn't restrictive and filled with contrived counter-measures to piracy. The honest customer is treated like a pirate, while pirates just continue as they always have but with more and more people less willing to argue against it. If the Industry wants to stay ahead of the curb they need to change. Piracy is an eternal force in commerce and the only way to beat it is to adapt. The best way for a Company to adapt is to not punish the people who keep them afloat, but instead offer incentives to encourage the otherwise uninclined to invest in their products.

Annual (safe) sequels, Extortionate DLC, restrictive services, DRM, Online passes, Gfwl, install limits, online checks... all these things and more make gaming miserable for customers. Meanwhile, as Jim says, Pirates actively remove this shit and offer a more user friendly game.

What incentive, beyond good will, is their for an angered customer to keep paying out of their own wallets for a game made by people who don't respect them, when a less offensive AND free option exists?

 

[Yopaz]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

I do have to agree with this episode. I love to TV shows and movies by streaming them from somewhere without ads or adware, spyware and that stuff. I also think Steam is so convenient that I prefer that compared to piracy.

Generally agree, but you fail in the same way that most of these rants against "the man" fail.. you forget that the reason we're getting this crap DRM stuff imposed on us in the first place is because of the pirates.

That's why I get really annoyed whenever somebody gets up on their righteous horse and says, "It's the companies' fault!"

NO. IT. ISN'T.
It is, and will remain, the pirates fault. You want to fight piracy? Here's a good way, tell everybody you know who's a pirate that they're a prick for forcing companies to put all this crap on their games to try to slow them down.

There are ways to lessen piracy, yes. And yes, the companies can take steps toward it as Steam has done, but let's be honest, unless everybody released on Steam, your next rant would be about how it's so inconvenient to remember which service your game is signed up with and so people pirate because they don't want to be bothered going through any service.

On the other hand, *we* can take steps toward stopping piracy and crappy products at the same time, simply by refusing to give pirates any succor or rationalization. You hear that somebody pirated a game, just go, "Man, that's not cool," and no matter what half-ass rationalization they give you, repeat, "Whatever, it's still a shitty thing to do."

Sure DRM is there because there are pirates, but making things more inconvenient isn't the way to make it better. I think that it's wrong that pirates who pay nothing for a game like Assassin's Creed get more convenience than someone like me who bought it.
What happens when a game gets a lousy DRM? It gets cracked, DRM gets removed and it is uploaded within days of release. Honest customers on the other hand has to deal with this all the time.
Take Anno 2070 where an attempt to test different configurations proved impossible because the limited activation issue. Now Ubisoft was unwilling to help out even though they tried to make things more convenient for all their customers. This isn't preventing piracy. This is just annoying.
Now honestly I have never experienced problems with DRM, but I have heard of several annoying problems that has actually made it impossible to play or install some games. This is not an issue for pirates who dodge DRM altogether. This is what those of us who pay for our games have to struggle with. I am not trying to justify piracy because I don't pirate stuff, but I do see the point.

 

[Fumofu]

Great video, couldn't agree more. I actually have to set aside time to "pre-play" my games as I call it. I make sure to set everything up half an hour before I can play in order to get all the installs completed by the time I'm actually able to play.

 

[brazuca]

Video game industry is getting bigger and bigger with some predatory practices, but getting bigger and biffier. If you were a CEO, president of some given company you would maintain this pratice just because people did not complain with the right channels. Wanna prove a point to the game industry?! Stop buying games. Simple as that.

 

[GeorgW]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

 

[Yopaz]

I'm a bit confused as to the argument here, the whole convenience criticism seems a bit flawed.
Comparing it to something like iTunes where you can get a song damn near instantaneously is a problem because you're talking about something that is a small amount of data for machines to download and process in comparison to something that is a huge amount of data like a game.

I mean you really can't get around the whole install/update that's just the nature of the technology that is available, why can't we just pop it in like the old days and play it out of the gate? Well that is because the technology on consoles works.

Oh but what about the netflix example, with the push of a button you can watch things instantly, why can't you do that with games...well we sort of can now, it's called OnLive.

Even then I don't see how pirates provide a better service for games. For a legit game you obtain it retail or digital, download if digital, then install, and patch it.
Pirated games, you have to find it, download it, install it, and patch it, and run a crack.

It is pretty much the same damn thing.

I don't think you can really blame companies for not offering instant playability like music or movies because the technology just isn't up to speed yet. Is it their fault broadband isn't at a blazing speed to accommodate such a huge file? Is it the fault of game companies that harddrives can't write much faster?

The only reason iTunes worked is because it answered the problem of people wanting to buy individual songs instead of whole albums, I don't think the same can be done with games, hell I would think that it would be more of a hassle to chop up games into individual levels and force people to buy each one to continue the game.

You explained how it is when you buy and install a game, but you did not take DRM into consideration. DRM is something that follows you every time you run a game. Ubisoft does this to perfection by making it impossible to play certain games if your internet connection disappears even if it's just for a few seconds. The pirated version will not have this funny little quirk about it and is thus more convenient.
You aslso seem to think things very simple when you say that we download games, install them and patch them. There have been lots of problems just installing games like BioShock and the Batman games because of the DRM there. Batman Arkham City also had Games For Windows Live which is to blame for deleting save files in more than a few cases. I pre ordered Arkham City played through the story and then went to do side quests. One day though my save files were gone. They were still in the folder where they were being stored, but the piracy protection (DRM or Games For Windows Live) wouldn't load it up. If I had pirated the game I could easily make the pirated version load up my save data. To say the least, this was very inconvenient and almost turned me off playing the game completely. So there ya have my story about how I got slapped in the face for being honest and believe me, there are many out there with worse stories.

 

[VladG]

Punching back the tide? Why I do believe Jim has never heard of Chuck Norris.

Seriously now, I completely agree with Jim on this one. Developers punish honest consumers. What's worse, their methods of preventing piracy don't even work so ALL they are doing is punishing customers.

Some members of the industry have been smart enough to realize this, and they are thriving. Steam is DRM. So is Origin. Difference? Steam offers much more than Origin and it's actually something you want to have instead of something you NEED to have in order to play the games you like.

Props to CD Projekt as well (the guys behind The Witcher and GoG) for refusing to use DRM, even after the crippling numbers of pirated copies of The Witcher 2 and their attitude to the whole thing in general.

 

[Yopaz]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

I wont go back on my word that most DRM is cracked within days of release, Modern Warfare 3 was uploaded before its release. However what you fail to see with this point is that DRM is just a false security in these days of piracy. If they were to release a copy without DRM and one with they actually show us all that they know DRM wont stop piracy, yet they punish honest customers who aren't willing to shell out for the DRM free version. This shows us and the pirates that they know they are fighting a losing battle in this and that they actually give up on the battle and try to squeeze us for more money. DRM on the budget version punishes a honest customer. A higher cost DRM free awards the wealthy and makes piracy a lot easier than it already was.

 

[Dana22]

Thank god for Gaben.

 

[Rednog]

I'm a bit confused as to the argument here, the whole convenience criticism seems a bit flawed.
Comparing it to something like iTunes where you can get a song damn near instantaneously is a problem because you're talking about something that is a small amount of data for machines to download and process in comparison to something that is a huge amount of data like a game.

I mean you really can't get around the whole install/update that's just the nature of the technology that is available, why can't we just pop it in like the old days and play it out of the gate? Well that is because the technology on consoles works.

Oh but what about the netflix example, with the push of a button you can watch things instantly, why can't you do that with games...well we sort of can now, it's called OnLive.

Even then I don't see how pirates provide a better service for games. For a legit game you obtain it retail or digital, download if digital, then install, and patch it.
Pirated games, you have to find it, download it, install it, and patch it, and run a crack.

It is pretty much the same damn thing.

I don't think you can really blame companies for not offering instant playability like music or movies because the technology just isn't up to speed yet. Is it their fault broadband isn't at a blazing speed to accommodate such a huge file? Is it the fault of game companies that harddrives can't write much faster?

The only reason iTunes worked is because it answered the problem of people wanting to buy individual songs instead of whole albums, I don't think the same can be done with games, hell I would think that it would be more of a hassle to chop up games into individual levels and force people to buy each one to continue the game.

You explained how it is when you buy and install a game, but you did not take DRM into consideration. DRM is something that follows you every time you run a game. Ubisoft does this to perfection by making it impossible to play certain games if your internet connection disappears even if it's just for a few seconds. The pirated version will not have this funny little quirk about it and is thus more convenient.
You aslso seem to think things very simple when you say that we download games, install them and patch them. There have been lots of problems just installing games like BioShock and the Batman games because of the DRM there. Batman Arkham City also had Games For Windows Live which is to blame for deleting save files in more than a few cases. I pre ordered Arkham City played through the story and then went to do side quests. One day though my save files were gone. They were still in the folder where they were being stored, but the piracy protection (DRM or Games For Windows Live) wouldn't load it up. If I had pirated the game I could easily make the pirated version load up my save data. To say the least, this was very inconvenient and almost turned me off playing the game completely. So there ya have my story about how I got slapped in the face for being honest and believe me, there are many out there with worse stories.

So the only problem is the existence of DRM, and removing all DRM would remove the existence of piracy or at least stifle it immensely?
The flaw in the argument is that some developers have actually tried releasing DRM free games...and lo and behold the piracy rate is still laughably high. Take a look at the Witcher 2, hey we love the PC and want to support it as much as we can so we'll make it DRM free! And it gets pirated no differently than other games.
The same with something like indie bundles, hey this money is going to charity, we have DRM free versions and we offer multiple places to redeem keys if you so desire...it still gets pirated in large numbers and you have a slew of people paying only a single cent for it.

I don't think it really is a clear cut case that Jim is presenting it to be, it isn't just this case of one providing a wholesale better experience/convenience. I think it tends to be more of a case of people are just going to pirate because it isn't going to cost them anything to do it.
I mean it is hard to argue something like oh look netflix gives me such a great service...but at the same time backslap ubisoft for having to be always online. For both you have to be online, netflix doesn't allow you to download a bunch of stuff and watch it offline at your leisure (unless I'm missing some feature of netflix). Yes one is more of a rental service and the other something you own, but the point is that you can't on the one hand praise a service that requires you to be constantly online and bash another for requiring the same thing.

 

[stringtheory]

[quote/] That's how a competitive market works; one company sets up a business in a pre-existing market to try and get some of the profits from it. Should Microsoft not have bothered with making the Xbox, as it didn't need to exist, due to the Playstation 2 and Gamecube already existing? Of course not.

In a way, it should have been a good thing, as Steam hold a virtual monopoly over digital distribution for PC games. The problem is, Origin has nowhere near the level of good service and pricing that Steam offers currently.[/quote]

I agree, until someone comes out with a service which is as good as steam in every way (pricing, simplicity, catalog, customer service etc.), steam will continue to have it's de facto monopoly
and I will gladly keep giving my money to steam for the following reasons:
1. it works on mac, I have a windows partition so I can play windows game if I really wanted to, but guess what? I'm too lazy to restart into windows because of that exact fact, it requires me to block out some time to play those games, and generally I don't have 2+ hours I can sink into restarting and playing say, Skyrim, so until origin or some other platform comes to mac I will continue to use steam

2. the deals, steam has at least one game at least 50% off 24/7 (these games are usually meh), but the midweek/weekend deals are great, and don't get me started on the holiday deals...(skyrim for 33% off? heck yeah!)

3. it has almost every game, due to my huge amounts of laziness, I'm unwilling to say go onto amazon, because I know that steam would have at least better deals and the same games, the only game which I not bought through steam this year is the mac version of borderlands, I got it through amazon (I had a gift card) because I couldn't have gotten it through steam

4. it has demos, unlike the mac app store, you can try before you buy, which is one of the reasons I've pirated games just to try them out rather then spending 30+ dollars on a game I'm not sure that I'll even like, so the only competition at least at an application level on mac is mac app
store and steam, and right now steam is much better for the reasons stated above

 

[GeorgW]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

I wont go back on my word that most DRM is cracked within days of release, Modern Warfare 3 was uploaded before its release. However what you fail to see with this point is that DRM is just a false security in these days of piracy. If they were to release a copy without DRM and one with they actually show us all that they know DRM wont stop piracy, yet they punish honest customers who aren't willing to shell out for the DRM free version. This shows us and the pirates that they know they are fighting a losing battle in this and that they actually give up on the battle and try to squeeze us for more money. DRM on the budget version punishes a honest customer. A higher cost DRM free awards the wealthy and makes piracy a lot easier than it already was.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

 

[Ewyx]

Repeating the story, bought Alice: Madness Returns, I felt EA treated me badly, with the extra annoyance I had to go through. Not touching EA ever again.

 

[getoffmycloud]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

Well that's not really a valid argument because why is there more than one supermarket chain in the world, why is there more than one car manufacturer in the world, why is more than one video game retailer in the world because it provides choice without it you get a monopoly and that is always a bad thing.

 

[mjc0961]

Why the picture of Twisted Metal when saying "endless patches"? It will have one small day one patch that David Jaffe feels really bad about doing but made it as small as possible so it doesn't get in our way. After that, he's said the game will be left alone unless there are huge bug they missed that need patching or if the game does really well and fans demand new features. That's quite the opposite of endless patches, and if they're able to stick to that plan, an example of what games should be doing.

Anyway, I agree with everything about how publishers are doing it wrong, but just like last week, none of that equates to me giving a free pass to pirates. Pirating because you don't want DRM is not better than pirating because you just don't feel like spending money. Whatever reason you do it for, pirating only tells publishers they need to try harder to stop them. And yeah, publishers are shit too, as for them trying harder means even more draconian shit that punishes the paying customer. But pirates are still an equal part of the problem. Publishers are trying to stop piracy in the wrong way, and game players are telling publishers that they don't want DRM in the wrong way by pirating games. Both sides are WRONG and it's paying customers getting stuck in the middle taking all the hits.

You know what we really need? Boycotts. Too bad that we suck at boycotts as the boycott episode of this show pointed out, though (that picture of the MW2 boycott group on Steam all playing MW2 still makes me facepalm). If all of us would actually band together to not buy the game, not pirate the game, and write to the publisher of the game the next time a game has some really shitty DRM to tell them exactly why we aren't playing their game, that might actually do some good. Good luck actually getting the majority of people who say they'll join in to follow through with not buying or pirating it, though.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Did not get the rant about gaming getting slower because you need to install games on consoles. That's not a piracy thing. That's a consoles this gen aping PC's as far as game play experience and on-line abilities, requires aping some of the PC's down sides, of game installs and patching. Nothing to do with piracy.

The Piracy is a service problem point was already made back here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem. But worth re-iterating while this piracy trilogy of episodes is happening

 

[2fish]

Jim seems sad, maybe he needs a happy topic or pills or something. I agree with his points though. Games need to catch up but they will do it kicking and screaming all the way...if they don't mess it up when they get there.

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist EA doesn't seem to know how to run an online store. Steam exists already.

Fixed it Hell even old Impulse was run better than Origin and they had almost no games.

Origin deals listed 3 things for me. Free shiping, sims games preorder stuff, and one 50% off sims expansion

Steam has 5 games on sale from 10-75% off

Impulse has 10 things on sale.

If EA can't learn from their competators then I have no doubt they will feel it in the wallet.

 

[Zom-B]

Generally agree, but you fail in the same way that most of these rants against "the man" fail.. you forget that the reason we're getting this crap DRM stuff imposed on us in the first place is because of the pirates.

That's why I get really annoyed whenever somebody gets up on their righteous horse and says, "It's the companies' fault!"

NO. IT. ISN'T.
It is, and will remain, the pirates fault. You want to fight piracy? Here's a good way, tell everybody you know who's a pirate that they're a prick for forcing companies to put all this crap on their games to try to slow them down.

There are ways to lessen piracy, yes. And yes, the companies can take steps toward it as Steam has done, but let's be honest, unless everybody released on Steam, your next rant would be about how it's so inconvenient to remember which service your game is signed up with and so people pirate because they don't want to be bothered going through any service.

On the other hand, *we* can take steps toward stopping piracy and crappy products at the same time, simply by refusing to give pirates any succor or rationalization. You hear that somebody pirated a game, just go, "Man, that's not cool," and no matter what half-ass rationalization they give you, repeat, "Whatever, it's still a shitty thing to do."

You're obviously seeing a lot of replies because your reasoning is somewhat flawed. Yes, DRM and other methods to fight copyright infringers ("pirate" is a convenient term, but not strictly accurate. Piracy denotes theft, but illegal downloads of media aren't theft, they are copyright infringement) were and are implemented as a response to media piracy, however, the companies response to the piracy phenomenon, in the form of stricter and more invasive DRM, drives more people to piracy. When these corporations make it more difficult for legal, paying customers to acquire and use their products than pirates do, that is the fault of the corporations. They've failed to identify the source of the problem and the reasons that people pirate in the first place. There will always be people who prefer to pay nothing rather than something, no matter how difficult, convoluted or illegal it is, just like we still have people that steal cars and rob banks.

Jim is dead correct when he says that convenience is an important way to fight piracy. Of course, that's not the only thing. Getting our games and music has to not only be convenient, but it has to be simple and it has to be relatively affordable. If albums were $19.99 on iTunes instead of $9.99 and individual tracks were $2.00 or $2.50 there would be a lot less customers. But Apple found the sweet spot between convenience and pricing, something the games industry has almost universally failed to do, outside of Steam and sites like GoG.

To put the blame solely on the copyright infringers and pirates exonerates the game publishers of any blame in creating the current environment. They most certainly share the blame with their ham-fisted attempts to lock down games, DRM schemes that do more to frustrate legitimate customers than they ever do those pirating games.

Lastly, finger wagging at people is probably the least effective way I can think of to get them to stop illegally downloading games and to start paying. Probably about as effective as your parents telling you not to drink beer when you were 16.