Piracy, Ubisoft and "the loss"

[Sylveria]

If you're going to use the music industry as an analogy, at least try to do some research first, rather than pulling self-serving arguments from out of nowhere.

The music industry has not benefitted from piracy. The music industry has experienced drop in profits year after year because people would rather pirate music than buy it. Last year alone, profits were down by 8.4% from the prior year. The UK music industry lost £189 million in 2011 alone because of piracy.

Lesser profits =/= money lost and there is no way to determine if a drop in profits is definitely correlated to piracy. That is theoretical loss under the assumption that if all those people did not pirate their music they would have bought it, while, in the real world that the rest of us live in, many of them never would have bought it anyway. Piracy does not cost them anything, they do not need to produce replacement CDs because a ship full of them was plundered.

Also, the way you/they word it, the entire UK music industry worked in the red. They made no profit at all. Not a single musician or record label made a dime this year, they all had to dip into their savings to pay for their expenses? No.

You're following the same line of logic that Ubisoft tries to sell the world; because they aren't making AS MUCH as before, they lead us to believe their operating at a loss. They are still profiting and profiting quite well, but because they haven't gained every penny THEORETICALLY possible, they claim they've lost money.

Do any of these people think, just for a second, that they're making less each year because their product quality has dipped or the market is over-saturated? No, not for a second, cause that would be an admission of how poor their product and operation is. It is far easier to rattle their swords, rile up idiots and apologists, and claim the pirates are stealing their booty.

 

[Darkmantle]

Bethesda has got it, eh?

25,000 people are pirating Skyrim right now, that's just today, that's just from [u/]one site[/u]... that's 1.5 million in sales not being paid after a product is used.

What?

I hate pirates.

I fucking hate pirates.

EDIT: Also, comparing video games to the music industry isn't fair. Artists never made that much from record sales anyway. They make the bulk of their money from performing live.

the problem with that is I know half a dozen people who pirated it then bought it, and only 1 that has yet to buy it.

with this estimate, that's about 1.2 million in sales they ARE getting.

Oh yes, yes YES!! Pirating is direct sales! There is no other reason to pirate a game other than to buy it later. /sarcasm

Seriously though, you actually believe that? You have 6 friends that illegally downloaded a game "to try it". And you think that 1,2 million people are merely trying it out? Oh my...

The actual numbers don't matter. What does matter is that number of downloads =/= number of lost sales. not everyone who downloads it to "try it" never goes out and buys the damn game afterwards. so saying pirated copies = lost sales is just wrong. That's all the point I was trying to make.

 

[CrystalShadow]

--snip--

And of course there will be always those who slip through the cracks, but since people are always more focused on new games, the longer the DRM holds out, the fewer people pirate those games, exponentially so. In fact, it's in the first quarter when games are released that most people want to get the game (one way or another), so if the DRM can hold out for even that long, the company can make a lot more profit. That's why an emphasis on DRM is so important to them. And moreover, the more profit they make, the more they can invest that money in new video game projects.

That's actually a good point. And that reminds me of a handful of companies that both use DRM, yet try to appease people that hate it.

And the way they do it is very much suggestive of what you're saying about the early period being the most important.

In short, they release a game with DRM, but patch it out later on. (like a year later or so.). By the time it's old enough to be considered a budget title, it's being sold without DRM.
But... It's also typically being sold at a price where almost nobody can realistically argue that it's too expensive.

It seems like a reasonable solution actually, since it also counter-acts needing to worry about DRM related tech support issues for games that are getting on a bit.
(Especially since getting old games to work at all can sometimes be a real pain even without DRM.)

Still, I guess it all depends on your perspective.
I consider these things because I seriously dislike DRM, but I'm also a game developer. (Or rather, a student game developer.)
So... Both sides of this question can potentially have an impact on my life...
And if I ever try and sell a game I'm going to have to think about what to do about this question myself.
(Although that becomes a bit of an issue between pragmatism and moral considerations, because honestly, I consider modern copyright laws to have become somewhat morally questionable... And DRM is a symptom of some of the ways it's become messed up. - But I admit this is interrelated with wider social issues. I don't know if it's possible to solve the issues around copyright all that much better without massively altering other aspects of how society currently functions...)

 

[Something Amyss]

You see, what I did was google a few things to get some information on this before making the thread. I seemed to remember someone talking about how file sharing wasn't such a bad thing, and so I searched up a couple of articles, which is what I based my post on. Fair enough, maybe my comparisons were quite halfassed today. It quite annoys me that said halfassed mistakes have COMPLETELY taken over the thread, ignoring what I really wanted to discuss.

The problem is, it's true. A few people have said that. It's just not a general thing. It's not a majority thing.

That said, you didn't give any sources for your claims youself, so looking at it that way you are no more right or wrong than I am =p.

Of course, in referencing Ubisoft's financial statements and the like, I did give sources. I simply did not cite them in link form. Clearly you are an intelligent person who, when given information, can actually determine its truth for yourself.

I bet you're clever enough to even look at piracy figures and see that best sellers tend to be the most pirated books, the only assertion my cursory glance shows I really didn't source.

And then let us get on with the ACTUAL TOPIC, instead of dwelling on poor comparisons, comparisons I should obviously NOT have made seeing as their basic meaning is being ignored along with the topic of this thread...

the problem is, the actual topic is just as bad. You're talking about piracy as though it is "adapt or die," and it may be long term, but in the scope you are talking, the music industry is still making money, and the companies with DRM and project ten dollar and draconian DRM are still making money. The games industry, at least, is still on target for increased profits. I don't know about the whole of the music industry, but what few I could be bothered to google were all posting revenue increases for the 2010 and 2011 financial years.

You asked "Why is piracy viewed as a destructive force in PC gaming?"

You then based your point on the music industry, based on false assertions. Your conclusion is on those lines, that the gaming industry should follow in the footsteps of the music industry, which is based on the same assertions. Meanwhile, the music industry is still suing suspected pirates. Some of those cases are bloody ridiculous, too; suing a young child, an old lady without actual internet, and at one point, a dead person. Only a couple years ago, the music industry lobbied Congress for the right to attack the computers of suspected pirates with malware. I'm pretty sure this isn't the attitude you want the gaming industry to adopt.

People haven't gotten off topic by pointing out the flaws in your comparison, they're merely discrediting the basis of your argument based on your assumptions and foundations.

I'm going to finish this thought by pointing out that the games industry, at least the big players are beholden to the shareholders. Not to you, me, or anyone else. As long as piracy is a casual concern, all the facts in the world won't stop them from pursuing it because to do otherwise would be to shake the faith of the shareholders. Good luck convincing people who have actual money on the line that they should risk it. Hell, piracy could not exist, and still be a concern.

As long as those financial reports are still good, they're not going to change their ways. That's not good for you or me, but it is good for the company's health.

Nobody likes pirates.

Pirates do.

 

[Something Amyss]

But stealing a car is easy... You break the window, hotwire the damn thing (never stolen a car, don't know how to do that...) and off you go, aparently.

Maybe you should just stop making comparisons altogether. Nothing good is going to come from these comparisons.

The police do not usually catch these people in the act. The offence is reported, and the car may be found at a later time, possibly along with the criminal. You did not STOP the stealing of the car, but you DID get the car back at a later time. Can you prevent the crime? Yes, some times you can. But not all.

Cars still have security procedures, many invasive enough that people still set them off after years of ownership. This is one of the reasons your analogy fails.

Pirates don't give a fuck, because they can't get caught.

Errr...I don't even know if I should take that seriously. You have to be joking. Pirates do get caught. Therefore, they obviously can get caught. There's no way to police the entire internet, catch everyone, etc., but you still can get nailed. By that logic, many car thieves are not ever caught with the merchandise. Does that mean car thieves don't give a fuck because they can't get caught?

The problem is more the mentality of the pirate. Not whether or not they can be caught.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Why is it piracy is viewed as such a majorly destructive force in PC gaming?

Fear-mongering by the Big Names, for the most part. It's been said before, but piracy doesn't imply the loss of sales. It doesn't imply a sale, either, but it absolutely does not constitute theft. So while they don't lose money from your pirated copy of Game X, they also don't make money from it. They take the most obvious shortcut in logic to make it mean something to your average Joe who doesn't keep up with the principles of Capitalism and supply and demand - and go bugnuts about it.

While it won't ever kill the industry, the bulk of pirates is largely comprised of self-entitled idiots (as we've probably all been once before) who were about to call the whaaambulance because of their inability to find sixty bucks to pay for a luxury product. Hidden in that mass is a handful of people who live in corners of the globe for whom piracy is the *only* possible avenue to enjoy the game. This is what the industry forgets. It doesn't have the penetration ability it should have. If the recent triple A games were readily accessible to all and if hardware prices weren't so high, gaming as a whole would become more democratic. They'd be able to cut back on costs for the consumer.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Another topic about piracy...cue the usual slew of people parroting their favorite rhetoric, and making unprovable statements about something that is inherently dishonest.
The cycle is this: Piracy hurts production in nearly all circumstances (instances where it helps more than it hurts is extremely rare), who in turn punish the legitimate consumers.

The current proposed "final solution" for PC Piracy is to start converting games into fully-online services; which will bring its own series of consequences beyond those of inconvenience (and will be largely circumvented anyway).

In any case, the industry is still standing. Hell, in an age of mass-piracy, we're still seeing a significant rise in Independent developers who DON'T have the financial securities of a large corporation.

Piracy is a form of theft.

Pirating is stealing, no matter how many cute pictures are made to claim otherwise.

Ah, this old chestnut.
The Laws of Supply and Demand disagree. Creating a copy adds more to supply, which undermines the value of the product.

In the case of goods that fall under the Natural Monopoly category [non-Rival, Excludable], this is proportional to the number of people who are aware of piracy as an option and know how to do it; ignorance of this is what really keeps piracy on consoles proportionally small compared to PC piracy. Not nearly as many people know how to mod an Xbox or PSP as those who know how to use a web browser and the copy and paste functions on their computer.

Knowing that, creating copies is arguably more economically destructive than theft because now you're introducing the potential for the worst sort of mass-arbitrage. "Classic theft" has the limitation of material. Stealing a TV isn't going to let the thief create more TVs for his friends; he will have to steal more TVs for that, and people tend to notice when that sort of thing goes on.
There is no limit to the number of copies one can make of any given piece of software and the margin of risk is minimal compared to classic theft.

 

[Sylvine]

The "what" came from your "bullshit". You are saying that pirate would not have necessarily purchased a copy, which is my point. Pirated copy is a lost sale. If you do not want the game to start off with, you do not pirate, you are not a sale. If you do want the copy, you are a sale. If you pirate a copy, you want the game and are counted for a sale.

You must be an incredibly blessed person if You can afford everything You want to have. Otherwise, I can't for the life of me fathom how You can equate wanting to play a game with a sale.

I'd like to play Skyrim. I didn't buy it, nor do I actually intend to - maybe if it drops to about 10? and I'm bored. I didn't pirate it, either, and I don't intend to at the moment. I probably would play it if I had it here already, though (well, assuming my old PC could actually take it).

Is that a sale, pirating, theft, or what? And how, exactly, does it change if, say, a pal of mine decided to drop off his copy of it at my place for me to play, because he's going for a holiday and can't play it anyway? Is THAT theft, pirating, or a sale? Where is the actual, factual difference between that and me pirating it, playing it for 2 weeks, then deleting?

I do understand it's a moral difference. But it's not a lost sale, because there won't and wouldn't be a sale in the first place in all three examples.

As long as there is interest, there is a sale. You cannot justify piracy with "viewing" or "playing" before buying. Most of TV shows and games have websites where you can view the product before buying. And even then, if your friend praises Dexter, why not go to their place and watch it?

See above. Why not borrow it from him and watch it? Why not buy a pack - used - and split the price 4-ways with 3 other friends who want to watch it? Or with 5? You can't possibly argue that there is factual difference between borrowing off a friend and pirating for Yourself (both cases - number of sales: 1, number of people enjoying it: 2), or buying once and pirating thrice or buying once and splitting the price four-way (again, both cases - number of bought copies: 1, number of people enjoying it: 4). Buying, then re-selling, then re-selling again, and again? Again a 1:4 ratio, effectively. So "why not go to their place and watch it" is not exaclty an argument You want to be making in Your position. Objectively speaking, it's either all theft, or none of it.

~Sylv