Pirates ruining it for the rest of us.

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Stu35 said:
Do you not think that we could debate the merits of whether or not current Anti-Piracy measures are effective without endorsing piracy itself though?

Surely that is both productive, and ought to be endorsed by the content industry as, if they choose to read such debates, they may be able to ascertain how their paying customers feel about their current methods and how they might improve on them.

Just a thought.
I'm unwilling to risk my account in doing so. I have a clean bill of health precisely because I always follow the moderators' rules (both explicit and implicit - I don't think the "no piracy debates" rule is actually explicit, I've just seen a lot of punitive measures for making pro-piracy statements).

It oughtn't be controversial to debate anything honestly, but this is a private forum run by a private company, and we must respect its wishes in this matter.
 

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
Look man, I have a lot of friends who pirate and I have tried everything, yelling, slapping, discussion, sending them links to game sales like steam and humble bundle and even buying them games but they won't stop because it's like talking to a brick wall, arrgh so frustrating.
So tell me, what else do you want me to do?
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
BGH122 said:
I'm unwilling to risk my account in doing so. I have a clean bill of health precisely because I always follow the moderators' rules (both explicit and implicit - I don't think the "no piracy debates" rule is actually explicit, I've just seen a lot of punitive measures for making pro-piracy statements).
You can oppose both piracy AND the DRM stuff publishers are trying to force on us.

I know I do.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Vegosiux said:
BGH122 said:
I'm unwilling to risk my account in doing so. I have a clean bill of health precisely because I always follow the moderators' rules (both explicit and implicit - I don't think the "no piracy debates" rule is actually explicit, I've just seen a lot of punitive measures for making pro-piracy statements).
You can oppose both piracy AND the DRM stuff publishers are trying to force on us.

I know I do.
Correct, you can. I have never stated otherwise. I have instead stated that you oughtn't do that on this site.
 

Archer666

New member
May 27, 2011
166
0
0
People will always pirate, and that will never change. I myself agree with Gabe Newell
http://gamingbolt.com/gabe-newell-piracy-is-a-non-issue-to-valve-providing-better-services-will-result-in-more-sales

Also, you should ignore being lumped in with pirates because you're a PC gamer. Console piracy is just as bad as PC piracy, but most developers use PIRACY as an excuse to be lazy about PC versions of their games.
 

M-E-D The Poet

New member
Sep 12, 2011
575
0
0
No pirating is not

Or modding would be too
Or at least people who crack game engines in want of modding would be

Pirating is not hurting the platform in any big substantial way, sorry but it's just how it is

yes, game developers are being cheated out of a cut, but guess what pirates do? They buy games they deem worth it

If your game is not worth it, then they're not buying

The brunt of pirates are just gamers who have no money to keep on buying AAA titles on release
And NO you are not going to compare video games with the "real world"
You can't , why not?
Because video games are a vibrant media

The demand for video games is the only reason they exist, that demand remains active thanks to pirates too

I think Pirates are like Ryanair for the gaming industry

They advertise a shitload, they mod like crazy to work around fix, and perfect the games they take as their own and then advertise some more

With all the advertising be it mouth to mouth or forum based these pirates do
They attract at least 2 people who will buy the game based on their fandom/biases

This sets into motion a chain of events where a pirate is actually worth more to a game developer than a consumer


But nobody ever thinks of that!

Your regular consumer will mostly whine about how bad a game he got for his money
A pirate will just tell you clean and simple what the game is and what's wrong with it (and if there's people looking to fix that)
Settings mapping and fine tuning gear to have games played best
that's what pirates do


Now sure you can clasp me in irons but I'm giving you the truth here
Most people who pirate games won't go heralding that they're pirates, they will however herald games they thought would be worth the money, and if they knew those games would be they'd save up for it

Because people are people and not everyone is filthy rich
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
The Witcher 2 sold over a million copies. How is that not a success story? In fact, the most pirated game of 2009 was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and it sold over 6 million copies. If you still honestly believe piracy hurts copyright based industries then how do you explain their ability to remain profitable during a recession? Major corporations couldn't give two shits about pirates. What they DO care about is being able to have as much control over their products as they can. They're using piracy and used game sales as a scapegoat to take away your rights as consumers and amazingly, people are actually supporting them. Just look at Steam or Origin.
 

suitepee7

I can smell sausage rolls
Dec 6, 2010
1,273
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
You can't beat 'Free'.
wait wait, hold on a second. are you telling me steam sales, actually cost real money?!

personally i don't pirate because i want to support the devs and i want them to continue to create games that i enjoy. the last game i pirated was bioshock, about 2 months after it came out. i proceeded to buy the game anyway half a year later when i got steam.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
Piracy is the cancer of gaming since the early 80s, jet the gaming industry managed to grow into a multi-billion industry.

Either medicine found a way to cure cancer for real, or you have some explaining to do.

And no, even if there where no pirates at all, there would still be a shitload of DRM simply because the companies like to control how you use your product and "just in case if some pirates appear".

The Witcher 2 numbers where obviously pulled out of their asses, jet the guy said he still thinks that no DRM is the way to go and they still made a decent profit.
Valve's policy is to have only the minimal level of DRM (1 time activation).

Read this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem] and you will find out what is really killing the PC platform.
You should also go on "The Word of Notch" (minecraft's creators blog) and look at his opinion about piracy. Piracy can in fact have a positive impact on the medium.

Piracy is not good, but neither is it the source of all evil. The publisher are (at least most of them). Trust me on this one.
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
I think piracy, at least illegal downloading, can be curtailed, but the lobbyists who ostensibly try to stop it seem to have their minds on something else. They want the power to arbitrarily shut down websites they don't like.

In particular I think they want amateur/indie content creation to be as difficult as possible. It reduces demand for their products while they have absolutely no right to demand anything be done about it. But they can make life hell for sites which host their content, because there will always be some idiot who uploads copyrighted material.

Ridiculous fines indicate that it's not really about piracy. It is politically impossible to fine half the electorate the approximate value of their house for a petty offense like pirating an album. The risk of being caught is therefore always going to tiny. If the fines were similar to those of parking offenses, there's the risk offective enforcement, taking away their pretext to shut down YouTube etc.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
M-E-D The Poet said:
No pirating is not
You should probably not do this:

yes, game developers are being cheated out of a cut, but guess what pirates do? They buy games they deem worth it

If your game is not worth it, then they're not buying
...state that piracy has an economic gain...

The brunt of pirates are just gamers who have no money to keep on buying AAA titles on release
....then follow it up with an argument stating that pirates have no economic power.

You can choose one. Both stances are contradictory.

The demand for video games is the only reason they exist, that demand remains active thanks to pirates too

I think Pirates are like Ryanair for the gaming industry
The demand to buy video games remains active because of a black market that charges nothing?

Learn what 'supply and demand' is and how 'basic fucking economics' works. By putting out a product for free, you've created a competitor for the same product that is not free. You're not 'creating demand' for the product that is not free, you're 'taking demand away' from the product that is not free.

This is how economics works on a fundamental level. Your failure to understand this undermines any argument you could possibly make about the economic viability of piracy and benefits to the producer.

They advertise a shitload, they mod like crazy to work around fix, and perfect the games they take as their own and then advertise some more

With all the advertising be it mouth to mouth or forum based these pirates do
They attract at least 2 people who will buy the game based on their fandom/biases
Is this arugment based on faith or fact? Are you insinuating that people who economically invest in a game are less passionate? Are you actually going to fucking suggest that a guy who likes a publisher or francise enough to actually open his wallet rather than piratebay.org is somehow less invested?

This sets into motion a chain of events where a pirate is actually worth more to a game developer than a consumer
Except those 2 people are then given a torrent by the pirate, so that they don't have to buy the game. The same pirate then tells them how not to pay for it, so that their friends can enjoy the same experience they had.

Piracy breeds further piracy, more than it breeds sales.

But nobody ever thinks of that!
Because it's batshit insane, counters the laws of how economics works on a fundamental level, and doesn't actually happen.

It's a myth, a fantasy, that occurs occasionally in anecdote, but DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN ENOUGH TO MEAN A FUCK.

Your regular consumer will mostly whine about how bad a game he got for his money
A pirate will just tell you clean and simple what the game is and what's wrong with it (and if there's people looking to fix that)
Because people who pay money for a game are predisposed to hating a game? You're going to have to provide some sort of evidence to that, because most people who spend money on things will actually try to rationalize their decisions and are more likely to defend their commerce. It's called "Post-Purchase Rationalization". It's an actual thing.

You should, like, try to research this.

Settings mapping and fine tuning gear to have games played best
that's what pirates do
Modders != Pirates. Some modders are pirates and some modders are not. You're confusing two completely fucking different terms here.



Now sure you can clasp me in irons but I'm giving you the truth here
Most people who pirate games won't go heralding that they're pirates, they will however herald games they thought would be worth the money, and if they knew those games would be they'd save up for it
So, if they knew the game they stole would be worth the money, they'd have paid for it.

This implies that they do not pay for it after the fact.

This is truly the mindset of the "white-hat pirate." See, once you've stolen it, and enjoyed it, and had your fun with it, and you make a positive review... you have no need to purchase it. So you don't.

Because people are people and not everyone is filthy rich
Basically THIS is the entire crux of your argument. You don't steal because you need it. You don't steal because it's required for you to function.

You steal because you're fucking cheap. You can't afford something so you feel entitled to have it. That's it. Everything else is bullshit rationalization, and people can fucking see right through it.

Now come on, no one believes you're so naive as to believe the fucking crap you just spouted. This is just the aggrandizing rationalization pirates blatantly lie about to sell their world view.

Either you're smart enough to realize how fucking wrong you are, and are lying to get away with theft.... or you're so fucking naive you need to wake the hell up because this shit is detrimental to society, and yourself.

Think about it.

BiH-Kira said:
And no, even if there where no pirates at all, there would still be a shitload of DRM simply because the companies like to control how you use your product and "just in case if some pirates appear".
1) Before there was DRM, there were people pirating. Stealing is so fucking old it's mentioned in the bible. SPOILER ALERT: They thought it was bad.

2) There's no 'Just in case if some pirates appear.' Every game is pirated. Every. Single. Fucking. One.

Does this mean that I want harsh DRM in every game? Hell no. It was annoying when the game would stop just so I could look up some code in some code wheel based on amorpheus images... or worse... try to find an image that matched it in the manual... and while it's less bothersome now, it's still annoying.

But pirates are not blameless. They came first, not the DRM. They have no fucking leg to stand on in this. No, you're not here because of DRM. You're here to get free shit. The DRM issue is just your fucking propaganda, and smart people know that. You know that.
 

BOOM headshot65

New member
Jul 7, 2011
939
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
BOOM headshot65 said:
Kopikatsu said:
=x I've been hearing that a lot lately. I should probably have watched the entire video, but I stopped paying attention after the bank part. Like...Kennedy assassination? Why is that even in there? I have no idea.

And they're wrong about the Federal Reserve being privately owned, but I said that already.
The theory is as follows:

The jist is Kennedy found out the "private" Federal Reserve was causing inflation and other problems and would destroy America. So, he was to sign "executive order 11110" which...not quite sure on this...would allow the printing of money by the mint without it having to go through the Federal Reserve, thus breaking their stranglehold. 3 weeks later...shot in Dallas. LBJ then throws out the order for fear he will be next.

Again, completely baseless conspiracy theory.
lolwat. Executive Order 11110 was just part of Kennedy's plan to get the US off the gold standard. (It relates to silver in specific, but that's part of the gold standard).

If anything, the Federal Reserve should have been overjoyed at Executive Order 11110 because it was part of a plan that would allow them to print unlimited funds, since it doesn't have to be based on anything physical as far as I know.

Silly conspiracy theorists...

Edit: Looked it up in case I was wrong. It seems that I was mostly right, but it also granted the Federal Reserve more power in that Executive Order 11110 let them print one and two dollar bills. Apparently they weren't permitted to before then.
*looking at Kennedy conspiracy theory*
*looking at EO11110*

That is some SERIOUS liberties with their facts there.

Seriously, whenever I need a good laugh, I look at the National Enquirer, or look up conspriacy theories.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
The Publishers are the ones who make the DRM, not the developers. And the Publishers are more or less forced to by the shareholders, since they kind of control the company. That's what the stock market is. Selling/trading shares of a company. If you own enough stock in a company, you get to make decisions for them. In this case, they're trying to protect their investment with DRM.
then it's not really beyond their control. It's completely within their control.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Kopikatsu said:
The Publishers are the ones who make the DRM, not the developers. And the Publishers are more or less forced to by the shareholders, since they kind of control the company. That's what the stock market is. Selling/trading shares of a company. If you own enough stock in a company, you get to make decisions for them. In this case, they're trying to protect their investment with DRM.
then it's not really beyond their control. It's completely within their control.
Howso? It's not up to the developers at all, and the publishers have to remake the DRM until it satisfies the majority of the shareholders.

CDP can do without DRM since they own their own stock, I think (They did some kind of legal...something a few years back where they ended up taking over their own company.) and VALVe probably does well enough that they let Newell do as he wants, or they feel like Steamworks is sufficient.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
xXxJessicaxXx said:
SOPA is a completely separate issue and not at all what I was suggesting it involves putting a ban on even showing the content of games etc which will only go further to harm the industry as they will lose advertising and word of mouth.
So wait, it's okay to violate copyright law, but only when you think it benefits them?

Piracy completely circumvents any revenue they may gain from these things so you can't say it is the same thing.
Pirates buy more media than non-pirates. Your argument just died right there.

The theatrics of the claim that piracy completely circumvents any revenue are ridiculous, and justifying one form of "word of mouth" while decrying another is ridiculous.

I don't even agree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let a disingenuous argument stand.

You are just trying to discredit the anti piracy argument by associating it loosely with the overreaction of SOPA
I'm not; rather, I'm trying to point out the only way to do what you want is to step to draconian extremes.

What you want requires drastic measures, ones you will not like. I'm sorry you missed the point that was explicitly stated in your rush to dismiss me, but it was right there.

No offence but you also can't really tag on 'It has been happening since the eighties and so therefore it's okay' Gaming companies have more access to information about piracy and lost sales that they ever did before. The internet has provided people with an easier route to piracy aswell. Do you really think the disc swapping that went on in the 80's was the same level as the downloading that goes on today?
No, but the market was smaller, too. Hooray for one-sided equivalence.

Games companies are that fed up with piracy that they have even turned around and said our draconian measures of DRM aren't enough and it will come to a point where their loss of money (imagined or not) will not counterbalance PC sales. Money makes the world go around and they will react to that.
Yep. We've only been hearing THIS specific brand of doom since the 90s.

PC gaming is doomed. DOOOOOOOMED!

And it will probably be "doomed" as long as PCs are still a thing. I mean, I can't say forever, because there's no guarantee that a huge catastrophe won't destroy civilisation and render us all primitive, but....

I appreciate that but it's not just people who can't afford games who pirate it's also people who would have bought the game if there wasn't an easier 'free' route.
And this is one of the major flaws with your argument. Assuming that people would have bought the game otherwise. "IT'S HURTING SALES!" is nothing more than chicken-little behaviour.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Howso? It's not up to the developers at all, and the publishers have to remake the DRM until it satisfies the majority of the shareholders.
Right, you already shifted it to the publishers, I did not contest that. but if you are trying to separate shareholders from the company, you're being rather ridiculous.
 

Jingle Fett

New member
Sep 13, 2011
379
0
0
Why don't game publishers-and i know this is a crazy out of this world idea but bear with me-try lowering their prices to something reasonable? Oh no, cant have that because if the game has CoD level sales, they'd be missing out on millions. Publishers, take a hint. Your desire for money is precisely what keeps you from making money. I mean wasn't it Gabe Newell that said reducing the price of one of their games by 50% was met with a 3000% increase in revenue (not sales but money)? I know that I've bought a number of games on Steam that I've never even played and don't even like but bought them anyways because they were at a good price.
On top of that, with the economy in the shithole, people are strapped enough for cash as it is. That's part of the reason the app store makes so much money--the games are affordable. The app store itself isn't what's making them sell, the low prices make people feel more comfortable about trying out new games since there's a lower investment per game. So people might buy a game even if it's something they wouldn't normally buy, or even if it's a crap game that just looks cool.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Kopikatsu said:
Howso? It's not up to the developers at all, and the publishers have to remake the DRM until it satisfies the majority of the shareholders.
Right, you already shifted it to the publishers, I did not contest that. but if you are trying to separate shareholders from the company, you're being rather ridiculous.
But...they are.

If I had enough money, I could go buy 51% of VALVe's stock. Then I would own the company, and could make decisions for the company without being affiliated with VALVe in any way.

Yes, you would actually own VALVe, or any company, if you had a majority share of stock. (Which can actually be less than 51%. 51% insures that nobody can 'beat' you in authority, though. But if you have 12% of the stock, and the second highest person has 5% of the stock, then you have a majority share and your decisions have a significant amount of pull.)
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
xXxJessicaxXx said:
SOPA is a completely separate issue and not at all what I was suggesting it involves putting a ban on even showing the content of games etc which will only go further to harm the industry as they will lose advertising and word of mouth.
So wait, it's okay to violate copyright law, but only when you think it benefits them?

Piracy completely circumvents any revenue they may gain from these things so you can't say it is the same thing.
Pirates buy more media than non-pirates. Your argument just died right there.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You have a guy in this very thread stating that the reason pirates pirate is because he has no buying power.

Having no buying power kinda counteracts the 'we buy more' argument, because you CAN'T.

Kopikatsu said:
If I had enough money, I could go buy 51% of VALVe's stock. Then I would own the company, and could make decisions for the company without being affiliated with VALVe in any way.
Actually, owning a controlling share of stock in a company is, by definition, affiliation. The law is very clear on this.

However, you can be disinterested in the product, and not making artistic decisions, and solely concerned with policy. That much is true.