Pirating Game Dev Tycoon Dooms Players to be Ruined By Piracy

[Entitled]

snip

First of all, nitpicking: the population of the world has been increasing in the third world, middle/upper class westerners in general have a steadily decreasing population. Plenty of the charts were US exclusive.

Anyways, in general, I think it doesn't really matter exactly what tricks and business models and pricings were used to separate people from their money, as long as it is shown that they ARE willing to pay for media. Even if all the gaming growth would come from hard-to-crack consoles and mobile phones, it's really telling that people ARE willing to pay more and more for them, while they could just watch some pirated movies and read some pirated books.

For that matter, it's interesting how the traditional media are growing too, and not just the profits, but the amounts of songs/books/movies being created.

I'm not even literally saying these happened "because of piracy", just that file-sharing is inherently interconnected with a great focus on access to more and more data nowadays. For example, indie bands can now easily find an audience thanks to youtube, and then self-publish, or do a Kickstarter, or announce a concert on Twitter, and make a living from a small niche of fans, where decades ago, a publisher would have laughed at them. So more music made, more profits to music, etc.

That is happening everywhere, and I just don't see a way to wish away the supposed effects of piracy, without also taking away the benefits of the open culture that the Internet brought. The idea of "surfing" in a sea of information, and first experiencing lots of new content without borders, and only worry about "rewarding the owners" second.

The publishers, and even some shorter-sighted developers, would rather turn the Internet into one walled garden, or a corporate-owned store, where we can all stand in lines and get our appropriately bought content bit by bit, not even because they are certain that this would leave them with more money, just because they are terrified by the thought that they can no longer keep account of every single video viewed, book read, and game played.

 

[Edl01]

You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.

Shelter IS a necessity. Maybe you should look up the necessities before you post stuff like this.

Let's imagine that you have your necessities taken care of, but doing so leaves you with no money.

So, as long as you have:
-a roof over your head
-water
-slight variety of food
-human contact
-clothing
-heat and electricity

...then YES, you should DAMN WELL go without:
-a car
-decorations
-gourmet food
-gadgets
-new games

I've done it. What makes everyone else a special snowflake that they don't have to go through "poor" stages of life?

Welp this is how shit the gaming community has become, games are no longer art or entertainment made with love and care but a luxury product designed to make money, a product you can only get by guzzling down mountains of corporate cum. No developer that actually cared about their game would say people shouldn't play it if they can't afford it.

Welcome to planet earth. You can pick up your free WalMart coupons at the travel desk to your left.

 

[blackrave]

Because you're making a broad statement based on personal experience rather than scientific evidence. That's why.

Science, you say? Since when we need science to prove common sense?
But please don't pay attention to my snarky response.
Enlighten me with "scientific facts" and unbiased studies, please!

If you can afford a PC or Console, you can afford the games for said console. Or your parents can afford them if they were the ones to purchase it.

How is it you had a PC for 5 years before you bought an actual game?
There's no excuse for that.

Thing is that until age 20 I could not
I bartered broken NES and repaired it on my own (yes, at age 10 without any internet support)
Same thing happened with Sega Genesis
My first PC wasn't mine- it was bought by my parents and they still are heavily against games
So getting games from them was near impossible

Would it be better for game developers if I wouldn't be gamer because I couldn't afford games in my early and late teens?
Because there wouldn't be any money coming from me now that I can afford games.
So it's
A)Devs don't get any money from me 10y ago and they don't get any money from me now
or
B)Devs don't get any money from me 10y ago, but they get my money now
From the higher ground of that soapbox you're standing on it must be much better view, so please point out which case is better for everyone?

 

[blackrave]

Common sense dictates that your personal experience is not necessarily reflective of the norm. To assume that your own experience represents reality for a majority of individuals is arrogant.

By common sense I meant not my life experience
I meant alternatives that developers have when it comes to people who REALLY can't afford games
1.No money at all
or
2.No money now, but with possibility later there will be money from such customer (or at least such person will contribute to fanbase)
This choice is no-brainer, because something is always better than nothing (that is what I meant by "common sense")

Dude,
I got an meager allowance for doing chores around the house. I saved up this allowance to both rent and purchase Sega Master System games. Only bought one game every one or two months, but I worked and saved to do it.

I also shared a paper route and flyer route with my brother. I saved up my money for more than a year, and in grade 7 or 8 I purchased a 486 computer for about 1400 dollars which at the time, was a shitload of money. Then I saved up more money to buy games for said computer.

Being a teenager is no excuse. There are ways to make money and there are ways to pay for your games if you actually MAKE AN EFFORT.

Let me quote one smart person who explained me one important life lesson some time ago

To assume that your own experience represents reality for a majority of individuals is arrogant.

And this person was right

Thing is environment I grew up was quite different
And even when I finally got paying job (not A job, but job I got any money for), money was mostly going to my college, room and repayment of loan for my laptop (I really needed it for my education)
And those tiny leftovers of salary went to food
I was so broke I couldn't afford new clothes (for a 4 years my clothes were birthday presents I received from my parents)

And as for your question, the IDEAL answer is:
C) Devs should have gotten money from you 10 years ago and they should still get money from you now.

Here fixed this for you
And to quote Bob

We don't live in ideal world
We live in a shitty world

So when I wasn't capable of getting legitimate games, it wasn't because of lack of effort
It was because it was best I could do under circumstances I lived

But even more than that, my original point was answer to this

But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.

Did you not even read the post? You seem to be all for advocating piracy even in the face of the developer saying "yo dude, we're losing money here".

And that piracy have good chances of making money on the long run (besides other beneficial traits)
That SOMETHING IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN NOTHING!
My life experience was just an example of one possible way this could happen
Just one example, nothing more.

 

[ResonanceSD]

.

This entire post boils down to

"i had a computer but no money for games, so I pirated them because I decided I was entitled to luxury goods and services for free".

 

[blackrave]

[
This entire post boils down to

"i had a computer but no money for games, so I pirated them because I decided I was entitled to luxury goods and services for free".

"Entitled"?
No.
I pretty much knew that what I did was bad.
But it was either this or NOTHING.
Because I can guarantee that if not for pirated games early on, I wouldn't be spending money on the games now.
Because I wouldn't be playing games
Hell, most probably I wouldn't be Escapee

P.S. Also, the danger compressing things is that you can lose important things in the process. For example the entire life of any individual can be boiled down to "person was born and then this person died".

 

[ResonanceSD]

[
This entire post boils down to

"i had a computer but no money for games, so I pirated them because I decided I was entitled to luxury goods and services for free".

"Entitled"?
No.
I pretty much knew that what I did was bad.
But it was either this or NOTHING.
Because I can guarantee that if not for pirated games early on, I wouldn't be spending money on the games now.
Because I wouldn't be playing games
Hell, most probably I wouldn't be Escapee

P.S. Also, the danger compressing things is that you can lose important things in the process. For example the entire life of any individual can be boiled down to "person was born and then this person died".

So, what makes you think you had a right to them in the first place if not "entitlement"?

 

[immortalfrieza]

I don't know if I approve of Green Heart's methods, but I recognize and approve of their intent. Personally, if I was developing video games I would work on a method of positive reinforcement, something which motivates pirates to become actual customers. For instance, I'd put on the game an unobtrusive 5 second skippable screen at start up that says something to the effect of "if you pirated this game and enjoy it, please support our company by purchasing this at some point in the future, especially if you want to see more games from I'd also provide discounts and free games and DLC in the future to anyone who legitimately purchased any of my games.

As for piracy itself, all I'll say about it is that the only reason anyone cares about piracy to begin with is because it's illegal. If IP law had never happened people would be pirating left and right without anybody ever giving a damn. Like many morals, the idea that piracy is "morally wrong" is just the result of 1 person ages ago out of the blue deciding that it should be, and deciding that whatever it took everybody else should think that it's wrong too. How do I know this? It's because there is a form a piracy that is perfectly legal that nobody bats an eye at, it's called fair use. Whatever excuses you can make up to say that it isn't piracy, fair use is taking something that others created, without their permission and often without their knowledge, and using it as you see fit, which is EXACTLY what piracy is. I know what people are going to say "Oh No immortalfrieza! Fair use has limits, it's parodying/using to teach/commenting, so it's not piracy!" No, they are both the same thing under different names and legal status, you just aren't willing to admit it is because you've been raised under the illusion that piracy and fair use are different and that the former is bad and the latter is acceptable, and if you admit to the fact that they are the same then it shatters your illusion and you can no longer stand on your imaginary moral high pedestal and look down on pirates. Whether piracy is helpful or harmful to any industry, the fact that it's considered morally right or wrong is manufactured, it's not based on any inner human moral imperative.

 

[Cecilo]

I'll ask you a question. The Dev himself said he pirated games in the past. But now that he makes games for a living pirating isn't okay. Why should I care about his game, and his career, and his ability to make money. He certainly didn't care about the game devs HE stole from now did he?

Simple fact is that you can not guilt trip people into not pirating, calling them entitled, spoiled, morally bankrupt will also not work. Pirates will always exist, just as there will always be people who sneak into movies, who enter museums without paying, and listen to music on youtube.

They are part of life, and all that I can really tell people is that you aren't going to make pirates buy your game by adding DRM. If there isn't a cracked version of it. More than likely a pirate isn't going to say "Aww darn, they got me, I better go buy it", a pirate will say "Oh hey, Diablo 3 is always online? Okay. *torrents Torchlight 2*" or "Oh hey, Simcity is always online? Okay. *torrents Tropico or Anno or Cities XL*" All DRM does is make it harder for honest users to play the games they bought.

So I do argue that Piracy numbers are not lost sale numbers, they are numbers that you were never going to get regardless of what you do.

 

[A-D.]

You know (this is generally speaking, not to the person quoted alone), cause most people have morals and tend to pirate cause they cant indulge in their favourite pasttime to make ends meet, you know, rent, food etc. And if you want to bring up "Well then they shouldnt play at all." i will reply simply with this.

If you arent capable of any kind of empathy, or critical and logical thought, please turn in your brain, evidently you have no need for it. If you dont have enough money for rent, should you then "not have a home"? If you do not have enough money for food, should you then "not eat at all"? Note here, eating is necessary, a home is not. Before anyone brings up the argument of necessity vs luxury.

Shelter IS a necessity. Maybe you should look up the necessities before you post stuff like this.

Let's imagine that you have your necessities taken care of, but doing so leaves you with no money.

So, as long as you have:
-a roof over your head
-water
-slight variety of food
-human contact
-clothing
-heat and electricity

...then YES, you should DAMN WELL go without:
-a car
-decorations
-gourmet food
-gadgets
-new games

I've done it. What makes everyone else a special snowflake that they don't have to go through "poor" stages of life?

Okay time to respond to this, yes its late and maybe already gone over but..well didnt have time before now. First to counter the argument. No Shelter is NOT a necessity. It is a instinctual need you have due to weather concerns. You can still live without it, harsh it may be. You can "build" your own shelter somewhere in the woods, if you so desire. Shelter is just there to protect us from the elements, it is not a basic need like food, water or air to breathe. You wouldnt die in short order without a home unless you live in a really crappy region during really crappy weather. Or the northpole. I used this specifically because it is a necessity, but not one you couldnt potentially go without for a period of time. Also human contact isnt a necessity, you can go without that too for a while. Might that be bad? Maybe, but you wouldnt fall over dead because you havent met your friend in 2 weeks.

But here's the point. I am personally sick of moral white knights justifying anything in a effort to shove their morality and black and white thinking down other people's throats. Do i agree with piracy? No. Do i condemn it? No. Because there is a reason for it. As stupid that reason might be, it can still be valid. Have you ever bought a game, installed it..and it didnt work? At all? No matter what you tried, it just never works. And when you went back to get a refund you get this: "Im sorry, we cant do that, the box was already opened, you could have already copied it." Well have you? I have. Piracy has little excuse if there is a demo for the game in that case. It is also hard to justify the whole "i cant pay for it" argument, but it IS a understandable reason. You can argue about whether its morally right or wrong, but you can at least emphasize and understand where that person is coming from.

Every argument and discussion about this topic ends the same way. Eventually, and im so going to bet my ass on this, the last pages since this quote, have been exactly that, is a constant shit flinging of people defending every system of control and drm in a effort to either gain the moral highground or cover their asses in fear of modwrath. Guess what, who here wants to bet on who pirated, ever. In any form, not just games. Im pretty sure we aint got a white sheet among the lot of us. So instead of discussing reasons, maybe find a sensible solution to present, listen to both sides, one side is made mute while the other pretends to be deaf.

So here's the point of all that. Is piracy good or bad? It depends on your point of view. Have you ever had the need to do it? For whatever reason there might be, maybe it wasnt released in your country, or the game is older than dirt and you cant find it anywhere. So never having been in that position, why paint someone, who might like to try out 3 games because he has money for only one and there is no demo because the publisher thought that is a better idea, as a filthy pirate who shouldnt be allowed to play games at all? I know pirates, some friends, some former friends. Out of those, only one is the kind of "Because free is best". The rest either do it for testing purposes, you know, will it run, is it fun etc or because the game they want cant be legally purchased anywhere. But all of them eventually pay for any and all games they might have pirated. That might not count for much in terms of evidence because there is people who are just assholes and pirate anything and everything. But personally, i met one of those. Only one.

Is piracy a problem? Yes. Is it the root of all the industries issues? No. Thats a fact, just try making a sensible argument that contains no holes, no conjecture or bias, when you try to paint piracy as the root of all evil. You can't do it, even more so, perhaps we shouldnt do it. Because no matter what form of DRM is invented piracy wont die. How long have Publishers now tried to make that work? How many successes have they had? How many games have been prevented from ever being pirated? None. Its a question of When, not If. I'd rather the industry and the community would spend more time on trying to find a solution to other problems before we jump again like blind sheep on "the evil pirates ruin everything!". We arent Fox News, Guys.

I'm way too tired to actually continue that line of thought any further before it becomes garbled mess. Sorry if it makes little sense >_>

 

[Estranged180]

I think that's my favourite DRM.

My favorite DRM scheme was in Serious Sam 3 BFE, with the reports of a red scorpion with machine guns that will not die no matter how much you shoot it, and regardless of how far you got into the game, it would follow you and kill you.

 

[ResonanceSD]

So I do argue that Piracy numbers are not lost sale numbers, they are numbers that you were never going to get regardless of what you do.

So? That doesn't make it any more legal. It's still a crime.

 

[Bashfluff]

Sorry, but that's not going to work on people who are educated. Piracy doesn't equal everyone going bankrupt and miserable. The actions of the publishers in reaction to piracy tend to make people miserable, actually!

So I do argue that Piracy numbers are not lost sale numbers, they are numbers that you were never going to get regardless of what you do.

So? That doesn't make it any more legal. It's still a crime.

So? Just because something is a crime doesn't mean it should be a crime. It doesn't mean that the effects of piracy aren't being overstated by publishers or developers or even gamers.

 

[Cecilo]

So I do argue that Piracy numbers are not lost sale numbers, they are numbers that you were never going to get regardless of what you do.

So? That doesn't make it any more legal. It's still a crime.

Pft. I would like you to find someone who hasn't broken SOME kind of law in their life.

Had to edit this because I cannot find an official source, but apparently most countries have laws that are in effect but not commonly enforced.

Such as - "Only licensed electricians may change a light bulb." - There is debate if this is actually a true law, but if it is, then most people in Australia have broken a law.


In Oklahoma, - "Residents are taxed for the furniture in their homes, and any other personal belongings." - A lot of people sure are dodging taxes eh?

And here is one you may just find odd from New York - "The penalty for jumping off a building is death."

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I think that idea is good, I have nothing against DRM (mainly because I rarely play games on my computer) but it does seem to be a method that needs vast improving or to be ditched entirely. While I can't possibly know the inner workings of the game industry or how programming works, I've always thought that if they could somehow program something into a game that will be triggered when someone cracks the game and thus just wipes all files would be a great pirate deterrent. In theory it would deter the people who crack the games as they would lose the files also, thus killing the problem at the source. I know it's probably farfetched technology I am talking about, but couldn't something to a similar effect be achieved? For a long time flying seemed impossible, as did recording sound and pictures, so why not this type of tech? I dunno...I don't know much about the whole workings of game development and the technology currently available and it's uses, but it's just one idea asking to be explored.

Well, wiping the game's files with a piracy detection program wouldn't be too hard, but it would be incredibly volatile, and probably an even worse version of DRM as a result. Hell, a program the forces the mass deletion of files is practically a virus, even one that only does so when specific conditions are met.

Firstly, assuming this piracy detection program works perfectly, by which I mean never getting false positives or negatives, it would just be eventually stripped out by hackers anyway, just like normal DRM, especially if it deleted the game immediately on the first startup.

Secondly, well, there's false positives and negatives. I don't want to be the loyal customer who gets his game wiped, say, because I bought a new video card, a bug in the game gets detected as a hack or some other software compatibility issue. All the technology and know-how in the world won't be able to account for every bug or non-compatible program before a paying customer gets screwed over.

But yes, I know you already said that it's farfetched in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with suggesting ideas you know are probably flawed at best. It would certainly be extremely helpful to the industry if it actually worked properly, and the man who would perfect the process would get very rich very quick.

Personally, since one of the biggest complaints about DRM is that you can't just plug in and play, I've always liked the idea of a game that would let you get so far into the game without any sort of hassle before it finally put the DRM or one-time activation code thingy forward, with a friendly reminder at the startup and as you progress that you'll need to input the code before then. It's not as silly as it sounds: one of the good points of games such as R.A.G.E or whatever is that people who bought the game legitamately get activation codes that unlock, wait for it, BONUS CONTENT rather than the game itself! Basically, it would be a lot less hassle if the user is able to unlock the rest of the game at their leisure (up to a point), rather than having roadblocks thrown up at them at startup. (Yes I know DRM doesn't work, but if publishers are going to put them in anyway just because it gives them a false sense of security, it would still be nice if they met the paying customer halfway). Plus, this would shut up the pirates who claim that they only want to 'trial' a game before they pay for it.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

But piracy doesn't make developers lose money, in fact it does the opposite, devs gain money from piracy.

do you know how devs are paid?

evidently not.

at the start of the development, the developer is given a certain amount of money, that money is what funds the game.

when the game is released, the devs get NO MONEY FROM SALES until they sell (initial budget/cost of a game) copies, after that they start to get money although most still goes to the publisher.

if you pirate or buy a preowned game, that doesn't count as a copy, and if the developer doesn't make enough to break even, they are unlikely to be hired again.

now explain to me, how is it that piracy increases the number of copies sold? because if you are going to argue that the good press from the game contributes, then you better be forcing two people to buy it full price, one to make up for your own actions, and one to allow your flawed justification to make even a tiny bit of sense.

It's called the "popularity effect".

Normal sales:
Player 1 buys game, tells 8 friends, 4 who buy it too and 4 can't afford it. 5 copies sold.

Pirate sales:
Player 1 (Pirate) to friends: "Wow, game is totally awesome you should get it"
Players 2,3,4,5: Goes out and buys game, 4 copies sold. Players 6,7,8,9 pirate the game and tell their friends too who may or may not buy it. Now there are twice as many people to spread the word leading to more sales in the long-term.

Pirate sales with "pirate-sabotage" DRM:
Player 1 (pirate) to friends: "This game sucks, doesn't let me make money and plus the devs are arseholes"
Friends avoid buying. No copies sold.

Piracy exists and will always exist: sabotaging pirates is only going to sabotage your sales.

 

[bug_of_war]

Well, wiping the game's files with a piracy detection program wouldn't be too hard, but it would be incredibly volatile, and probably an even worse version of DRM as a result. Hell, a program the forces the mass deletion of files is practically a virus, even one that only does so when specific conditions are met.

Firstly, assuming this piracy detection program works perfectly, by which I mean never getting false positives or negatives, it would just be eventually stripped out by hackers anyway, just like normal DRM, especially if it deleted the game immediately on the first startup.

Secondly, well, there's false positives and negatives. I don't want to be the loyal customer who gets his game wiped, say, because I bought a new video card, a bug in the game gets detected as a hack or some other software compatibility issue. All the technology and know-how in the world won't be able to account for every bug or non-compatible program before a paying customer gets screwed over.

But yes, I know you already said that it's farfetched in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with suggesting ideas you know are probably flawed at best. It would certainly be extremely helpful to the industry if it actually worked properly, and the man who would perfect the process would get very rich very quick.

Personally, since one of the biggest complaints about DRM is that you can't just plug in and play, I've always liked the idea of a game that would let you get so far into the game without any sort of hassle before it finally put the DRM or one-time activation code thingy forward, with a friendly reminder at the startup and as you progress that you'll need to input the code before then. It's not as silly as it sounds: one of the good points of games such as R.A.G.E or whatever is that people who bought the game legitamately get activation codes that unlock, wait for it, BONUS CONTENT rather than the game itself! Basically, it would be a lot less hassle if the user is able to unlock the rest of the game at their leisure (up to a point), rather than having roadblocks thrown up at them at startup. (Yes I know DRM doesn't work, but if publishers are going to put them in anyway just because it gives them a false sense of security, it would still be nice if they met the paying customer halfway). Plus, this would shut up the pirates who claim that they only want to 'trial' a game before they pay for it.

Yeah...I knew it was a stretch, and I did think of the possibility of regular gamers getting screwed over by faulty hardware, but your idea seems alright. It seems more lax than DRM, but still enough that it could potentially stop or hinder pirates. I doubt we will ever have a steel door lock and keys that will never be broken, but it would be good to see a day where in which being a pirate is harder than going to the pirate bay and downloading a compressed game.

 

[Bashfluff]

I think that idea is good, I have nothing against DRM (mainly because I rarely play games on my computer) but it does seem to be a method that needs vast improving or to be ditched entirely. While I can't possibly know the inner workings of the game industry or how programming works, I've always thought that if they could somehow program something into a game that will be triggered when someone cracks the game and thus just wipes all files would be a great pirate deterrent. In theory it would deter the people who crack the games as they would lose the files also, thus killing the problem at the source. I know it's probably farfetched technology I am talking about, but couldn't something to a similar effect be achieved? For a long time flying seemed impossible, as did recording sound and pictures, so why not this type of tech? I dunno...I don't know much about the whole workings of game development and the technology currently available and it's uses, but it's just one idea asking to be explored.

Well, wiping the game's files with a piracy detection program wouldn't be too hard, but it would be incredibly volatile, and probably an even worse version of DRM as a result. Hell, a program the forces the mass deletion of files is practically a virus, even one that only does so when specific conditions are met.

Firstly, assuming this piracy detection program works perfectly, by which I mean never getting false positives or negatives, it would just be eventually stripped out by hackers anyway, just like normal DRM, especially if it deleted the game immediately on the first startup.

Secondly, well, there's false positives and negatives. I don't want to be the loyal customer who gets his game wiped, say, because I bought a new video card, a bug in the game gets detected as a hack or some other software compatibility issue. All the technology and know-how in the world won't be able to account for every bug or non-compatible program before a paying customer gets screwed over.

But yes, I know you already said that it's farfetched in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with suggesting ideas you know are probably flawed at best. It would certainly be extremely helpful to the industry if it actually worked properly, and the man who would perfect the process would get very rich very quick.

Personally, since one of the biggest complaints about DRM is that you can't just plug in and play, I've always liked the idea of a game that would let you get so far into the game without any sort of hassle before it finally put the DRM or one-time activation code thingy forward, with a friendly reminder at the startup and as you progress that you'll need to input the code before then. It's not as silly as it sounds: one of the good points of games such as R.A.G.E or whatever is that people who bought the game legitamately get activation codes that unlock, wait for it, BONUS CONTENT rather than the game itself! Basically, it would be a lot less hassle if the user is able to unlock the rest of the game at their leisure (up to a point), rather than having roadblocks thrown up at them at startup. (Yes I know DRM doesn't work, but if publishers are going to put them in anyway just because it gives them a false sense of security, it would still be nice if they met the paying customer halfway). Plus, this would shut up the pirates who claim that they only want to 'trial' a game before they pay for it.

That's a good idea for people who want to make an example for pirates, and for the consumer. But don't see any advantages for the publisher who wants to enforce the DRM. You've given pirates access to half of the game without them having to do any work. They're the only ones who will want to have access to the files of the game, and it won't be to someday buy a code.

People do not pirate to test games. Do you want to know why people pirate games? Because games are expensive. Publishers have been overcharging up the ass for games for years, and in this economy, people cannot afford to buy games. And if you offer poor people the means to get something that doesn't have a major negative impact on someone else, even if it takes a small amount of effort on their part, they'll take it.

Even if it is illegal, it's not a law that's enforced at all, really. It's fairly safe to pirate games. I've known people who pirate games, and have for years. I'd be one of them if I thought my computer could handle most games.

Screw working for games. If you can get something for free without hurting anyone else, why wouldn't you? The alternative is being screwed over by Gamestop, saving up and trading in games so that one day you might afford a new title once every month or three. And all the while, you KNOW you're getting screwed by gamestop every time you trade in a title, but you can't find away around it because the publishers are so greedy that they ask so much of us.

This is why demonizing pirates comes off as stupid and insulting. They're victims of a greedy, vile industry, and what they're doing rarely negatively affects much of anyone. I don't think I can look down on pirates too much in this kind of market, when customers are being treated like this by the industry. Perhaps every pirated game isn't a lost sale, but the culture of piracy is created by the failures of publishers to, as Jim Sterling says, "provide a better service," and/or treat their customers with respect and dignity, to be realistic with their prices and consumer practices. Perhaps they would be a sale if this culture did not exist...

If you want the piracy problem to be minimized, you have to do the one thing that some seem hellbent that they will never do: accept it. If you do the best you can to deliver a reasonable price to the consumer and to treat them with respect, and on top of that, you say that you realize why piracy happens and tie it to poverty, it becomes embarrassing.

It becomes embarrassing like mooching off someone is embarrassing. Even if they have the money to afford it and even if you have to because you're poor, you feel ashamed that you've stooped so low that you cannot provide for yourself. And while that level of shame cannot be replicated with something like games, it can be imitated on some level when you treat your playerbase as such.

It makes people want to rise above piracy and buy the games, think. Or it would, if people would ever do it.