Poll: Would the defeat of Piracy cause you to start purchasing games?

[kaiser_what]

If piracy was defeated, I will stop playing video games. Seriously. Besides, video games are pretty expensive in my country.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

Just so you know. If information (in any form) is going to be forbidden from being spread, then freedom of speech has just been murdered.

Makes you think, doesn't it? : )

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

Just so you know. If information (in any form) is going to be forbidden from being spread, then freedom of speech has just been murdered.

Makes you think, doesn't it? : )

I'm not sure what your point has to do with anything. Is this some rediculous attempt at a counterpoint? You'll note that I'm not advocating that information can't be spread, what I'm advocating is that you pay for information if the people selling the information are asking that it be paid for. This is not only fair to the people who put a hell of a lot of effort into the creation of that information, but it also means that other people will see that those who created said information were properly rewarded for their effort, and they will be inclined to create and spread information of their own. Those who want to create information and spread it for free are still perfectly free to do so, since they are not asking for anything in return for their information, the aquisition of that information for free is not piracy.

 

[Combined]

Most certainly not.

In this part of the world, games are an increasingly expensive luxury that I have to save money for, so that I wouldn't have to resort spending money from my rainy day fund. One game already makes up about 15% of my current wage and I'm just not willing to pay that much for a single game that might be so awful that I'd regret it for weeks.

Second, there are little-to-no demos these days and we don't have game renting here, or a used game market, so there's no other way to try before I buy. And that's kinda vital when the problem is about spending.

Third, quite a lot of the games I pirate, are really really old and/or impossible to buy these days. And I don't think that's piracy.

If they'd destroy piracy, then privacy may as well be declared dead.

 

[theultimateend]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

You figure if 1 million people pirate in the US and only 2.3% of them started buying that would mean 23,000 people would start buying games (if my math is right) which wouldn't even be a dent into the economy. Plus this is 23000 people across all platforms which makes the gain per platform even smaller.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I'm not sure what your point has to do with anything. Is this some rediculous attempt at a counterpoint?

Not an attempt. It IS a counterpoint whether you like it or not. The limiting of spreading of information is a severe compromise of the freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if that information is spoken words or some ones and zeros on a computer, it is still information. And once you have relinquished certain information to someone else, it is pretty much impossible to claim "ownership" of it any more. If you want to OWN information, then don't ever trade it with someone else (not even for money), because once that inforation is out there, it is everyones to spread and do whatever they like with. Trying to limit that spreading is... Censorship, no matter how you look at it. : )

Oh I just love it when the very cornerstones of most "free" societeis start to contradict eachother, making hypocrites of everyone. XD

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

It wouldn't change my purchasing habits one bit. I don't pirate, damn it is strange saying that considering the amount of TV shows and movie and what not I can get off my brother at a moments notice. Interesting side note: If he likes a show or movie he purchases it regardless of the downloading copy. For the simple reason he wants his money to go to someone who has produced something he knows he actually likes!

Yet, I understand that many people who pirate are either:
A) unable to afford the game, I was once in this category.
B) unwilling to purchase a game prior to 'play testing' it.
C) Communistic pigs! (Joking)

How could eliminating piracy increase purchases of the first two categories of people in any case? Sure B could be forced to purchase more games instead of play testing first, but after being stung a few times they will stop purchasing as heavily as they otherwise would of. Eventually the industry would be making LESS sales then they are now, cause markets are speculative. Regardless of how good the game might be less and less people will be willing to purchase it on chance alone.

I know, having been 'stung' by bad games I don't purchase as many as I might otherwise have. Lesson to be learned here, gaming industry. Encourage people to purchase your games by producing good quality games to start with and then allowing 'free to play' copies to circulate as they are going to do so anyway regardless of what you try to do to stop them! Then reward those who purchase the game, such as with online MP content or other in game rewards, and don't be too scared of the 'pirates.'

Eliminating them won't help the market place any.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

 

[Knight Templar]

No, but I wouldn't pirate them anyway.

I wouldn't be directly affected by the "end" of piracy,

 

[Charley]

It's amazing, given the colossal amount of pirating that goes on, that almost nobody on here pirates, apparently. That, or "download a game to demo it, then go buy it". Sure.

Unfortunately for game companies, they've gotten too big and not creative enough, so they can't afford to cut the prices on new releases, but they also struggle to produce a game that isn't a sequel to Halo that people are willing to pay for.

Whilst the slow death of the magazine-front demo CD contributes to the problem, surely the way to beat piracy is for companies to sell some of their beanbags and ping pong tables, swap the staff starbucks for a coffee machine, fire some 'innovation experience technicians' and the like, and knock ten to fifteen quid off their release prices?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Reminded me of those 'you won't steal a car' ads before a movie... I laugh at them. You bloody well know I would 'steal' a car if I could make a copy of it and leave the original for the owner to enjoy. It is for this reason that piracy is not 'theft,' it is not even a crime, as there is nothing physically being taken.

It is a civil courts matter, where the producers can argue over loss of income but frankly suing someone for fifty bucks is generally frowned on. Costs a hell of a lot more to do just lodge the paperwork and is likely why most normal people will never see the inside of a court no matter how many movie, games or songs they have. Unless of course some arse wants to make a 'statement,' can never rule that out.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects.

So?

That's just something pretty much all companies has to deal with, it's called progress. If your company can't keep up with the social norms and progress of society then that company will die out. Other companies find ways to work around this progress. For instance, Apple and their iPod's have capitalized hugely on the fact that pirated music is a common thing. (if the people not buying songs from iTunes just stopped buying iPod's then Apple would lose some serious money).

Bitching about piracy as a company is the equivalent of resturants complaining about the fact that people can cook their own food at home. Should we criminalize cooking food at home because some resturant chains are going bankrupt?

 

[theultimateend]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I'm not sure what your point has to do with anything. Is this some rediculous attempt at a counterpoint?

Not an attempt. It IS a counterpoint whether you like it or not. The limiting of spreading of information is a severe compromise of the freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if that information is spoken words or some ones and zeros on a computer, it is still information. And once you have relinquished certain information to someone else, it is pretty much impossible to claim "ownership" of it any more. If you want to OWN information, then don't ever trade it with someone else (not even for money), because once that inforation is out there, it is everyones to spread and do whatever they like with. Trying to limit that spreading is... Censorship, no matter how you look at it. : )

Oh I just love it when the very cornerstones of most "free" societeis start to contradict eachother, making hypocrites of everyone. XD

The very base of copyright law IS that you can own information and still trade it (Although if you want to get technical, copyright actually says that the information is never traded, but instead it gives the buyer lisence to view the information). This is recognized by almost all countries, and reflective of the general consensus on moral philosophy. Without copyright law the creation of information would not be profitible, some people would still make information, but many people could not afford to make information, because they'd need to devote their time to profitable activities so they could eat. This means that the amount of information created would be drastically reduced. That is to say, people would have a lot less to speak freely about. Copyright law means that both parties benefit, the creators because they are rewarded for their creation, and the buyers because their purchase ensures that the creator will be able to afford to create new information for future consumption by the buyer. Without copyright law both parties suffer.

This is why people are allowed to have ownership of certain information, is because it is beneficial to both parties. Your freedom of expression has not been impeded except where that expression involves the duplication of information that you do not own so that someone else can view it without purchasing a lisence.

 

[theultimateend]

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Reminded me of those 'you won't steal a car' ads before a movie... I laugh at them. You bloody well know I would 'steal' a car if I could make a copy of it and leave the original for the owner to enjoy. It is for this reason that piracy is not 'theft,' it is not even a crime, as there is nothing physically being taken.

It is a civil courts matter, where the producers can argue over loss of income but frankly suing someone for fifty bucks is generally frowned on. Costs a hell of a lot more to do just lodge the paperwork and is likely why most normal people will never see the inside of a court no matter how many movie, games or songs they have. Unless of course some arse wants to make a 'statement,' can never rule that out.

I stopped buying movies after I saw one of those ads. If a company accuses me of being a thief after I was generous enough to buy their product I will never deal with them again.

Which is why I stopped buying EA games as well. Historically anytime a company installs DRM on my PC they are accusing me of being a thief and because of it I cease giving them my money. There are exceptions when folks remove the DRM at a later date, but until then I take a pretty firm negative stance.

In the world of Piracy if you were stealing a car what would happen would be you walking into a dealership, and with your own metal and tools rebuilding from scratch the exact model of a car you wanted and driving that one off the lot.

If folks could do that without imposing on the sales of cars in that dealership I'm pretty sure it would be a difficult court case .

I'm not sure what your point has to do with anything. Is this some rediculous attempt at a counterpoint?

Not an attempt. It IS a counterpoint whether you like it or not. The limiting of spreading of information is a severe compromise of the freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if that information is spoken words or some ones and zeros on a computer, it is still information. And once you have relinquished certain information to someone else, it is pretty much impossible to claim "ownership" of it any more. If you want to OWN information, then don't ever trade it with someone else (not even for money), because once that inforation is out there, it is everyones to spread and do whatever they like with. Trying to limit that spreading is... Censorship, no matter how you look at it. : )

Oh I just love it when the very cornerstones of most "free" societeis start to contradict eachother, making hypocrites of everyone. XD

The very base of copyright law IS that you can own information and still trade it (Although if you want to get technical, copyright actually says that the information is never traded, but instead it gives the buyer lisence to view the information). This is recognized by almost all countries, and reflective of the general consensus on moral philosophy. Without copyright law the creation of information would not be profitible, some people would still make information, but many people could not afford to make information, because they'd need to devote their time to profitable activities so they could eat. This means that the amount of information created would be drastically reduced. That is to say, people would have a lot less to speak freely about. Copyright law means that both parties benefit, the creators because they are rewarded for their creation, and the buyers because their purchase ensures that the creator will be able to afford to create new information for future consumption by the buyer. Without copyright law both parties suffer.

This is why people are allowed to have ownership of certain information, is because it is beneficial to both parties. Your freedom of expression has not been impeded except where that expression involves the duplication of information that you do not own so that someone else can view it without purchasing a lisence.

The interesting thing is to note that if copyright laws had existed in the past the world would have never experienced the Renaissance. All of the worlds greatest artists from the Renaissance broke copyright laws on a nearly monthly basis.

So be sure to condemn Leonardo and Raphael when you get into these discussions.

PS. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.143485 - It appears that I developed a system better than any DRM for promoting game sales.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The interesting thing is to note that if copyright laws had existed in the past the world would have never experienced the Renaissance. All of the worlds greatest artists from the Renaissance broke copyright laws on a nearly monthly basis.

So be sure to condemn Leonardo and Raphael when you get into these discussions.

Thank you. This spared me the time of writing a reply myself. : )

Copyright laws has never been beneficial for both parties, it's just a capitalist scam to safeguard certain priviliged positions in society...

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

As for the price of games, considering the colossal amount of work that goes into their creation, and the massive risk taken by the people who produce them, I am more than happy to pay in return for the service they provide. And I am not the only one. People pre-order games all the time, in fact pre-orders are the measure that the games industry uses to judge how well a game will probably sell, pre-orderers are definately not pirating the games they buy, and are proof positive that people will buy games whether they have the chance to pirate them for a demo or not.