To anyone who thinks piracy is ok
- Thread starter icame
- Start date
Bottom line, the studies have shown that most individuals that engage in piracy are low income. Thus never really capable or purchasing said product in the first place.
The American consumer culture likes to lead people into mass credit debt by telling them that they need things: cars, shoes, music, movies; when what they really need to do is pay their rent and feed their kids.
I've never much liked the idea of someone who does nothing but sing makes more money than the guy who cured polio. I really don't like that chemists and physicists don't make a fraction of what Keanu Reeves makes by saying "whoa".
The entertainment industry is bloated, and actor pays have skyrocketed. Any harm ultimately done to the industry should be good for the consumer; costs and budgets will come down, ingenuity will have to go up, and hopefully we'll end up with good thoughtful movies instead of mindless flicks that only do well because people like the lead actor.
Piracy has always and will always be around, it's one of the fundamental market forces that helps balance what things are really worth, even if that means some people pay a lot and others pay nothing.
The real enemy are the bootleggers; the ones who actively sale and profit from pirated products. I really don't care if their strung up and filleted.
The American consumer culture likes to lead people into mass credit debt by telling them that they need things: cars, shoes, music, movies; when what they really need to do is pay their rent and feed their kids.
I've never much liked the idea of someone who does nothing but sing makes more money than the guy who cured polio. I really don't like that chemists and physicists don't make a fraction of what Keanu Reeves makes by saying "whoa".
The entertainment industry is bloated, and actor pays have skyrocketed. Any harm ultimately done to the industry should be good for the consumer; costs and budgets will come down, ingenuity will have to go up, and hopefully we'll end up with good thoughtful movies instead of mindless flicks that only do well because people like the lead actor.
Piracy has always and will always be around, it's one of the fundamental market forces that helps balance what things are really worth, even if that means some people pay a lot and others pay nothing.
The real enemy are the bootleggers; the ones who actively sale and profit from pirated products. I really don't care if their strung up and filleted.
They charge to much these days. :/
The economy makes it so most people cant afford theyer games.
"When things are out of reach, people get a broom." When you cant afford a game, and your really want it, you use something to get it for you.
While im not saying piracy is ok, neather is what theyer charging. $60 a peice, plus the cost of internet and subscription fees. If you own an Xbox, your paying 200 bucks of the system ((at minimum)), 60 bucks of live, 60 bucks of the game, and then 60 bucks for your internet so you can enjoy the game iteself.
Its not the 1 thing thats the problem, its the pile of things.
Hypothetically, in the past, i might have pirated a game or two. Why would i have done this? ((hypothetically ofcourse)) because i was horribly strapped for money. Having to pay 800 bucks a month on my rent, plus over $100 for my internet and cable. I was practically live on ramen that month because of my extra bills. I had only 30 dollars to spare :/ but guess what? The sims 3 is 60 bucks. I could eather wait a month to get it, not get it at all, or download it via bittorrent. ((hypothetically ofcourse))
If they charged less for theyer games, or even allowed us to pay over time, there would be no problem. I mean, what if they let you pay for your game over a couple of months? 20 bucks a month over 3 months.
Im sure that piracy rates would drop quickly if people could accually afford the games they would have downloaded.
The economy makes it so most people cant afford theyer games.
"When things are out of reach, people get a broom." When you cant afford a game, and your really want it, you use something to get it for you.
While im not saying piracy is ok, neather is what theyer charging. $60 a peice, plus the cost of internet and subscription fees. If you own an Xbox, your paying 200 bucks of the system ((at minimum)), 60 bucks of live, 60 bucks of the game, and then 60 bucks for your internet so you can enjoy the game iteself.
Its not the 1 thing thats the problem, its the pile of things.
Hypothetically, in the past, i might have pirated a game or two. Why would i have done this? ((hypothetically ofcourse)) because i was horribly strapped for money. Having to pay 800 bucks a month on my rent, plus over $100 for my internet and cable. I was practically live on ramen that month because of my extra bills. I had only 30 dollars to spare :/ but guess what? The sims 3 is 60 bucks. I could eather wait a month to get it, not get it at all, or download it via bittorrent. ((hypothetically ofcourse))
If they charged less for theyer games, or even allowed us to pay over time, there would be no problem. I mean, what if they let you pay for your game over a couple of months? 20 bucks a month over 3 months.
Im sure that piracy rates would drop quickly if people could accually afford the games they would have downloaded.
You embody everything that's wrong with this planet. But won't stoop to your level of insolence, I'll let you eat up the corporate propaganda in peace. Furthermore just because I may support piracy doesn't make me a pirate, I own all my software and I paid for it, like I said I'm a supporter of Steam. And lets please not pretend that games are "art" they have a long way to go yet to be considered an art form - oh... art galleries are free. Perhaps your wide knowledge of internet gained grammar might find that to also be a "non sequitur" - I suggest using that more than your crass vocabulary.dastardly said:
Games are business, like the music or film industry. Although I will not argue that some artists can produce rather artistic pieces, I doubt anyone can argue that it's more out to make money than an outlet of such suppressed artistic flare.
You really didn't bother looking for any evidence did you? (Granted, in this relentless Anti-Piracy Campaign, it can be hard to find.)
And seriously, chill out... high blood pressure kills.
that kind of annoys me to since I'm technically a criminal because i went to a movie with a coffee crisp in my pocket got hungry and ate it. it's my damn food.shootthebandit said:
anyway on topic piracy is a problem but there are a few things i do that would make me a pirate but i think the reasons are good enough to not get me sued to death by game makers
1)pirating a game if you already purchased it is ok.(my sister broke my copy of jade empire so i pirated it instead of hunting down another copy and buying it would you consider that piracy? i don't)
2)if the product no longer makes the company money it's ok.(i consider buying a used game equal to piracy since the only money being made is by the seller and not the company who made the game) so if i can buy it off steam i would
if those rules are flawed and make me look like a cheap ass who doesn't care about the industry then so be it but i value my opinions more than yours(not directed towards shootthebandit).
Actually, I stopped pirating games based on articles written on the escapist and penny arcade, several years back.Cingal said:
Well your analogy is completely inaccurate and over-dramatic in comparison but I'll let that slide because the point you make is just incorrect.Garak73 said:
Publishers fund project yes, but the process by which they fund them is not as it may appear. Certainly some companies pitch a game to a publisher, and receive payment per deadline, but there're other companies [take CD Projekt] that have openly admitted to creating a game without a publisher; and then finding one when the game is at a decent stage [as they have done with The Witcher 2] as to hold more creative freedom. Furthermore; the current age of developers and publishers will come to and end; it's getting insustainable - furthurmore; many dev houses gain bonuses based around eventual sales etc etc.
I'm ok with pirates. As long as they really can't purchase the game because they don't have the money to, or the currency differences make the prices so unfair, it's unreasonable to buy any game.
Prove that comparing a Cook in McDonalds to a video-game company in terms of the way they are paid is ridiculous as the situations are completely different; as are the pay methods? Do I really need to go on?Garak73 said:
Cook in McDonalds earns a fixed rate per hour.
Games Companies [the whole company, not the worker, as that's what we're discussing] earns money in installments from publishers; or funds the project themselves [see Valve, Square-Enix, EA].
No, not yet; there's a mix of that and self-publification; publishers have begun buying developers instead. Which makes the price argument even more interesting. If a game doesn't sell enough for the game to become profitable [and selling at a low price will not make a game more profitable; in fact it's seen as a stigma] the developers don't gain the money they need to keep jobs, and could eventually close down if the publisher sees fit.
Holy bonkers this thread struck a nerve lol
On a more serious note, while I think that piracy in general is a bad thing (bad for the developers, publishers, other gamers that actually payed etc), it's not like it's ever gonna vanish, just like illegal drugs and black markets will always find a way into the system.
All you can do is try to reduce the spread, but as long as the idea of getting something for free is something good, it will continue. "There is no such thing as a free lunch"
On a more serious note, while I think that piracy in general is a bad thing (bad for the developers, publishers, other gamers that actually payed etc), it's not like it's ever gonna vanish, just like illegal drugs and black markets will always find a way into the system.
All you can do is try to reduce the spread, but as long as the idea of getting something for free is something good, it will continue. "There is no such thing as a free lunch"
It came close to vanishing when games went from cassette tape to cartridges in the early 1980s. I bet that the next phase of piracy almost vanishing will be either the dropping of PC titles by major publishers or the development of really good "phone home" online based DRM.Lord Honk said:
Being able to install a game only five times can be bad in the long run. Buying new computers, reinstalling after hardrive problems, etc. can, if you have a unusually unlucky streak or if you want to play it multiple times, on and off.Holy_Handgrenade said:
1) Really? I'll take "overstating my feeble case" for $400, Alex.Killbot said:
2) "Insolence." I'm not sure you know what the word means, as you're not using it correctly. Or you just haven't made your context clear. Either way, it's your fault that your meaning hasn't been effectively communicated with that word.
3) Corporate propaganda. The numbers I'm using were collected FROM TPB THEMSELVES. It's based on available torrents and recorded downloads of those torrents FROM TPB THEMSELVES. Unless you're claiming that TPB is trying to make piracy look like a bigger problem than it is, or that they are trying to undermine the phony reasons people give for pirating, you do not know what you're talking about.
TPB is the MAIN SOURCE of the numbers I'm talking about. Not gaming companies, anti-piracy initiatives, none of it. This is the pirate-recorded information, unaltered or doctored in any way. Read the damned article, it'll clear up a lot of your evident stupidity on the matter.
You're right. "Games are/aren't art" isn't a part of this discussion, so bringing it in is exactly an example of a non sequitur argument. More appropriately it's just a "WTF, left-field, 'That's not what we're talking about' argument."
I'm not here to do your homework for you. You can find a link to the numbers I'm talking about... actually, MANY links... in the article in the OP. I have gone and verified those myself, though they are all very inflated now because of the time that has passed. They are still proportionately increased, meaning that the relationship between the numbers is still a valid and perfectly accurate means of comparison.
Until a single word you say is backed up by a single shred of sourced data, you're just billowing plumes of smoke from some bizarre face-rectum creating something far worse than conjecture--it's just outright lies. You're making things up completely. You're not even "twisting the facts," you're just not using any, available though they may be.
Support your claims with data. Or abandon them and bow out. That's how reasoned, logical discussion works. Those who make up the rules as they go, spin lies and sell them as "well-known facts," and generally just ignore any code of logical discussion are of no use to anyone in the intellectual world. Until your noise has any support (and thus any meaning), you're just a loud, annoying party favor that's funny for the first couple minutes, but grows tiresome really quickly.
Actually, mate, so that you know, for the sake of your point... that actually IS what is happening most of the time. There are TONS of small, independent studios out there performing "labors of love." They work during free time, invest money in the necessary hardware and software, all in the (sometimes naive) hopes that it will get big enough to catch a publisher's notice... or even get big enough they won't need one.D_987 said:
The reason it SEEMS like those are few and far between is simply because MOST of them completely fail to materialize. Sometimes they even finish the product, only to find no one wants it... not because it's bad, but because it's not a "sure bet," and they're not a "known name." But there are tons upon tons of indie "studios" (whether in name or not) making games on their own funding, who plan to eventually seek out a publisher--they're just not as well publicized without a publisher.
So your point is stronger than you might think.