Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

[Asuka Soryu]

Would this mess up the whole renting a game, since you wouldn't be able to use the code?

 

[blasmeister]

Could people please stop with these car analogies? There are a ton of reasons that buying a car is not like buying a game, for a start you only usually own one car at a time, and you don't exactly sell them as soon as you've had enough fun out of it to get a different brand of car and drive that one around like you waould a game. Cars are tools for transport, games are entertainment.
People saying ' if 1 million copies of a game are sold then people can sell them on and that's fine, it won't cost the game companies anything because there are still only 1 million people on servers' are conveniently ignoring the entire rest of what goes into a game apart from the cost of running multiplayer servers. As things are at the moment, one person buys a game new and get the enjoyment of playing the game all the way through, the product of everyone who worked on that game, and the money goes to those people. For people who buy it used, they get the exact same benefits (playing the game) but the money goes instead to, for the most part, a secondary dealer instead of anyone who actually worked on that game - all this is effectively doing is taking a fraction of the money made by the secondary dealer and giving it to the publisher instead (as the secondary price would have to drop by a corresponding amount to compensate).
I can't say this seems unfair. part of the reason games have gotten so expensive could be that the number of copies of a game sold end much lower than the number of people who eventually play it due to the used sales.

Stating my interests here - I pretty much always buy games new (unless they're like really old games) and tend to keep them rather than sell/trade them in.

 

[MrGalactus]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF--
I was gonna buy it. Forget it.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Ah man, this is the company who made Beyond Good & Evil and now they're being complete wankers. Don't they know that the bad will generated by this shit will lose them sales. For every one new sale that they lose by instituting this terrible policy they'll have to sell six online passes.

I truly doubt that they will profit by doing this.

 

[Dhatz]

thats really pathetic, who wants to play anything else than f2p?

 

[TheComfyChair]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

They were already paid.

By a person who already used their services The same argument could be: 'My friend bought a game, so it was fine that I pirated my copy'. In fact it IS the same argument from the developers perspective

Second hand games will die. This is only the beginning.

 

[Epona]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

They were already paid.

By a person who already used their services The same argument could be: 'My friend bought a game, so it was fine that I pirated my copy'. In fact it IS the same argument from the developers perspective

Second hand games will die. This is only the beginning.

No, that's not the same argument because when you pirate a game, there are now multiple copies where only one was purchased. Buying used doesn't create a duplicate, the game simply changes hands. Pretending that used games are as bad as pirating games doesn't help your credibility.

If person A had kept the game, person A could play online until the servers were shut down for no extra cost. When person A trades it in, person A can no longer play online but person B can without any extra cost to the publisher. It's just a game changing hands, no extra costs are incurred to the publisher.

This is just greed and it will eventually cause another crash. I was reading about this on other sites and people are getting pretty sick of this shit. Eventually, people will just stop buying.

 

[Xanthious]

Wow, another huge dick move by a massive game company, color me shocked. The gaming industry really needs to drop this sense of entitlement that somehow they should get some form of protection from secondhand sales. The gaming industry is NOT special. They are no more than the book industry or dvd industry or any other industry that is responsible for making and selling goods.

There isn't a single other maker and seller of goods that enjoys the protection from secondhand sales that the gaming industry wrongly feels it's entitled to. It's moves like this that are the reason I refuse to support the gaming industry. I will buy used at every given opportunity on the occasions I buy console titles. If the gaming industry really wants to encourage new sales they need to give people incentives to buy new not punish people for buying used.

I understand people want to be paid for their work. However, if these companies are throwing millions into making games and losing money the problem doesn't lie in used sales, it lies in their business model. Companies like Ubisoft, EA, and those like them are so quick to blame anyone but themselves for their problems when 99 times out of 100 the blame falls squarely on their shoulders.


Eventually the gaming industry is going to collapse under the weight of it's own greed and that day simply can not come soon enough for me. The gaming industry is the only industry I can think of that has such open disdain for the people that pay their bills. If any other seller of goods treated their customers like the gaming industry does they would fail at a blinding pace. Gamers are treated like thieves by the same companies they try to support. All the while these same companies look for ways to totally remove all value from the items they sell after the initial purchase.

Fuck the gaming industry!

 

[isnosche]

there really is no explanation why this is okay ...

NONE

I'm just sorry,

like some said i'm voting with my wallet before this gets out of hand.
I'm simply not buying some publishers, no mather how good their games are ...

End of story,

i can tell you they have already lost a bucketload on me since i spend -+ 300 doller a month on games more or less (200 new games & 100 in gear or second hand sales)
whats next ? well mister i see you put gamecube game in your wii, oh its from capcom.
we'll let you play the first 30 min then you have to unlock the rest with a website pass.
FFS this is not okay, ( dont laugh at that i can see it comming)

The gaming industry is the only player who does shit like this.
Its simple, buy a game within the first few months and get al sorts of goodies.
with a pass you can choose an extra , yellow horse armor instead of blue, hell even a stupid hat.
It is not okay to lock content.
Did the player have another game from you, let him see a cool video, some dragon space armor
REWARD me for spending it on your game ...
And if a game sucks so badly that it doesn't sell and people only buy it second hand.
THATS YOUR PROBLEM ... not mine.

We are not stealing your money, we are paying you ... so stop bitchslapping me or i'll ground & pound you with my wallet ! capische

 

[Reliq]

Personally I am on the game devs side for this as long as they keep the removed content to multilayer access. If the companies who make the games aren't getting paid when you buy their game why should they let you use their servers and use up their bandwidth?
Game devs should be able to offer something extra to the people who who actually give them money.

I would argue this: Because they already sold a copy of the game you are using. By the vary nature of a used sale, the person who bought the product first is no longer playing the game. Despite my dislike for Angry Joe, he did make a good point on this with Homefront: One sale = one person on your servers. It isn't costing you any more than person A keeping it forever.

I do want devs and publishers to make money, but for a used market to exist. Giving a reward to a new player is much better then locking out function for a second-hand player.

The problem I find with that argument is that if a used version of a game is £2 less than a new one, then there will be people who would have bought the game for the full price but were deterred from it due to a slightly cheaper alternative being available for no compromise. That is one less person who has effectively paid the developers for their game than should have. I know that isn't always the case with all people who buy second hand especially if there is a bigger price gap but I hope you see my point.

In terms of rewards over locking out functionality I do agree that is the better option. Though I am sceptical that it could have the same kind of sway.

So lets say you and a friend go to Mc'donalds. You buy some frenchfry, you cant finish the whole pack so you offer your friend the rest. Than the guy/girl at the cash register comes over and demands 1 dollar from your friend since he is finishing your frenchfry's. Since that is one less person who has effectively paid the developers[MC'donalds] for their game[food] than should have...?

Just a thought

Edit: And just incase the bandwith comes up as a reason for paying, you are taking up a seat in the restaurant that a "paying" customer could have used. all I can see is a gemadeveloper selling a game with infinit playtime on their servers, then making the exception that the online part is only for the person who bought the game first. Not if he gives it to his friend. So in the developers mind the online is NOT a part of the game they are selling its a bonus. My point of view: Who cares as long as someone eats the friggin frenchfry the developer has already been paid for?

 

[Reliq]

They would if it had been that way from the start. If you want an official, endorsed replacement for, say, a home electrical item, you're often stuck with a small number of suppliers or the manufacturer themselves. But your analogy falls over because that situation wouldn't exist. It'd be more akin to the car's original owner removing the car seat, and then selling the car without the seat. Ford cease to be involved after that initial sale except for they offer a replacement.

But Ford are not, unless you pay them otherwise, providing a service to you after the sale of the car. If you have a problem, you go somewhere to get that problem solved. Even if you go to an official Ford garage after, you are paying them for the service to that car, not for anything else. The publisher, however, does provide a service after that initial release. If we use the example in the article, they would be providing the multiplayer servers as a service. That is an expense to them, and one they would recoup the costs for via sales and post-release content.

Umm, if you buy a used car that still has warranty the carcompany (Ford) is providing a service to the secondhand buyer even though he has not payed them anything. Since the warranty (read onlinegameplay) has been payed for by the original customer. The only reason for this is that manufacturers are forced by law to have the warranty.

At least this is how it is in my country. If warranty is removed at used sale in America I have no idea.

Gamedevelopers are allowed to what ever the hell they want. Since there is no real description of what they are selling in the firstplace. Be it a physical entity or a service or something in between. If your downloading it Your stealing a whole complete physical copy, but if you buy it its not yours completely to do with as you wish. And God help you if you buy it used!

And apparently gamers just rant for a bit then fall in line anyway so why should they not suck your wallet dry if you let them?

Edit: And the analogy that the original owner removed the carseat and then sold the car would be more accurate if Ford glued the carseat to the original owner at purchase, heh.

DubbleEdit: Or better yet, when you purchase a car you dont get any keys instead you get a small radiotransmitter inplanted in you head that lets you start the car when inside it. And if you sell the car you refer the new owner to the adress they can get the transmitter inplanted. Because if they dont have it the car will just stand there in their driveway and they can look at it and wash it from birdshit now and ten.

 

[Reliq]

Could people please stop with these car analogies? There are a ton of reasons that buying a car is not like buying a game, for a start you only usually own one car at a time, and you don't exactly sell them as soon as you've had enough fun out of it to get a different brand of car and drive that one around like you waould a game. Cars are tools for transport, games are entertainment.
People saying ' if 1 million copies of a game are sold then people can sell them on and that's fine, it won't cost the game companies anything because there are still only 1 million people on servers' are conveniently ignoring the entire rest of what goes into a game apart from the cost of running multiplayer servers. As things are at the moment, one person buys a game new and get the enjoyment of playing the game all the way through, the product of everyone who worked on that game, and the money goes to those people. For people who buy it used, they get the exact same benefits (playing the game) but the money goes instead to, for the most part, a secondary dealer instead of anyone who actually worked on that game - all this is effectively doing is taking a fraction of the money made by the secondary dealer and giving it to the publisher instead (as the secondary price would have to drop by a corresponding amount to compensate).
I can't say this seems unfair. part of the reason games have gotten so expensive could be that the number of copies of a game sold end much lower than the number of people who eventually play it due to the used sales.

Stating my interests here - I pretty much always buy games new (unless they're like really old games) and tend to keep them rather than sell/trade them in.

The servercosts for the game is included in the gameprice. From day of purchase to serverdown. Does it really matter who is using that already paidfor servertime? You the original purchaser, your kid brother (who by you definition should also pay the 9.99) or your neighbour who you sold the game to used for 30 bucks?

If the gamedeveloper wants to cut down on servercosts, then they should stop forcing customers to use their servers... They force you to use their servers so they can charge you for using them. The only reason for making the online passes is so that they can charge more than once for the servertime of that one copy of game. By making you argue for them that the servertime(actually playing the game) is a service sold to the person buying the game, its not a part of the game itself. The game itself is just a pretty paperwheight you get when you buy the service of onlineplay.

And the people who worked on the game have already been paid, by the developer. The ones who get the extra 9.99 from a pass is the people who invested in the game's development. NOT the actual artists, who btw are in many cases severly underpaid...

 

[TheComfyChair]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

They were already paid.

By a person who already used their services The same argument could be: 'My friend bought a game, so it was fine that I pirated my copy'. In fact it IS the same argument from the developers perspective

Second hand games will die. This is only the beginning.

No, that's not the same argument because when you pirate a game, there are now multiple copies where only one was purchased. Buying used doesn't create a duplicate, the game simply changes hands. Pretending that used games are as bad as pirating games doesn't help your credibility.

If person A had kept the game, person A could play online until the servers were shut down for no extra cost. When person A trades it in, person A can no longer play online but person B can without any extra cost to the publisher. It's just a game changing hands, no extra costs are incurred to the publisher.

This is just greed and it will eventually cause another crash. I was reading about this on other sites and people are getting pretty sick of this shit. Eventually, people will just stop buying.

Actually, second hand games sales will lead to a crash, since developers know that only 50% of the sales they should get will actually earn them anything, so have to play safe.

Also, you're forgetting that PC hasn't had second hand sales since ~2002 and look how badly that's doing with the 35m+ a month steam users and more exclusives than any platform

Second hand games will die. Soon. Pretty much a fact, and if you don't like it then i'd suggest either stop gaming or move to PC where not having second hand doesn't mean anything (£10 cheaper games as standard and amazing steam offers).

Not having second hand really will suck for console players, because all console games are very very corporate and commercial, so you will get screwed out of every penny you have. But there's nothing you can do about it apart form move to the PC platform or stop playing games. The companies wont care, because unless more than 50% of all players leave consoles and then don't buy games on PC made by them, they aren't making any less money.

 

[Epona]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

They were already paid.

By a person who already used their services The same argument could be: 'My friend bought a game, so it was fine that I pirated my copy'. In fact it IS the same argument from the developers perspective

Second hand games will die. This is only the beginning.

No, that's not the same argument because when you pirate a game, there are now multiple copies where only one was purchased. Buying used doesn't create a duplicate, the game simply changes hands. Pretending that used games are as bad as pirating games doesn't help your credibility.

If person A had kept the game, person A could play online until the servers were shut down for no extra cost. When person A trades it in, person A can no longer play online but person B can without any extra cost to the publisher. It's just a game changing hands, no extra costs are incurred to the publisher.

This is just greed and it will eventually cause another crash. I was reading about this on other sites and people are getting pretty sick of this shit. Eventually, people will just stop buying.

Actually, second hand games sales will lead to a crash, since developers know that only 50% of the sales they should get will actually earn them anything, so have to play safe.

Also, you're forgetting that PC hasn't had second hand sales since ~2002 and look how badly that's doing with the 35m+ a month steam users and more exclusives than any platform

Second hand games will die. Soon. Pretty much a fact, and if you don't like it then i'd suggest either stop gaming or move to PC where not having second hand doesn't mean anything (£10 cheaper games as standard and amazing steam offers).

Not having second hand really will suck for console players, because all console games are very very corporate and commercial, so you will get screwed out of every penny you have. But there's nothing you can do about it apart form move to the PC platform or stop playing games. The companies wont care, because unless more than 50% of all players leave consoles and then don't buy games on PC made by them, they aren't making any less money.

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

I wouldn't trust console publishers or manufacturers either to make gaming remotely cheap if they kill used games (which, again, they will next generation, mark my words). But it wouldn't cause a crash. Just because you won't lose 50% of the entire market by getting rid of used games. Used games make up around 50% of the market, some of those players would buy new without a used option and the others can go die in a skip somewhere as far as a publisher cares.

Plus the lack of used games doesn't have any negative effects on PC So at worst it'll be a console crash like in the 80's, gaming itself will carry on just fine. I've got no personal interest in whether or not console gaming dies, as long as gaming itself is fine

Fact is though, you can't cause a crash but cutting away something which doesn't generate money. People wont buy less new games because used games are gone, they'll buy more or the same amount. There are no negatives for companies with regards to killing second hand. That's why i can buy all the assassin creed games in a bundle for £15 on PC on steam in sales, it's a consequence of every PC sale generating money.

 

[Epona]

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

I wouldn't trust console publishers or manufacturers either to make gaming remotely cheap if they kill used games (which, again, they will next generation, mark my words). But it wouldn't cause a crash. Just because you won't lose 50% of the entire market by getting rid of used games. Used games make up around 50% of the market, some of those players would buy new without a used option and the others can go die in a skip somewhere as far as a publisher cares.

Plus the lack of used games doesn't have any negative effects on PC So at worst it'll be a console crash like in the 80's, gaming itself will carry on just fine. I've got no personal interest in whether or not console gaming dies, as long as gaming itself is fine

Fact is though, you can't cause a crash but cutting away something which doesn't generate money. People wont buy less new games because used games are gone, they'll buy more or the same amount. There are no negatives for companies with regards to killing second hand. That's why i can buy all the assassin creed games in a bundle for £15 on PC on steam in sales, it's a consequence of every PC sale generating money.

Are you sure the lack of a used PC market hasn't had any negative impact? Are you sure piracy doesn't play a role?

 

[Dastardly]

Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

While I think that these publishers will eventually find none of their sale-mongering measures will matter if they don't also lower the box price, I think most of the arguments against things like this are ridiculous.

1. Any content that is available with a new purchase, but not available with a used purchase, will be unfairly viewed as "withheld." So those who say, "Offer more to new purchases, rather than less for used," are just baiting a circular argument.

2. Yes, you absolutely have the right as a consumer to buy and sell used products. And yes, these companies have the right to try to discourage that. These two rights, while at odds, are not mutually exclusive, nor is one greater than the other. You have your right, they have theirs.

3. Learn how to draw a line between how much you pay and to whom you are really paying it--and learn to take your grievances up with the person getting your money. Let's say Gamestop buys a copy of Game X for $40, to sell it for $60. You buy it for $60, and they make $20. You trade it in later on, maybe for $10 credit. They're still $10 in the black, and they turn around and sell it for $40. Then that person trades it in, gets $5 credit, and they sell it again for $30. In the end, the publisher has made $30 from that copy, and Gamestop has made $75 from that single copy. Looking at the numbers, if you buy a used game and feel like it's missing content, you should be taking that grievance up with Gamestop, because they are the people you're paying.

4. This isn't about piracy. These publishers probably bleed out more "lost sales" due to used sales than piracy. They're just trying to give folks an incentive to either buy new, or to at least make sure the makers of the game are getting a little piece of that action. If you feel it forces the price of used games too high, again, take it up with Gamestop. They're spending nothing to make these games available, so they have a lot more wiggle room on price.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

I wouldn't trust console publishers or manufacturers either to make gaming remotely cheap if they kill used games (which, again, they will next generation, mark my words). But it wouldn't cause a crash. Just because you won't lose 50% of the entire market by getting rid of used games. Used games make up around 50% of the market, some of those players would buy new without a used option and the others can go die in a skip somewhere as far as a publisher cares.

Plus the lack of used games doesn't have any negative effects on PC So at worst it'll be a console crash like in the 80's, gaming itself will carry on just fine. I've got no personal interest in whether or not console gaming dies, as long as gaming itself is fine

Fact is though, you can't cause a crash but cutting away something which doesn't generate money. People wont buy less new games because used games are gone, they'll buy more or the same amount. There are no negatives for companies with regards to killing second hand. That's why i can buy all the assassin creed games in a bundle for £15 on PC on steam in sales, it's a consequence of every PC sale generating money.

Are you sure the lack of a used PC market hasn't had any negative impact? Are you sure piracy doesn't play a role?

If there is one, it's not noticeable considering it hasn't existed for 10 years (and steam is awesome for sales anyway, you can get all games cheaper than used anyway in a steam sale, plus PC games are £30 as standard anyway, not £40/45), and piracy plays and still plays a role across all platforms. Consoles have to deal with second hand + piracy, so it's a double whammy.

The most galling thing for publishers is that second hand counts in the sales charts (From GAME and Gamestation in the UK at least, and i assume elsewhere), so they KNOW just how much money they should have been getting.

 

[Epona]

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

I wouldn't trust console publishers or manufacturers either to make gaming remotely cheap if they kill used games (which, again, they will next generation, mark my words). But it wouldn't cause a crash. Just because you won't lose 50% of the entire market by getting rid of used games. Used games make up around 50% of the market, some of those players would buy new without a used option and the others can go die in a skip somewhere as far as a publisher cares.

Plus the lack of used games doesn't have any negative effects on PC So at worst it'll be a console crash like in the 80's, gaming itself will carry on just fine. I've got no personal interest in whether or not console gaming dies, as long as gaming itself is fine

Fact is though, you can't cause a crash but cutting away something which doesn't generate money. People wont buy less new games because used games are gone, they'll buy more or the same amount. There are no negatives for companies with regards to killing second hand. That's why i can buy all the assassin creed games in a bundle for £15 on PC on steam in sales, it's a consequence of every PC sale generating money.

Are you sure the lack of a used PC market hasn't had any negative impact? Are you sure piracy doesn't play a role?

If there is one, it's not noticeable considering it hasn't existed for 10 years (and steam is awesome for sales anyway, you can get all games cheaper than used anyway in a steam sale, plus PC games are £30 as standard anyway, not £40/45), and piracy plays and still plays a role across all platforms. Consoles have to deal with second hand + piracy, so it's a double whammy.

The most galling thing for publishers is that second hand counts in the sales charts (From GAME and Gamestation in the UK at least, and i assume elsewhere), so they KNOW just how much money they should have been getting.

Since we don't have accurate piracy numbers before and after the demise of the used PC game market it's impossible to say but I think that piracy has likely increased alot since people can't buy used.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Their greed will kill the game industry, used games have been here from the beginning and has helped the industry grow. This ridiculous DRM and DLC will kill the industry. This has been a bad generation for consumers.

Consumer rights are a good thing, for all involved. Restricting consumer rights never ends well.

I wouldn't trust console publishers or manufacturers either to make gaming remotely cheap if they kill used games (which, again, they will next generation, mark my words). But it wouldn't cause a crash. Just because you won't lose 50% of the entire market by getting rid of used games. Used games make up around 50% of the market, some of those players would buy new without a used option and the others can go die in a skip somewhere as far as a publisher cares.

Plus the lack of used games doesn't have any negative effects on PC So at worst it'll be a console crash like in the 80's, gaming itself will carry on just fine. I've got no personal interest in whether or not console gaming dies, as long as gaming itself is fine

Fact is though, you can't cause a crash but cutting away something which doesn't generate money. People wont buy less new games because used games are gone, they'll buy more or the same amount. There are no negatives for companies with regards to killing second hand. That's why i can buy all the assassin creed games in a bundle for £15 on PC on steam in sales, it's a consequence of every PC sale generating money.

Are you sure the lack of a used PC market hasn't had any negative impact? Are you sure piracy doesn't play a role?

If there is one, it's not noticeable considering it hasn't existed for 10 years (and steam is awesome for sales anyway, you can get all games cheaper than used anyway in a steam sale, plus PC games are £30 as standard anyway, not £40/45), and piracy plays and still plays a role across all platforms. Consoles have to deal with second hand + piracy, so it's a double whammy.

The most galling thing for publishers is that second hand counts in the sales charts (From GAME and Gamestation in the UK at least, and i assume elsewhere), so they KNOW just how much money they should have been getting.

Since we don't have accurate piracy numbers before and after the demise of the used PC game market it's impossible to say but I think that piracy has likely increased alot since people can't buy used.

That could have been the case, but the used game market has been gone for 10 years now (although they could have been sold used, most weren't). Piracy was at a peak in 2006/2007 on PC, and has since slumped with the availability of games via steam ect. The increase in 2006 could have been attributed with used sales, but why 5 years later? personally, i think it was the advent of broadband as a mainstream thing that caused such rampant piracy in the west, once retailers started utilising digital distribution it was just as convenient, if not a lot more so, to just buy the game from steam. In the end, pirating just isn't as satisfying.

The reason piracy in the east (which makes up pretty much all PC piracy along with eastern europe - tracker downloads in places like the UK are insignificant amounts numbering in the few thousands) is so rampant, and always will be for the time being, is because of the lack of copyright protection in those countries. It's why most companies don't even bother shipping to there, PC or otherwise. So there's not really any 'lost sales' with the piracy in such countries.

Also, we don't have truly accurate numbers (most reported numbers are generally very much overestimates when looking into how they are found) but simply from observing the numbers of trackers for games over the last 5 years you can see a huge decline, while steam is booming

For example, duke nukem forever (which will admittedly have been pirated more due to the very mixed reviews making people wonder if it was worth buying) has ~1.7k seeders and 400 downloaders on the biggest torrent. That's hardly anything compared to the old days where most games (like crysis) would have 10k seeders easily.