video game piracy: a question

[Wintermoot]

but what about region bound games? for example ZUNE said himself he would NEVER release the Touhou games in the west making piracy the only option to play them!
or games that are out of print?

 

[GestaltEsper]

The only problems I have with piracy is a) some of the excuses and justifications are just downright pathetic, b) both sides, developers and pirates are hypocritical assholes but neither will admit it,and c) it always makes me feel like a shmuck for paying for a game when I could've gotten it for free*.












*half-joking

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Disclaimer: (Although I address this post in the first person it is not intentionally directed at anyone in particular, just the ideas behind it, as I realise I do get a bit stroppy and rant-y)
Well, I think it's a bit hypocritical to say "I have no intention of buying this game so I'm going to pirate it" If you care enough about a game to decide to pirate it then you care about it enough to spend the money. Otherwise go and either pay for something else or entertain yourself with things you've already bought. If you have no inclination or intention of playing a game, then don't play it. Either you don't want to play something, in which case you'll do something else, or you do want to play a game, in which case you should pay for its use, because you are using it. I really don't see a middle ground in that issue.

For the second issue "I couldn't afford it" Well boohoo. Sorry to be crude and unfeeling, but you do not have any right to play the game or experience it's content unless you pay for it. If you cannot afford a game, then go and do something else. The developers and designers put a lot of effort into their work, and deserve to be compensated for the use of their work. Technically speaking there is an overall loss experienced on a holistic level, as when you were playing your game you pirated for free, it stopped you from occupying yourself in other ways, some of which you may have paid for, so those people lose out. Also you are supporting the pirates by using their site and downloading their material, allowing them to keep in business, but there is no immediate or overt loss or damage that you can immediately percieve caused by your one act piracy, and that's why it becomes this grey moral issue. The problem is not that you are doing direct harm to the developer by downloading a copy of their game, it's that your actions lead indirectly to other actions that will cause the developer to lose out (you suppport the pirates, allowing them to pirate more games, so the devs lose money. You do not need to purchase other games to occupy your time, so the devs lose money, and you don't know for certain that there would ever come a time where you would decide to buy that game, which is a potential lost sale.)

I'm sorry, but I really hate it when people use this argument; it just reeks of someone who has never had to wonder whether they could buy their $60 toy or not, they always knew they could get it if they wanted. Every time someone uses the "entitlement" argument in conjunction with this, it makes me think "pot, meet kettle. You're both black." I've said it before and I'll say it again, piracy isn't a moral issue. It's a force of nature. The replicator from Star Trek is effectively here for digital goods, which are a fairly large part of the economy, and much like what happened in Star Trek, the content creators are just going to have to get over it and adjust their business plan to take into account that people will be making copies. As soon as they stop trying to protect their obsolete business model and start trying to figure out how to make money in this new world that we live in, the sooner we can move forward and stop suing college kids for millions -- although maybe that is the adjustment to the business plan. Settling out of court is lucrative, after all.

Edit: I forgot the standard disclaimer. I'm not advocating piracy, I'm just saying that it's never going to go away, and the best way to deal with it is to change the business plan to take it into account, rather than making an example out of the few people that they can catch.

 

[Yopaz]

Well, the person who says "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is really just making an excuse.
Obviously, if you are putting in the work to pirate a game, you have some desire to play it, and you might as well support the developer by actually paying for the game.

But if there wasn't piracy avaliable he wouldn't have bought anyway.

It's like making someone happy for free thats all.

By the way, what if they made a donation system. Anyone who can and want can donate and anyone can play the game. I would like to see the results Of course this only works digital format to not waste cd's and stuff.

While I'm sure the developers would love to make people happy by having people get their games for free, they deserve the money they would have earned by a sale.
You see, some people will use the valid excuse of "I don't have the money" or "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" once, and maybe with good reason. Eventually, they'll simply start using that to rationalize more piracy, and that's where developers get seriously hurt.

I'm not defending the excuse I'm defending when that really is the case, something only himself knows. If he wouldn't have bough the game anyway for me the argument has a strong point.

When that's the case there are two choices:

1- He doesn't pay, he doesn't play, the company doesn't gain nor lose any money
2- He doesn't pay, he plays, the company doesn't gain nor lose any money

Difference? One person is happier in one case.

Only we're not just dealing with one person.
If only one person ever pirated a game, things would be fine.
When you think about the many, many people who pirate big releases, there you find the true issue.

You missed my point.

If you want change the "He" in my examples to 1 thousand guys. The pint is the same.

Exactly. If those people decide that they'd rather pirate the game than buy it, the developer gets no money from them. If someone wants a game, they are in the audience of the developer. If the games aren't sold to them, and instead pirated, the developer is not making money from them.

The point is: If they haven't pirated the game they wouldn't have bought it anyways! In any case the developer would get 0 money from them!

I realize that, but if they wouldn't have bought the game, then why do they consider it worth pirating?
If they have little or no interest in a game, at least not enough to buy it, why bother at all?
Now they've got a game that they really didn't want in the first place.

Well if they pirate it and don't like it they haven't wasted a dime. If they pirated it and liked it enough to buy it then there's a pretty big difference.
So my way to reduce piracy is to release more demos for PC games. When I still pirated games I pirated The Saboteur, played it once decided I hated it. Played Saints Row 2 once then bough it. Still I agree with you. All excuses for piracy is just that. Excuses. Now that I am old enough to realize that I have stopped illegal downloads and buying used, since let's face it, both hurt the developer just as much.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

Careful, he's going to tell you that food is a necessity and videogames are a luxury, ignoring the fact that giving free food actually costs money, while making free videogames takes nothing but a little time.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

Careful, he's going to tell you that food is a necessity and videogames are a luxury, ignoring the fact that giving free food actually costs money, while making free videogames takes nothing but a little time.

And entertainment isn't a necessity? It might not be necessary to live but it sure as hell is necessary to live in the modern world. Can you honestly say you could live your life without any form of entertainment?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

Careful, he's going to tell you that food is a necessity and videogames are a luxury, ignoring the fact that giving free food actually costs money, while making free videogames takes nothing but a little time.

And entertainment isn't a necessity? It might not be necessary to live but it sure as hell is necessary to live in the modern world. Can you honestly say you could live your life without any form of entertainment?

Look at who your arguing with: I'm on your side, I've just seen enough of these arguments to know how they go -- especially since it's against the rules to admit to or advocate piracy. This is a very one sided argument in these parts.

 

[maddness666]

And the "Pirates are poor and can't afford games" is the worst of them all. No, they're not. They might be pathetic spoiled children that think they're entitled to everything they want the second they want it but they're NOT poor. If you own a machine that can run these games you are NOT poor.

I genuinely can't afford games though I have a fairly high spec PC, I inherited it from my dad, whenever he get's new hardware I get the old stuff, I generally only get new games at christmas or for my birthday.

Though I'm not condoning piracy. Lots of good developers are dying out these days. And while it's not entirely down to anything, piracy doesn't help.

 

[tautologico]

By the way, what if they made a donation system. Anyone who can and want can donate and anyone can play the game. I would like to see the results Of course this only works digital format to not waste cd's and stuff.

What you're describing is basically the Humble Indie Bundle, where you say how much you want to contribute (I belive 0 dollars is an option) and get the games.

And still there are people who choose to pirate it
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/10/one-quarter-of-humble-indie-bundle-downloads-were-pirated/

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Look at who your arguing with: I'm on your side, I've just seen enough of these arguments to know how they go -- especially since it's against the rules to admit to or advocate piracy. This is a very one sided argument in these parts.

I apologize if I offended you. I've held numerous discussions regarding piracy with lots of individuals on these forums and I know very well how these arguments tend to go. Still, whenever threads like these pop up I feel like I should at the very least express my opinion, if only to avoid ten pages of people calling pirates scum and unworthy of being called human beings.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

By the way, what if they made a donation system. Anyone who can and want can donate and anyone can play the game. I would like to see the results Of course this only works digital format to not waste cd's and stuff.

What you're describing is basically the Humble Indie Bundle, where you say how much you want to contribute (I belive 0 dollars is an option) and get the games.

And still there are people who choose to pirate it
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/10/one-quarter-of-humble-indie-bundle-downloads-were-pirated/

People pirated it, but they also made a boatload of money from the people who paid -- and that's where the anti-piracy arguments break down. This isn't about companies that fail to turn a profit -- far from it, as the most pirated games are also the most bought. No, this is about companies looking at people who didn't buy their games and going "we didn't make as much money as we potentially would have if these people had potentially paid full price for our games." There's too many ifs in there, and the same argument applies whether they pirated the game, bought it used, waited for the price to drop, or just bought a game from another company. In any case, that potential revenue isn't going to the publisher. They need to stop crying about it and look at the revenue they are getting. Lord knows they must have a money vault better than Uncle Scrooge's if they sell everything for $60 a pop, yet still manage to sell millions of copies.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I'm sorry, but I really hate it when people use this argument; it just reeks of someone who has never had to wonder whether they could buy their $60 toy or not, they always knew they could get it if they wanted.

The last game I bought was a £5 bargain bin game called "Sniper Art of Victory." Back in 2008. I have been a tremendously poor student for the past 4 years (Try living off £20 a week and keep money in your pockets for video games.) The solution? I didn't buy any games. When I wanted to play something I went through my retro games stack, discovered a few gems I never knew I had, and when I got the chance I would occasionally played a bit on my friends xbox 360 when he brought it round. I discovered Battlefield Play for Free online, and found other ways which didn't involve piracy to bide my time. I'm coming out of uni now and am living back with my parents and am saving up for Skyrim, which will probably keep me occupied until I am 80, or virtual reality is invented.

Stealing a loaf of bread when you are about to starve to death can be seen as a neccessity. Stealing a dessert from a buffet because you can't be bothered to pay after a 3 course meal is not, especially if there are other free alternative desserts sitting right next to you.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Comment deleted because for fear of moderator wrath ... or something

 

[tautologico]

By the way, what if they made a donation system. Anyone who can and want can donate and anyone can play the game. I would like to see the results Of course this only works digital format to not waste cd's and stuff.

What you're describing is basically the Humble Indie Bundle, where you say how much you want to contribute (I belive 0 dollars is an option) and get the games.

And still there are people who choose to pirate it
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/10/one-quarter-of-humble-indie-bundle-downloads-were-pirated/

Did that work? I'm not talking about piracy now. In terms of profit. If they became happy with the money they got, and the gamers happy with the games then the system worked.

Yes, it worked quite well. The most recent Humble Indie Bundle got a little over 2 million dollars.

It's the perfect pricing structure, actually: you ask the consumer what he is willing and able to pay. Unfortunately this wouldn't work for big releases, so they have to choose a price.

 

[smearyllama]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

Games and food are different.

You need food to physically survive.
Games you do not.

While the Babylonians did use games as a way of helping themselves through a famine, I don't think that applies here.

I think that buying video games shouldn't be your first priority if you're that hungry.

Edit: Looking at your other posts here, I'm not saying you're wrong.
I just find that part of your argument a little poorly thought out.
I'm not saying that all pirates are scum, but I just find the act itself wrong.

 

[Callate]

Counter question: is it fair to game developers if, while you're playing the game you pirated, you come to have enough money to buy a game, but you don't because your game-playing bug is sated by the game you pirated?

Personally, as an occasional very-low-scale game creator, I'd just as soon someone without money played my game and told their cash-in-hand friends that they should totally buy it, but it never works out that way. Instead you end up with it being hard to find the legitimate markets in a web search amidst all the torrent sites and "free download" sites.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm sorry, but I really hate it when people use this argument; it just reeks of someone who has never had to wonder whether they could buy their $60 toy or not, they always knew they could get it if they wanted.

The last game I bought was a £5 bargain bin game called "Sniper Art of Victory." Back in 2008. I have been a tremendously poor student for the past 4 years (Try living off £20 a week and keep money in your pockets for video games.) The solution? I didn't buy any games. When I wanted to play something I went through my retro games stack, discovered a few gems I never knew I had, and when I got the chance I would occasionally played a bit on my friends xbox 360 when he brought it round. I discovered Battlefield Play for Free online, and found other ways which didn't involve piracy to bide my time. I'm coming out of uni now and am living back with my parents and am saving up for Skyrim, which will probably keep me occupied until I am 80, or virtual reality is invented.

Stealing a loaf of bread when you are about to starve to death can be seen as a neccessity. Stealing a dessert from a buffet because you can't be bothered to pay after a 3 course meal is not, especially if there are other free alternative desserts sitting right next to you.

I'm sorry to hear about that, but it makes your stance even more baffling; stealing a loaf of bread deprives someone else of that loaf of bread, and while it can be seen as morally gray, it still winds up hurting someone. Piracy deprives nobody of anything aside from some profits that literally do not, will not, and would not exist in the real world. So how is piracy clearly, black and white wrong again? The only convincing argument I've seen against it is "it's illegal, therefore you can get punished." I have yet to see one that convinces me that it's actually a bad thing.

 

[faranar]

Piracy isn't all that bad. Think of it as a commercial for the game or the game studio. If some people get the game for free the word spreads faster and every potential buyer gets to know if the game is any good. Also IF you do like the game you pirated, while you may not buy the game, you may consider buying the game studio's future projects. None of my friends bought the first SC but when the second got out most of them preordered it.
Also people like me who play on a laptop may not have an internet connection at all times so there's no point in buying any game with an online only DRM - we pirate it. And what if your internet provider sucks and your connection is unstable - you pirate the game.
And do you know why I didn't buy SC2? NO LAN OPTION. What's the point of SC2 if you can't gather 5-6 friends in a room and pull an allnighter? So now those of my friends who bought the game have to use a hack to play - f*ck that -> I pirated the game.
Same thing with the upcoming Diablo 3 - I didn't buy Diablo 2, though I bought the LoD expansion, and now I won't buy the new game because I can't provide an internet connection for 8 people and therefore won't be able to host a lan party at my place. I won't pay for a game I can't play without a crack and so I will pirate D3 - Good job Blizzard.

The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse is a valid one in my opinion. For example Portal - The only way I could get it when it was first out was with the Orange Box. As I am no fan of Half-life there was no reason for me to buy it -> I pirated Portal. And then I bought Portal 2. So Valve actually profited from piracy

The "I couldn't afford it" excuse is also valid - not every high-schooler or university student can afford to buy every game. But they can get hooked on the pirated versions. And once they can afford to spend money on games they probably will. Also there are countries where the average salary is under $5000 a year, so paying $100 for a game is pretty much impossible. In my hometown the average salary is around 2700$ a year. There is no way for a kid to buy a game there. Now I earn considerably more and I can afford it, but because the industry's obsession with piracy I don't really want to buy their games(examples are above)

So in conclusion right now I'll have to go as far as to say that piracy is necessary, and if the game studios don't stop with the shitty DRMs I won't be buying any more games.

 

[Gwarr]

While I don't agree with piracy , I also cannot say companies are not getting what they deserve . You cannot put the same price of 60$ to a game worldwide like some seem to be doing . Let's be honest , the price of actually making a DVD copy of the game is minimal , digital purchase of it has practically no cost so why put the same price for the game in India and Germany ? It's silly to think a guy with 100 dollars a month will pay 60 for your game and not pirate it . Companies need to get more real and I think Valve has been doing this for quite some time and saw the benefits.

 

[tautologico]

People pirated it, but they also made a boatload of money from the people who paid -- and that's where the anti-piracy arguments break down. This isn't about companies that fail to turn a profit -- far from it, as the most pirated games are also the most bought. No, this is about companies looking at people who didn't buy their games and going "we didn't make as much money as we potentially would have if these people had potentially paid full price for our games." There's too many ifs in there, and the same argument applies whether they pirated the game, bought it used, waited for the price to drop, or just bought a game from another company. In any case, that potential revenue isn't going to the publisher. They need to stop crying about it and look at the revenue they are getting. Lord knows they must have a money vault better than Uncle Scrooge's if they sell everything for $60 a pop, yet still manage to sell millions of copies.

That's not so simple.

First thing is about "greed". Let's say you go to have dinner at a restaurant where you know how much food is served. You order your favorite dish, and when it gets to your table there's only about half the amount of food you're used too. Do you complain, or do you thank them for the wonderful food they're serving? Would you consider yourself "greedy" if you complained? Well, I wouldn't.

Companies, as well as people, have a right to try to maximize their investments, if it's inside the boundaries of the law. Just because it is a company it doesn't mean they should thank people for what they get and not try to maximize the return on investment. This is not greed, or evil, it's just common sense.

Game companies know that some people will always pay for the product, some will only pirate it (or don't play), but for many people in the middle, if they pirate or buy the game depends on how easily they can get a hold of a pirated copy. Trying to make it a little harder to pirate it has a direct effect on revenue.

I'm not 100% against piracy, and I don't like intrusive DRM (don't mind well-crafted, non-intrusive DRM), but this "companies are evil" theme is tiring.