video game piracy: a question

[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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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 easy 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.

Companies may not be intrinsically evil, but they are intrinsically greedy. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but they have a tendency to take it overboard, as your example of intrusive DRM shows. Basically, there's a difference between complaining that the portion for your meal is small, and complaining that you didn't get both that meal and the next one on the menu, even though you didn't order or pay for it. Video game companies are doing the latter option in their piracy complaints more often than not.

 

[loc978]

Man, this thread is just ban-bait for a lot of people...

But as far as I'm concerned, this thread is asking the wrong questions. All of the excuses listed will only come from a small percentage of people who actually download a given game. The rest simply won't admit to having it.
Owyn_Merrilin hit the nail on the head when he called software piracy "a force of nature". When your product is entirely digital, there will be those who break your security (and yes, there will always be reverse-engineers capable of breaking anything security engineers cook up. That's the nature of the game) and copy it... and there will be those who download it for free. Each individual's reason for such is immaterial, it's simply the nature of digital media markets.

Personally, the problem I find is when a publisher gets overzealous with their security, some people who buy a game can't enjoy it, and others (like me) simply refuse to buy the game, because it comes packaged with something we consider to be malware. I'd rather just not play the damn thing in that case.
When the reverse-engineers who redistribute a game illegally actually improve the game's stability in the process of disabling its security... there's something wrong with that game.

 

[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?

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.

But we're not talking about free games. Piracy isn't a problem with free games, since they are, in a word, free. We're talking about big-budget releases that cost a lot of money to produce and release.

 

[ultimateownage]

'I wouldn't buy it' is just an excuse.
'I can't afford it' Well, if you really wanted to play it you would find the money. This is just an excuse for 90% of the time.
'I cannot get it' - This is the only semi-reasonable excuse, if there is literally no legal way of you getting it in your country.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

To quote myself: "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.

But we're not talking about free games. Piracy isn't a problem with free games, since they are, in a word, free. We're talking about big-budget releases that cost a lot of money to produce and release.

The production cost is there, but it's covered by other purchases; the pirates aren't cutting into that any more than they would be if they skipped buying the game, or if they bought a game from a different company. There is no unit cost being lost like there would be if it was outright theft, because a new copy is being made by someone who isn't even using any of the company's resources. Face it, piracy doesn't cost anyone anything.

 

[ShakyFiend]

snippity

You make several reasonable points, but firstly you missed the other common justification argument (the only really viable one) which is: I couldn't have got it otherwise, ie the game is not available in your country etc etc. I think Notch and several others have come out and said that they'd prefer you to be playing their game for free, rather than not at all.

Secondly, what many people dont understand about piracy is: it is not stealing in the traditional sense of the word. You steal a diamond tiara say, this wrong for several reasons:
a. You have deprived the maker/distributor of his rightful profit.
b. You have undermined the general trust of shop owners etc. leading to tighter security and more inconvenience for all involved.
c. You can sell the tiara illegally contributing and enlarging the market for illegal things and gaining immoral profits yourself.

With digital theft on the other hand, with a. the distributor and maker haven't actually lost anything, if I go download three hundred copies of Mass Effect right now it wont hurt Bioware one bit. But if I stole three hundred Ferrari's one hell of a lot would be lost.

C. it is pretty much impossible to sell pirated games for profit in the same way that the pirated DVD market dosent really exist any more. Finally only b. really applies to game piracy and as we've discovered, DRM just dosent work, for anyone.

 

[twiceworn]

'I wouldn't buy it' is just an excuse.
'I can't afford it' Well, if you really wanted to play it you would find the money. This is just an excuse for 90% of the time.
'I cannot get it' - This is the only semi-reasonable excuse, if there is literally no legal way of you getting it in your country.

ok so i have to ask two questions first, what if there is a game that is not your type so you have no intention of buying but somone offers it to you for free as they dont want it anymore you just have to get it out of the car (like just clicking a link) would you take it?
second what if you have no money none all gone to bills for things like food and phone payments you have zero cash or simply not enough to buy the game either way the industry wont be getting money from you so you pirate the game, my questions is this: WHAT DO THEY LOSE? you will be giving them no money anyway your not taking an item off a shelf that they could sell to somone else they were never getting your money and now they still wont WHAT DO THEY LOSE?

 

[smearyllama]

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.

To quote myself: "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?"

I agree, but I think if you're really desperate for entertainment, and have access to the internet, you'll have plenty of other ways to entertain yourself.
Example: Sites like Kongregate, which provide some really great games for free.

 

[twiceworn]

snippity

You make several reasonable points, but firstly you missed the other common justification argument (the only really viable one) which is: I couldn't have got it otherwise, ie the game is not available in your country etc etc. I think Notch and several others have come out and said that they'd prefer you to be playing their game for free, rather than not at all.

Secondly, what many people dont understand about piracy is: it is not stealing in the traditional sense of the word. You steal a diamond tiara say, this wrong for several reasons:
a. You have deprived the maker/distributor of his rightful profit.
b. You have undermined the general trust of shop owners etc. leading to tighter security and more inconvenience for all involved.
c. You can sell the tiara illegally contributing and enlarging the market for illegal things and gaining immoral profits yourself.

With digital theft on the other hand, with a. the distributor and maker haven't actually lost anything, if I go download three hundred copies of Mass Effect right now it wont hurt Bioware one bit. But if I stole three hundred Ferrari's one hell of a lot would be lost.

C. it is pretty much impossible to sell pirated games for profit in the same way that the pirated DVD market dosent really exist any more. Finally only b. really applies to game piracy and as we've discovered, DRM just dosent work, for anyone.

spot on, finaly somone who decided to read what i posted before posting.
i dont think DRM is anything other that a money grab as it is no problem to get aroud for a pirate, piracy is a great excuse to grab cash but an excuse none the less

 

[AndyFromMonday]

To quote myself: "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?"

I agree, but I think if you're really desperate for entertainment, and have access to the internet, you'll have plenty of other ways to entertain yourself.
Example: Sites like Kongregate, which provide some really great games for free.[/quote]

Flash games are not on the same level as a full fledged game the same way watching YouTube videos is not on the same level as watching a movie.

 

[smearyllama]

To quote myself: "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?"

I agree, but I think if you're really desperate for entertainment, and have access to the internet, you'll have plenty of other ways to entertain yourself.
Example: Sites like Kongregate, which provide some really great games for free.

Flash games are not on the same level as a full fledged game the same way watching YouTube videos is not on the same level as watching a movie.[/quote]
That's why they're free.
There's also a lot of deep games that you can get for low prices. A lot of titles available on steam will run on a budget computer (Fallout, Torchlight, Morrowind, etc.)

 

[zehydra]

Also if you can't afford $60 for a game, where did you get the hundreds of dollars for a console or PC?

This has always been my sentiment.