View from the Road: When I Was a Pirate

[FaceFaceFace]

G) I believe that the traditional concept of copyright is outdated, and creators should move on to find other sources of income.

I'm not a moral relativist, I believe that piracy is right and copyright is wrong.
I don't care if I hurt the industry, because I want to see it destroyed.

Copyright isn't just about gaming, its about everything. Copyright laws and enforcement go too far sometimes, but saying "look at all the stuff that already is free" isn't justification for getting rid of copyright altogether. For one thing, most of the good stuff in any case is NOT free, and not only would almost none of the now for-profit works be produced (I'm speaking as a writer here, I would be very careful about releasing any of my work in any way if I did not own the rights to it, and I know many others are the same way) but free stuff would also decrease. How many of the things you can find free on the internet, whether they're videos, games, or fiction, do you think were made by people who hope they can lead to a career? They may be willing to make things free now, but I'd bet at least half of them want to make money indirectly through their website (which becomes impossible when you no longer own the rights to what you are releasing for free and it can be hosted by anyone else anywhere) or are hoping it can get them a job doing the same thing. If they couldn't own the rights to their work, I doubt they'd do it. Copyright doesn't just get you money, It gets you the recognition that you did the work. Without it, anyone could claim ownership of soemthing you did and you couldn't do a damn thing. So please, don't condemn the people who make what you listen to, read, watch, and play to that.

 

[John Funk]

Your ignorance as to what a pirate actually is doesn't make you any more right.

Oh, and don't flame staff. Have a nice day, see you 'round.

So he calls you an idiot and you call him ignorant. I dont see how your any different.
I also dont think 1 word(5 letters) counts as flaming :S.
Oh, and try not to act so smug. Have a nice day, see you 'round

Calling somebody 'ignorant' is quite different from calling someone an 'idiot.' Ignorance is a temporary thing, and can be corrected. Calling someone an idiot is directly insulting their mental faculties.

And we take a hard line when it comes to insulting staff, thank you very much If you can't be polite - especially to the people who run this site - we don't want you posting here.

 

[Alterego-X]

FaceFaceFace: I didn't say that the concept of Intellectual Property is bad, I only said that the current, specific copyright laws are no longer working due to the Internet's effect on the possibilities of sharing data.
I believe that some more liberal laws could allow sharing data, while supporting the most basic rights of the creators.

VanBasten: Stop making up lies about my actions, beliefs, and intentions, and insulting me on that basis.

 

[VanBasten]

@Alterego-X
I'm not assuming anything outside of what you said.

You claim to pirate games, and you supposedly do it to destroy the industry.

You are a thief because of the first part of that statement, and the second part is bullshit, therefore you're a liar.

 

[Zannah]

Games are expensive. With the games market being what it is (have you ever tried to turn broken games back in, or games you didn't like, god forbid?), and with the concept of 'demos' having completely disappeared, I envy people who can afford to buy games, and shrug it off when they don't like them. I can't, so when I decide to buy a game, let alone several copies, that are necessary to play coop, I have to know I'll replay or online-play that game for quite a while.

But the point I'd like to make is this - When someone steals a hardcopy of a game, that's theft, someone has a loss that needs to be replaced.
When a game is downloaded by someone who wouldn't be able to buy anyway - no harm is being done, exept inside the publishers delusinous fantasies. The only thing that happens, is that someone has a gain, he might or might not deserve (Since were essentially in a field, where one might well argue, that he stays ethically even, for he is being underpaied by his employer etc).

And your THAT bothered? (I know I'll get a little suggestive now, but so have pirate-haters been for ages);
Imagine a kid finding a toy on the street (only this toy is not going to be missed by anybody). No harms being done, but the kid has no actual right to own the toy. Would you run up to the kid, smash the toy, and lock the kid away for theft?

I'm sorry, but with the kind of piracy-hate that is often displayed, I feel we've left the realms of reason, and taken one hell of a dive into the realms of 'lawful stupid'. And I don't want to be there, so excuse me, if I don't follow.

 

[John Funk]

So basically what you're saying is: "Stealing is bad unless you can't afford the thing and everyone around you is doing the same"? That's some very dodgy logic.

There are a lot of countries in which some things are considerably cheaper than in the US and some considerably more expensive. That's just basic economics. Now publishers set their prices with only the biggest markets like US, UK and Japan im mind, and sell their games for pretty much the same prices in the rest of the world, like these three countries were the only ones that mattered.

Now it's very nice of you (the author) to acknowledge there are in fact a few other countries in the world, but how that enlightened notion had led you to a belief that these countries are free to pirate as they please is beyond me.

Oh, and I'm from Poland. Games are also crazy expensive here, especially by your "let's compare it to the cost of the most basic articles, like food" standard. We make do, thankyouverymuch, without your lincense to pirate.

I don't think it's suddenly *right* for people in China to pirate, I just don't see how it's possible to change that. To them, it's just how they get their games, and morality doesn't even factor into the equation.

Skimp on fancy packaging to keep distribution and production costs down, just get the disc in stores, and sell it for 60 RMB ($8.78).

This is the part I love.

So, how much is your $60 dollar game really worth if you are willing to sell it at a 85% loss?

I think the reason companies don't do this overly much is the fact that word gets around fast on this here thingamabob called the Internet. If you think pirates feel entitled to steal now, just wait until they hear that you sell the same game to people with a low rent zip code for 85% less and somehow still make a profit. Heck, every time Steam isn't on the up and up with Aussie pricing, they burn straw-Gordons in effigy.

Suddenly, they aren't stealing $60.. they are stealing $9.. minus the cost of the DVDs they are providing themselves. Almost a wash, really...

Edit: Wrong percentages... ugh, too long since my school days.

If before, you were making 0$ profit on any copies of the game sold there, making 1$ profit is an improvement, yes?

I think it was on the West Wing where it was pointed out that the marginal cost of creating a given medical pill is a few cents - but the cost of creating the FIRST pill was $400 million. The marginal cost of producing a copy of a game - burning the CD, putting it in a case, printing a manual - is pretty darn low if you skimp on the pomp and circumstance. Granted, I don't know HOW low, so I could be wrong about the actual numbers. If we're assuming that a publisher feels that it's capable of recouping development expenses elsewhere, and just wants to try to make more money in an area where it previously would have made nothing, it's not an unreasonable idea.

 

[Voltano]

~snip~

Bullshit.
Piracy involving a digital medium works differently.
Here you copy the product and sell it to people in order to make money off the original.

So everyone that copies something will turn around and sell it? Plus how do we know the "original" is not a copy of something? If I suddenly devised the recipe to make a Whopper and share it with everyone, then Burger King should sue me because I "stole" their idea, right?

If you steal the copy, you essentially stole the original because the creator didn't make any money off the product.

I disagree, somewhat. By copying and distributing the product in mass proportions--whether for profit or not--does not really "take" money from the creator but denies them making money off of their work. The creator still owns the original product and could still sell it, but everyone could easily access it elsewhere that there is no way for the creator to earn a profit. Referring again to the Whopper, what is the point of Burger King selling that kind of meal if everyone knows how to make it?

Plus I've seen companies that try to copy other works and get away legally, so should they be considered "stealing"? How many WoW clones--or as some people call them, "WoW rip-offs"--are legal under copyright laws? How many JRPGs copy the same cliche characters and turn-based combat system of other JRPGs? Should the developers of an FPS say their work is "inspired" by the "Halo" series, or just flat out say they "stole" ideas from that series to make their own game?

 

[RMcD94]

1. I pirate and play the game and like it, and then tell my friends about it. Free advertising for you.
2. I pirate and play the game and don't mention it at all to anyone. Nothing to you.
3. I don't pirate the game, and don't play it. Nothing to you.

So, there's a difference between 2 and 3 apart from me losing out?

There's a massive difference between 2 and 3. 2 is a common criminal that could have just played the demo, but no, they had to think they were special and I owed them something.

Rather they didn't think you'd lose out. If there was no piracy they wouldn't go up to you and ask for a free copy. No one is saying you owe them it.

3 is actually two different people;

3a is the guy that doesn't buy the game at all.

We were assuming they would never have bought it if there wasn't piracy to begin with.

More power to them - I am aware there are whole demographics that will never touch my product, which is not a lost sale, because the chances of a sale from these groups is so low that even them picking up the box would be an achievement.
3b is the guy that buys the game and doesn't like it. This is a person that I have wronged. Maybe they brought it on impulse and found that what I consider "real time tactical combat" or "extensive character customisation" isn't what they consider it to be. Maybe they brought into hype, or someone tranquilized me and let Peter Molyneaux advertise the features (aaaaand I'm losing sleep tonight...). Hell, maybe they were a teenager who was entranced by the shiney "18" label and got home to find that I've tried to make a mature game, not one covered with blood and tits. In all of these cases, that is my fault for providing unrealistic expectations of my game, and is the only one of your examples that I would genuinely apologise to.

You are talking about something else now. I said don't play it. People who would buy it is a different thing.

That said, they can always trade it in. Honestly, as a gamer and a games designer, I have no issue with trade-ins because I would rather someone was playing my game (and hell, there's always more DLC) than having it take up space in their collections - while I can't fight human nature and stop people getting bored with my game forever more, it's my job to prolong trade-in's for as long as possible by making it fun.

You don't make any money from someone else playing it. Say someone completes it then sells it, someone else buys it and gets to play it. You haven't gained any money, surely you've lost a sale?

G) I believe that the traditional concept of copyright is outdated, and creators should move on to find other sources of income.

I'm not a moral relativist, I believe that piracy is right and copyright is wrong.
I don't care if I hurt the industry, because I want to see it destroyed.

What sources of income are these, and if you hate games so much, why would you pirate them in the first place?

He doesn't hate games, he hates copyright. You might think copyright should exist, but he doesn't.

 

[DuX1112]

The truth is, piracy DOESN'T HURT big business. If it did, we'd have seen EA and Ubi go down the drain a looong, long time ago.

It may hurt small indie publishers, but then again, everyone should be both self-aware and aware of the general sentiment toward games, and not pump product prices.

The idea that John Funk suggested is a pure win. (The $8 budget video game). At least it would be here, in Macedonia (where I'm from). ANYONE would buy games if the pricing was appropriate! Just last week, a stroke of luck: I ran into a newspaper store and was pleasantly surprised when I saw original, budget versions of videogames, but priced 200 denars (~$5). Heck, the games are old, not blockbusters, but I felt like I wanted to buy the whole store!

Ultimately, I purchased Hearts of Iron 2 and Darkstar One (isn't that a surprise, eh?), for a total of 400 denars (= $10!). I was so happy that I bought Darkstar One for my friend and gave it to her, since I have already pirated (i.e. downloaded it when someone SHARED IT on the net via torrent). Boy she was beaming she got an original copy of a game! (Yes, people here just rarely, rarely buy an original copy. Even if they're rich, they don't buy any, because for the price of a single game, one can buy decent shoes, can spend a whole weekend having a trip out of town, eating, drinking and partying, etc. We just can't afford it.)

Also, I caught a glimpse of a Fallout Collector's Edition in the store. $5, and I get Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics, etc. I don't get F3, but heck, I've already 'acquired' that one. Didn't finish it. And I'd personally punch myself in my face if I ever paid all that money for all the games I "acquired" and didn't finish later because I didn't like them. My condolences for all the people who DID pay and felt cheated by the companies' marketing strategy.

Anyways, back to the topic, my message is: provide CHEAPER versions of games. Please. That's the only remedy against piracy. Sure, maybe the pirates would sell them even cheaper, but a pirated copy doesn't grant you online access, registration, bonuses... whereas an original title, albeit a cheap, stripped down, budget - WILL. And people will gladly pay an extra dollar to have all that advantage!

Also, they can region-code them, to prevent people smuggling cheaper versions to richer countries. Or, they can scale their offers: 1) $10 - just the disc; 2) $20 - the disc in a box, + manual; 3) $50 - the disc, a luxury box, a larger manual and some paraphernalia. And everyone can choose which version he/she wants and can afford. Plus, language localization would go a long way to deter smuggling localized games to third countries.

If big game publishers and developers would sell their products at appropriate prices in mycountry - they'll get RICH, famous and successful. BUT, since they're not doing anything to please our market, they get NOTHING. And people play their games, nonetheless. And will continue to do so. Without the publishers getting a cent. And I like the fact how their arrogance costs them money. Serves them right.

And it's not stealing, stop being ignorant. It's more like sharing a COPY you made of something, and giving it to your friends, family, neighborhood, city, country, world - for free. And my guess is that it's doing the game industry much more good, than bad (we actually market their games on their new, unconquered markets. And we take the advantage of having their products free of charge for granted. We'll gladly pay back any game's worth (half a monthly salary) if they bought us the games we market for them in the first place, hehe.)

Western World: play by your rules, buy your games (you can afford them), have fun, and carry on. We'll pay what we can afford (which is much less than you can). Or we won't but we'll still have fun. We have our own reality, and our own rules and laws. Be polite and respectful, refrain from imposing foreign rules to us.

Now let us all forget this and have fun, shall we?

 

[matrix guardian]

I was a college student once too. Even now, my disposable income is pretty limited. We all have to make sacrifices. Rent games? Buy bargain-bin games? Borrow them from friends?

Why do you get to have things for free? You don't. You either save up for them, find another way, or go without. You aren't entitled to get something for free just because you want to.

Can't rent PC games, as far as I know (I don't own any consoles). Sometimes I do borrow things from friends, though I'm sure game producers don't like that much more than piracy. Me pirating a game vs. me borrowing a game basically amounted to the same thing: the developer not getting any money unless I was impressed enough with the "trial" to buy it myself. I don't know why you find one so unethical and the other so just.

You're right in that I'm not entitled to anything. But that wasn't the point. I wasn't saying I deserved those games, I was saying that realistically, as a busy and poor student, the only way I could keep up with games and get interested enough to buy them was downloading them first. I did not find it unethical at the time, and I still don't. You don't have to worry about me pirating things anymore; I haven't done it for at least 6 months. But at the same time, I also haven't purchased a game or payed a monthly fee in that time. In the eyes of some content owners, and people like you, what I'm doing now is more ethical and better for the industry than what I was doing before.

Yes, it is more ethical. People have the right to not buy something, as they have for the whole of human civilization. If you don't want to give someone your money, you don't have to (or if you can't).

But that doesn't mean you get their half of the economic transaction anyway.

And the difference between lending and pirating is that with lending, your friend is not playing the game. He just temporarily transferred ownership to you. Until you transfer it back, he can't play it. That makes all the difference in the world.

(I'm not advocating piracy or not, but just raising qustions and ideas)
I am becoming more aware of a distinction of two separate ideas involved in this line of argueing. There is the argument about someone playing the game without paying the developer, and the developer losing out on money that they worked for that they might have gotten, and then going out of business because their games don't earn them money. I agree that developers need to be compensated in some way in order for them to make a living by making the games we enjoy. But I noticed that there seems to be something deeper lurking within that argument. A sentement that a lot of people seem to have. "Why do you get to have things for free? You don't!" People tend to have a very strong aversion to other people getting something for free, especially if its something that they themselves have paid for. There are two distinct concepts at work here.
1) I worked to make something and I didn't get paid for the work I did
2) Someone got the benefit of something without paying/working for it.
I often see these two ideas lumped together into one argument, but they are two distinct deparate ideas and deserve separate arguments.
1) says "I didn't get what I deserve". Where
2) says "They got something they didn't deserve".
And people often seem to feel like a personal injustice has been done to them when 2) happens, even though it has no direct impact on them. Even if there are no real consequences to whether 2) happens or not, just knowing that 2) happened is enough to make some people feel like they have been wronged. I see people argue 1) and upon further discussion, what they really mean is 2), but they don't say it that way. The main example I think of for this is in other poorer countries and regions where there is no viable market for video games, either because they just aren't even sold to that region legitmately, and/or games would cost the relative equivalent of my rent. In those types of situations, 1) doesn't really hold up that well because the publishers were never going to make any sales in that region any way, regardless of piracy or no piracy. So then what they really mean is 2) "Poor people can't afford/don't have access to legal games (and yet can get access to pirated games with relatively little effort), then too bad! They don't deserve games." Why should they be denied the enjoyment of the games purely on the argument that they are poor, so therefore don't deserve them? Usually poor people are denied other expensive forms of enjoyment because it is costly to acquire/produce/obtain those forms of enjoyment, so they simply just don't have the resources and means to. But that isn't the case with digital media. I find it interesting that 2) doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction when it is applied to situations like borrowing. Just like with pirating, borrowing provides the benefit of a product to someone who did not pay anything for it (no money goes to the developer). Growing up, my friend and I would borrow and swap each other's games all the time. Was this wrong? Is it pirating? 2) still applies to the situation, but people tend to be ok with it? And not just for a "trial" test either. I would borrow game A from him and he would borrow game B from me and we would play the game all the way through to the end, completing the game in its entirety, with no need to ever play it again and therefor no desire to purchase it later (except for multiplayer and nostalgia). So in effect, between the two of us we each had played both games A & B with each of us only buying one game. If every gamer did the same thing, only buying half the number of games they play, and just swaping with a friend who has the other games they want to play, then that would cut the publishers profits in half. Not to mention if you did this with more than one friend. So why is it not wrong to lend a game to a friend? Or even give a game to a friend as a gift? 2) would still apply for giving games away. And just think of your public library. People reading all those books without paying for any of them. And nowadays you can check out CD's and DVD's at the library. So it's specifically dealing in digital media, letting people enjoy it without paying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think that 2) is a good reason, "that its wrong for people to get somthing for free." I think it really just stems from the jealousy that I didn't get it for free (so why should they?/so they shouldn't). It's more of an emotional response than a logistical issue.

 

[Neosage]

Do you think that pirating a game no-longer in production is just as bad?

Because there is no profit to be had for the original company, so what is the harm? Or do you disagree with it, because someone is getting something for free?

 

[Chipperz]

What sources of income are these, and if you hate games so much, why would you pirate them in the first place?

Hardware peripherals sold for profit, in-game advertisements, online server fees, game development supported from other company segments (e.g. first party for console), etc, etc.

The possibilities are endless, and almost anything would be better than asking money for copying data, while the Internet can do it for completely free.

For films, there is cinema (and TV with ads), for music there are concerts, all of these ask money for something more than the data itself, and pirates are those who admittedly don't need the real, superior product, but content with the raw data.
The game industry becomes the last medium that can't seem to find such an income, and still relies on "But you WILL pay for the raw data, that could be copied for free, dammit!"

I don't hate gaming, I hate the game industry. I believe losing the high production values and the blocbuster style publishing, and replacing it with something smaller wouldn't hurt gaming itself.

Your entire argument rests on one depressingly flawed argument - that the world, rules and models that I have devoted my life to somehow don't belong to me. This was all done off the skin of my back, everything financed by me, made by me, and is the culmination of maybe catching fourteen hours of sleep a week for over a year to get more work in. Rest assured, copyright exists because everything I have worked for is mine, the raw data isn't just data, it is the result of my blood, sweat and tears.

I can't physically go on like this any more, and I'm taking it to a production company to finance it, because being an indie games developer is really, really hard if you have no money. According to your own deluded bullshit, everything I have worked for is now fair game becuase it's got "high production values" and "blockbuster style publishing", when in fact it's a labour of love and is a creation I am eminently proud of.

If you decide that is worth nothing to you, but somehow that you still feel that you can use it for yourself, then you are beyond any kind of help. That said, please don't confuse your insipid self-delusional ramblings with an actual attempt at counter-culture rebellious impulse - you're just scum that can't own up to what you are.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, hardware peripherals cost an utter bomb unless they're cheap plastic crap, in-game adverts cause a massive player backlash even if they're completely ignorable, online server fees shouldn't happen, single-platform games only serve to continue the console wars and, more importantly, mean that less people get to play my game... All your ideas run into one massive problem - from a designer's perspective, they're fucking stupid counterproductive.

That said, they can always trade it in. Honestly, as a gamer and a games designer, I have no issue with trade-ins because I would rather someone was playing my game (and hell, there's always more DLC) than having it take up space in their collections - while I can't fight human nature and stop people getting bored with my game forever more, it's my job to prolong trade-in's for as long as possible by making it fun.

You don't make any money from someone else playing it. Say someone completes it then sells it, someone else buys it and gets to play it. You haven't gained any money, surely you've lost a sale?

I'm just going to focus on this bit (the rest of your post can be summed up by the point that just because someone "doesn't pirate" doesn't mean they "don't buy"). I'm making a massive leap of faith here, but I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that if you're going to steal a game, you're going to steal any DLC that comes with it, whereas if you buy a second-hand game and like it, you're going to buy the DLC. The entire plan I have for my game involves DLC - utterly optional for the most part, but that adds in cool little missions and vanity items that don't affect the main game too much. The idea is simple for an honest player - if you like a game and support it, it keeps going for longer, and I want to reward that mentality with more items and little vanity tools.

It's rewarding the mindset that pays money to help, not punishing those who won't that is key.

 

[DuX1112]

(I'm not advocating piracy or not, but just raising qustions and ideas)
I am becoming more aware of a distinction of two separate ideas involved in this line of argueing. There is the argument about someone playing the game without paying the developer, and the developer losing out on money that they worked for that they might have gotten, and then going out of business because their games don't earn them money. I agree that developers need to be compensated in some way in order for them to make a living by making the games we enjoy. But I noticed that there seems to be something deeper lurking within that argument. A sentement that a lot of people seem to have. "Why do you get to have things for free? You don't!" People tend to have a very strong aversion to other people getting something for free, especially if its something that they themselves have paid for. There are two distinct concepts at work here.
1) I worked to make something and I didn't get paid for the work I did
2) Someone got the benefit of something without paying/working for it.
I often see these two ideas lumped together into one argument, but they are two distinct deparate ideas and deserve separate arguments.
1) says "I didn't get what I deserve". Where
2) says "They got something they didn't deserve".
And people often seem to feel like a personal injustice has been done to them when 2) happens, even though it has no direct impact on them. Even if there are no real consequences to whether 2) happens or not, just knowing that 2) happened is enough to make some people feel like they have been wronged. I see people argue 1) and upon further discussion, what they really mean is 2), but they don't say it that way. The main example I think of for this is in other poorer countries and regions where there is no viable market for video games, either because they just aren't even sold to that region legitmately, and/or games would cost the relative equivalent of my rent. In those types of situations, 1) doesn't really hold up that well because the publishers were never going to make any sales in that region any way, regardless of piracy or no piracy. So then what they really mean is 2) "Poor people can't afford/don't have access to legal games (and yet can get access to pirated games with relatively little effort), then too bad! They don't deserve games." Why should they be denied the enjoyment of the games purely on the argument that they are poor, so therefore don't deserve them? Usually poor people are denied other expensive forms of enjoyment because it is costly to acquire/produce/obtain those forms of enjoyment, so they simply just don't have the resources and means to. But that isn't the case with digital media. I find it interesting that 2) doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction when it is applied to situations like borrowing. Just like with pirating, borrowing provides the benefit of a product to someone who did not pay anything for it (no money goes to the developer). Growing up, my friend and I would borrow and swap each other's games all the time. Was this wrong? Is it pirating? 2) still applies to the situation, but people tend to be ok with it? And not just for a "trial" test either. I would borrow game A from him and he would borrow game B from me and we would play the game all the way through to the end, completing the game in its entirety, with no need to ever play it again and therefor no desire to purchase it later (except for multiplayer and nostalgia). So in effect, between the two of us we each had played both games A & B with each of us only buying one game. If every gamer did the same thing, only buying half the number of games they play, and just swaping with a friend who has the other games they want to play, then that would cut the publishers profits in half. Not to mention if you did this with more than one friend. So why is it not wrong to lend a game to a friend? Or even give a game to a friend as a gift? 2) would still apply for giving games away. And just think of your public library. People reading all those books without paying for any of them. And nowadays you can check out CD's and DVD's at the library. So it's specifically dealing in digital media, letting people enjoy it without paying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think that 2) is a good reason, "that its wrong for people to get somthing for free." I think it really just stems from the jealousy that I didn't get it for free (so why should they?/so they shouldn't). It's more of an emotional response than a logistical issue.

Awesome insight. Also, check my post above, it illustrates some of the ideas you mentioned.

Again, good job! Thanks for getting into the real motives of things!

 

[John Funk]

A) I steal because I deserve this yet I can't afford it.
B) I commit a victimless crime, the copies are endless and I don't sell it.
C) I steal because I would have never have purchased the product anyway.
D) I steal with the intent to judge the product's worth and if I find it acceptable I will pay full value.
E) I steal to prove a point, I steal to hurt large companies with policies I find unacceptable.

F) I steal because I don't a damn about other people and their morals. ie, if I could steal a car and get away with it, I would.

I think a lot of people are F. If I didn't like arguing then I'd go with F, but it's boring.

C doesn't have a victim. B does if he would have bought it without the option to pirate.

In the end all pirates must fall on the fight that they hurt no one.

No they don't.

There would just be no games

Do you know how many free games there are?

No games are actually 100% free. They're all monetized in different ways (unless you're referring to say, student games that people put out to get their work out there). Refer to last week's column, please

 

[John Funk]

View from the Road: When I Was a Pirate

There?s an entirely different side to piracy that most of us never think about.

Read Full Article

I have an eerie feeling of deja-vu about this whole article. In fact, I'm more or less 100% sure I've already read somewhere at least the first paragraph of the story, about your "pirate adventure" in China, to put it in a silly way. Is that the first time you've spoken about this story on the escapist or anywhere else on the internet, Mr. Funk? My search-fu isn't strong enough to find this out myself..

I'm almost sure I've mentioned it beforehand, because it's an experience that stuck with me. I just decided to turn it into an actual article this time.

 

[DuX1112]

Your entire argument rests on one depressingly flawed argument - that the world, rules and models that I have devoted my life to somehow don't belong to me. This was all done off the skin of my back, everything financed by me, made by me, and is the culmination of maybe catching fourteen hours of sleep a week for over a year to get more work in. Rest assured, copyright exists because everything I have worked for is mine, the raw data isn't just data, it is the result of my blood, sweat and tears.

I can't physically go on like this any more, and I'm taking it to a production company to finance it, because being an indie games developer is really, really hard if you have no money. According to your own deluded bullshit, everything I have worked for is now fair game becuase it's got "high production values" and "blockbuster style publishing", when in fact it's a labour of love and is a creation I am eminently proud of.

If you decide that is worth nothing to you, but somehow that you still feel that you can use it for yourself, then you are beyond any kind of help. That said, please don't confuse your insipid self-delusional ramblings with an actual attempt at counter-culture rebellious impulse - you're just scum that can't own up to what you are.

Mate, don't get me wrong but, what is it that you exactly want from working in the game industry? Become the new Rockefeller? No one denied that the game you made was YOUR product, that YOU had a share in creating it, but - just how much is enough? Don't go all victim on us now. Everything can get stolen - e v e r y t h i n g. It's a fact of life, just do your job and get over it.

I'd say, if your name rolls out in the credits, and if your studio gets its commercial upon starting up the game, and if you're getting a decent salary from making the game - then great. You got it all. But don't go all greedy on us, okay? It was your choice you didn't sleep, didn't eat, and invested in creation. However, if you did all that just so you can make big bucks of it, and if your salary, name, and worldwide attribution aren't enough for you... Then sorry. I'm really at a loss as to what more could a game developer want. A yacht, maybe?

And chill. Whoever you are, someone will like and quite possibly love your game. And quite possibly, you'll still get enough money to go around (advertisements, deals, whatnot).

If you make a great, original game, play the market wisely, and sell it cheaply - people will buy it.

And invest in some protection in it. Nor DRM, but a simple online registration or a serial number would do it. So as to deter simple copying.

 

[ShadowKatt]

I really hate to get into discussions like this, because after reading all three pages before this, I come to the same conclusions that I come up with in every agrument: This is just one big digital pissing match because no one is actually going to change their mind in this debate, so it's largely pointless. That aside, this is what I have to say.

When I think of pirates, the video games industry is not what comes to mind. You like to think of these people that crack games as pirates, but they're not. They're hackers, you know, that thing that everyone thought was just absolutely awesome and cool but fell by the wayside when the hackers went white hat and started working security for large corperations? Pirates are those guys off the coast of venezuala that drive speed boats with mounted .50 calibur, belt fed machine guns. The guys that board ships, ransom the crew, and steal the shipment(I almost wrote "slaughter the crew", but then I remembered they ransom them before they kill them). If you're going to compare software theft to these guys, I think you're in serious need of re-evaluating just how much of a problem software theft is.

Now, before all you ladies get your panties in a twist, let me say that I believe that "software theft" is wrong. I've learned how to tie my shoes and count to ten, and I understand the difference between right and wrong. That being said though, I am a thief, and I don't mean just software. Just because I don't do it anymore doesn't change what I am or what I've done, but software, petty, burglery, I've done a lot. And I've stopped just because I wanted to do what was right for a change. That was some ten odd years ago, but I will still identify myself as a thief. And one thing I have to say is this:

Software Theft is NOT about some misguided sense of Entitlement.

I can't express in text the feelings that welled up inside of me every time someone threw that out there. I think that is just absolute idiocy the part of the accuser. If someone actually thinks they're entitled to a game, then you have a bigger problem than theft, you have a child that wasn't raised properly in the first place. Software theft comes down to getting something in the only way you have left. Most people, if they have the money to blow on an item, WILL buy it, because they want it, because they can, and because buying it negates all those pesky little things like conscience and, I dunno, jail time. People that pirate don't have the disposable income to buy it in the first place(and look there, I said pirate again, we really need to change this wording) because they can't. At least not immediately and that gets into a whole different discussion altogether, this nations and every other devoloped nations fixation on instant gratification. Another topic for another discussion another time.

I went legit mostly due to the fact that I was old enough to get a job, I had the money, I didn't have to steal anymore, and I liked the feeling of having something legitimately. There will always be those out there that will steal just to see if they can. Some of the greatest thrills in my life were breaking through security alarms and the like. There will also be those that will steal just because they're too lazy to get a job. The lazy ones normally get caught eventually anyway, just because they're stupid.

I didn't come here to argue whether software theft is right or wrong, but mostly just to say that right, wrong, or indifferent, if you want to argue it, then first you need to identify it for what it is. It's theft, pure and simple. Piracy is a whole 'nother can of worms that you really don't want to get into. Most fights against real piracy end with a bullet, and last I checked, most software nerds don't even own a gun.

(Hmm, just came to add my two cents, seems to have come to about a dime and three pennys. Take that to the bank.)

 

[Chipperz]

*snip*

Go through the last few pages and read the replies - it's a lot of "faceless corporations don't need my money", "copyright means that, somehow, the creator thinks they own the things they made!" and "it's data, it's free anyway!".

All of these arguments essentially boil down to the idea that the time and energy spent making a game are worthless - the final product has no physical structure and can be copied at will, so everything that the designers, artists, animators, composers, writers, modellers and even the PR and marketting guys did for several years is worthless to these people. I don't care about the money, it's the utter lack of empathy and respect that pirates have that gets to me.

Also, I'm currently still under the banner of "indie". I don't get a salary making my games, beyond what I get temping in offices and working in supermarkets. It's not as if just being indie (therefore not being a big, evil, faceless corporation) get a free defence against pirates - in fact, they're hurt more by them (just look at stuff like World of Goo and the Humble Indie Bundle). Again, pirating a game is telling the people that worked on it that their time was worthless, which is disgusting.

 

[VanBasten]

If you make a great, original game, play the market wisely, and sell it cheaply - people will buy it.

Yeah, I'm sure nobody thought of that before...

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

 

[RMcD94]

A) I steal because I deserve this yet I can't afford it.
B) I commit a victimless crime, the copies are endless and I don't sell it.
C) I steal because I would have never have purchased the product anyway.
D) I steal with the intent to judge the product's worth and if I find it acceptable I will pay full value.
E) I steal to prove a point, I steal to hurt large companies with policies I find unacceptable.

F) I steal because I don't a damn about other people and their morals. ie, if I could steal a car and get away with it, I would.

I think a lot of people are F. If I didn't like arguing then I'd go with F, but it's boring.

C doesn't have a victim. B does if he would have bought it without the option to pirate.

In the end all pirates must fall on the fight that they hurt no one.

No they don't.

There would just be no games

Do you know how many free games there are?

No games are actually 100% free. They're all monetized in different ways (unless you're referring to say, student games that people put out to get their work out there). Refer to last week's column, please

If you don't have to pay money to play them then they are free. The developer might make money out of advertisements or whatever. www.freeonlinegames.com