What can Developers & Publishers do to combat Piracy?

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

 

[Dismal purple]

Might have been said already but:

You don't. You simply have to live with the fact that some people will be able to get your product for free. Just like writers have been doing since libraries and music since cassettes.

 

[Epona]

Steal from children?

How are you stealing from children by pirating games you wouldn't have bought anyway. If you choose to not pirate and not buy, the children still get nothing so I guess that is also stealing from children.

Because you're taking a product without paying for it that's not being offered for free. That's stealing. In this case, as the proceeds go to sick children, you are effectively stealing from them. There are instances where I'm okay with piracy, to be perfectly honest, but when it would cost you virtually nothing and whatever you would be spending goes to charity, there is no excuse.

No, the "children" never lost a sale. That kind of logic fails every time it is brought up.

If a person refuses to give their credit card info to Steam, then the children aren't going to get any money from them whether they pirate the game or not. Your appeal to emotion fails and your lost sales logic fails.

I don't care if they don't buy it or not, that's their business. They're taking a package put together with the express purpose of raising money for charity and stealing it-and let's be clear here, piracy *is* stealing, you are taking something that you haven't paid for and was not offered to you for free by someone legally authorized to do so, which, again, I don't care about most of the time. As far as I'm concerned, there is no excuse to do that. If you don't want to give your information to Steam, you don't get to play the fucking game.

You can't steal something the "children" never had in the first place.

 

[lord.jeff]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

 

[John Farrell]

Lower prices and increase availability. Some shit I like is very hard to find (or Japan-exclusive i.e. Shin Megami Tensei 2 or Super Robot Wars). Same goes for anime. We anime geeks are expected to fork over way more for what we acquire and more often than not most shops only have recently released shit. For example, The zeta gundam movies set me back $130 for 3 dvds with no special content or exclusive stuff like posters or t-shirts. Don't get me wrong, the story was good, but it still felt like a ripoff. A complete set of all evangelion episodes costs roughly the same and is about 3 times longer. Then they wonder why there are so many fansubs.

I'm still looking for Mazinkaiser SKL.

 

[Lord Fedora]

Steal from children?

How are you stealing from children by pirating games you wouldn't have bought anyway. If you choose to not pirate and not buy, the children still get nothing so I guess that is also stealing from children.

Because you're taking a product without paying for it that's not being offered for free. That's stealing. In this case, as the proceeds go to sick children, you are effectively stealing from them. There are instances where I'm okay with piracy, to be perfectly honest, but when it would cost you virtually nothing and whatever you would be spending goes to charity, there is no excuse.

No, the "children" never lost a sale. That kind of logic fails every time it is brought up.

If a person refuses to give their credit card info to Steam, then the children aren't going to get any money from them whether they pirate the game or not. Your appeal to emotion fails and your lost sales logic fails.

I don't care if they don't buy it or not, that's their business. They're taking a package put together with the express purpose of raising money for charity and stealing it-and let's be clear here, piracy *is* stealing, you are taking something that you haven't paid for and was not offered to you for free by someone legally authorized to do so, which, again, I don't care about most of the time. As far as I'm concerned, there is no excuse to do that. If you don't want to give your information to Steam, you don't get to play the fucking game.

You can't steal something the "children" never had in the first place.

Fine, I'll rephrase myself. New official wording: you are stealing something that, had you paid literally any amount of money for it, would have gone towards Christmas presents for sick children, all because you didn't want to put your credit card information on the internet, which is a perfectly fair position, but while doing the above is, from a practical sense perfectly fine and hurts no one, is still a dick move on par with kicking a puppy.

 

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

'Cause it isn't as though video games cost millions of dollars and year(s) to produce and they have to recoup those losses somehow.

 

[Purkki]

My solution, which has been proven to work: Don't include a DRM. While this is not a way to fight against piracy, having a DRM or not really doesn't change the piratism rates. The game devs save lots of money this way.

 

[niceguy191]

1. Remove ALL DRM. All of it. Every last ounce or tiny trace of it. It drives me absolutely wild that the pirated versions are BETTER than the legitimate ones for this reason. Why wouldn't you pirate if the product is better in every way? (Cheaper AND no DRM! Sweet!)

2. Lower prices. Hell, with the money you just saved from not having to develop/maintain DRM I'm sure that you could afford it.

3. ?????

4. Profit!!

 

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

'Cause it isn't as though video games cost millions of dollars to produce and they have to recoup those losses somehow.

You know how movie studios give out Digital Copies when you buy a DVD? You know why they do that right?

Well, in case you don't, it isn't because they want to give you more for your money. It's because they know you can easily make you own copy and from knowing how to do that, you can make an infinite number of copies if you choose. They want to discourage that by giving you a single digital copy.

You see, they know that data can be copied infinitely and for a whole lot cheaper than they are charging and they know that sooner or later everyone will catch on to that. They know that at some point you are going to NEED to make a copy of The Lion King because your kid isn't careful with the real DVD. They know you are going to make your own copy, if you have to so they provide the digital copy to deter you.

 

[lord.jeff]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

 

[Don Reba]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

If the tomato is good, I might pay you $2 to keep growing them. Personally, I donated around $100 to the Vim text editor's charity and some amounts to most of the free software I use on regular basis. One time, I torrented a game made by a small developer and sent him $50 - he said "thanks".

Actually, the public funding idea is not revolutionary. Canada already heavily subsidises the arts. Quebec in particular gives out big tax breaks to game developers.

 

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

Skyrim is $60 retail and $60 on Steam. Steam has great sales but the MSRP of a game is the same and that was my point.

 

[lord.jeff]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

Skyrim is $60 retail and $60 on Steam. Steam has great sales but the MSRP of a game is the same and that was my point.

Whats your point? That your to cheap to pay the MSRP, or that your for some reason your unable to look at the indie alternatives. How about this if you can give me a legitimate way to pay for man hours and equipment, don't forget steam, gamestop, and truckers also have to get payed as well, at cost then I'll take your side of your argument seriously.

 

[nyysjan]

1. lower the price (60 to 70? for a game the you can play through over a weekend? not good),
2. increase quality (in gameplay, writing and quality assurance, might seem counter intuitive with the previous point, but bad games won't sell, and might lower the sales of future games)
3. remove DRM (it only encourages people to not buy your game)
4. better box content (we sued to get a ton of stuff in the old days when we bought a game, maps, instruction booklets, miniatures, cheap stuff that would maybe cost a couple ?'s to make, but would definetly give people an extra reason to buy the game instead of download it.

5. And most of all, better PR, seriously, if people hate your guts, they don't want to give you money.

 

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

Skyrim is $60 retail and $60 on Steam. Steam has great sales but the MSRP of a game is the same and that was my point.

Whats your point? That your to cheap to pay the MSRP, or that your for some reason your unable to look at the indie alternatives. How about this if you can give me a legitimate way to pay for man hours and equipment, don't forget steam, gamestop, and truckers also have to get payed as well, at cost then I'll take your side of your argument seriously.

My point is that publishers price retail copies and digital copies the same because they say the real value is in the data, not the disc or the packaging. That Steam costs the same as a retail copy (aside from sales) just backs up that point.

So the question becomes, if that data can be so easily duplicated, what makes it worth $60? That is what publishers are fighting in my opinion because they don't have the $60 answer. It's like selling bottled water, you can get it for free and most people do but there are millions made from people who prefer to buy it. Sooner or later everyone will realize what a rip off it is to pay for that which can be obtained for free.

 

[lord.jeff]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

Skyrim is $60 retail and $60 on Steam. Steam has great sales but the MSRP of a game is the same and that was my point.

Whats your point? That your to cheap to pay the MSRP, or that your for some reason your unable to look at the indie alternatives. How about this if you can give me a legitimate way to pay for man hours and equipment, don't forget steam, gamestop, and truckers also have to get payed as well, at cost then I'll take your side of your argument seriously.

My point is that publishers price retail copies and digital copies the same because they say the real value is in the data, not the disc or the packaging. That Steam costs the same as a retail copy (aside from sales) just backs up that point.

So the question becomes, if that data can be so easily duplicated, what makes it worth $60? That is what publishers are fighting in my opinion because they don't have the $60 answer. It's like selling bottled water, you can get it for free and most people do but there are millions made from people who prefer to buy it. Sooner or later everyone will realize what a rip off it is to pay for that which can be obtained for free.

Your first paragraph had it right it is the data that your paying for or the creation of that data. It doesn't matter if that data can be duplicated you still need to pay for it's creation, so I'll ask you again; how do you pay for hundred of man hours and equipment with a free product?

 

[Denariax]

Make games worth buying and stop worrying about some kids with uTorrent on their side. Christ.

 

[Epona]

Why would we want to combat file sharing? Copying files costs next to nothing and benefits the society as a whole ? we should embrace it. If we can agree that games benefit the society as a whole, like science does, then we should finance it like science, using public funding and peer review. The system has been tested by centuries and we know it works.

It's a funny game we play. It costs nothing to copy something which publishers believe has a value of $60 and yet we accept it and pay what they ask. If I offered to sell you a tomato for $1 and you could easily walk a few feet and get your own for free, would you pay me $1?

I would assuming your the one who grow the tomato or you're giving money to the farmer because that dollar goes to pay for the water, land, fertilizer, equipment, and time the farmer put in to get you that tomato. Same can be said for games sure distribution costs very little by a team of animators, voice actors, programers, writers, an office to put them all in and computers for them all to use, do cost money.

Really, you aren't much of a consumer are you? Do you think about manufacturing and distribution costs when you buy something on sale or clearance?

The role of the consumer is to get the best deal so ask yourself, is that DVD with Skyrim on it and the plastic case really worth $60? We are told that the real product isn't the disc at all, it's the data and that's why it costs the same to buy it from Steam. Well, data can be duplicated an infinite number of times for next to nothing. You pay for the electricity and the media that you will copy it to but that's pennies. So is it really worth $60?

I understand that we have to buy games else there will be no more but it is true that anything that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for pennies is truly worth more than that.

There's a difference between being a smart consumer and being a thief.

Of course there is but if you could duplicate couches for next to nothing and infinitely, wouldn't that have an effect on the value of couches?

What I am saying is that software is a product that has no value except that which publishers put on it and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of that. Look at how Napster changed the way we buy music. CD's were no longer worth $20 when you could copy and distribute them for free.

And steam is providing us with a cheaper alternative right now, games are commonly going on there for less then $20 and I think that's a pretty fair price for most games.

Skyrim is $60 retail and $60 on Steam. Steam has great sales but the MSRP of a game is the same and that was my point.

Whats your point? That your to cheap to pay the MSRP, or that your for some reason your unable to look at the indie alternatives. How about this if you can give me a legitimate way to pay for man hours and equipment, don't forget steam, gamestop, and truckers also have to get payed as well, at cost then I'll take your side of your argument seriously.

My point is that publishers price retail copies and digital copies the same because they say the real value is in the data, not the disc or the packaging. That Steam costs the same as a retail copy (aside from sales) just backs up that point.

So the question becomes, if that data can be so easily duplicated, what makes it worth $60? That is what publishers are fighting in my opinion because they don't have the $60 answer. It's like selling bottled water, you can get it for free and most people do but there are millions made from people who prefer to buy it. Sooner or later everyone will realize what a rip off it is to pay for that which can be obtained for free.

Your first paragraph had it right it is the data that your paying for or the creation of that data. It doesn't matter if that data can be duplicated you still need to pay for it's creation, so I'll ask you again; how do you pay for hundred of man hours and equipment with a free product?

I am not paying for the creation of that data, I am paying for the use of the data. People who pay for the creation of the data are publishers. They pay you to make a game. It's semantics really and it doesn't matter because in the end data can be duplicated an infinite number of times and for almost free.

The production cost is irrelevant to price, what people are willing to pay is what matters. You could build a game and lose money or you could make millions off of very little investment (think Minecraft).

What people are willing to pay is somewhat based on rarity. Can I ONLY get the game from you at your price? Well no, because there is no rarity where data is concerned. It can be copied infinite times.

Did you ever stop and think "if we had replicators like they do in Star Trek, wouldn't everything be free"?