Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[el_kabong]

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I would say piracy is the bigger issue. DRM was created to respond to piracy. In other words, if there was no piracy, developers wouldn't use DRM. Eliminating piracy could eliminate both, so it's the biggest issue.

I've also seen a lot of comments saying things to the effect that piracy allows a "try before you buy" situation, and that lots of pirates will buy their favorite releases.

First, I was a little pirate in my youth. Coming from a low to middle-class background, I really didn't have access to any funds to spend in large quantities on any game, music, or book (mostly rpg in nature) that I wanted or was interested in. However, never in my life have I re-purchased content that I've gotten through shady means. No matter how much I loved the particular media item. So, as a whole, I disagree with this logic.

Second, are we forgetting about demos? Almost every game that I've looked at for purchase had a demo available. You can download them from Steam, if you don't like the idea of hunting through different websites or looking for physical CD demos. If you want to try before you buy, get the demo. It's still free, you'll still get an impression of how the game plays, and you won't be breaking any laws.

Lastly, if you want to get a better impression about how a game plays beyond the demo, go out and get some friends. And, nothing against online friends, but these friends should be people that you have actual physical interaction with (ie - live in your area). I have so many friends and acquaintances who are gamers, it's really easy for me to get my hands on a playable version of almost any game that's been released this year. Each of them have their own tastes, which means a broad variety to choose from. I didn't really want to buy Starcraft II, but wanted to see what the hype was about. Good news, my roommate loves the Starcraft franchise, so I played his copy. Before BioShock was moved to the PS3, I wanted to see what it was like. Again, one of my friends invited me over to play it on his system for an afternoon. Of course, this is a two-way street and I've had to reciprocate by having nights where my friends come over to get drunk and play Little Big Planet (for a while I was one of the few PS3 owners in my circle of friends). Using this methodology, not only do you get access to games you may not want to purchase outright, but there's an added side benefit of making friends.

In summation, I don't want to come off as on a high horse about piracy. As I stated above, in my youth I did a bit of it. But, using the avenues I talked about, I've weened myself off of my reliance on pirating media to the point where I haven't done it in a few years. At the end of the day, piracy is stealing. If the manufacturer wanted to give their property away for free, they would provide an avenue for it (the internet's been really good about that for unknown producers to get exposure). Piracy doesn't only hurt the developer and publisher by not giving them the funds in the first place, but hurts gamers in general. The reason is that big losses (theft in this case) lead to the necessity for loss prevention. Both the losses and attempted prevention of them drive the cost of making a product up. You complain about games being too expensive? Pirating is only expanding the problem. The more piracy is allowed to thrive, the less likely we'll be able to see reasonable prices in the retail market for people who want to purchase the game legally. Alternatively, the prices may remain the same, but the funds can be allocated to an aspect of the company that's going to improve the process, resulting in better gaming experiences. I'm not saying that money is needed to make a good game. But, companies with more funds will be more likely to use those funds polishing existing systems and probably will take more chances with ambitious products.

 

[mikespoff]

It's not a useful comparison for a question of "which is worse"?

Piracy causes problems for the game developers, but many versions of DRM don't solve those problems: they just create different problems for the customers.

Rudimentary DRM like online activation (which you can disable so that you can re-install the game on a different computer) or basic disk-checking is understandable: it means that you don't have someone buying the game and then installing it on all his friends' computers as well. But DRM point of Ubisoft (with AC2) or even limited installs (like Mass Effect 1) is just hurting sales and alienating your paying customers.

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

1) You are using Starforce (A DRM company) to make your argument that DRM is needed. LOL. Look up conflict of interest. What next, you're gonna say that since BioWare thinks Dragon Age is a great game, it must be so.

2) You didn't prove that pirates will run out and buy a game if the DRM isn't cracked on day 0 or day 1. What were you trying to prove?

You managed to prove that Starforce (A DRM company) supports DRM. Fantastic!

5 points for you for burning the posters "proof"

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

1) You are using Starforce (A DRM company) to make your argument that DRM is needed. LOL. Look up conflict of interest. What next, you're gonna say that since BioWare thinks Dragon Age is a great game, it must be so.

2) You didn't prove that pirates will run out and buy a game if the DRM isn't cracked on day 0 or day 1. What were you trying to prove?

You managed to prove that Starforce (A DRM company) supports DRM. Fantastic!

do you have the attention span of one sentice? READ THE WHOLE THING (the article i linked all 10 pages) it dose have the figures your looking for


Nintendo says they have had a nearly 50% drop in European DS games after a chip for pirating was made available

so sales drop after a crack is made

If the sales drop when the crack is made available to the public that mean people were buying it because a cracked version was not there(else the sale figures would be the same the day before and after the crack). Thus the longer a crack is not there the higher profits for the company. So DRM works.

 

[direkiller]

5 points for you for burning the posters "proof"

he stated that i used a quote from a DRM company(that was stating the reason for DRM was to stop casual pirates)
and then dint read the rest of it

also welcome to the escapist

 

[Popido]

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

Would be nice if you could point it out though. This guy writes horribly biased text and just keeps on jabbing and jabbing. For example when he compares piracy to "thief breaking into the house", he isnt really trying to make it any easier to understand. And yes he IS biased. Aand he seems to be stating that game downloaded = sale lost.

"StarForce was unpopular" FUCK YEAH IT WAS!! It broke my friends DVD-driver!

But anyway, DRM on release day 0 and 1 sounds good..if you assume that pirates are a group of ungrateful spoiled fanboys. And thats where this statement crashes.

---

Whew. That was a long read. Umm...so, where are the facts that piracy damages gaming industry? He pointed out Demigod, but that game seems to be doing great as far as I can see. Also the problem was that the game was so heavely pirated that servers couldnt stand the player traffic? So it was popular then? If all those pirates had buyed the game how could have that done any difference??

Okay, he keeps pointing out that "Yeah, it's a huge problem. Huge." but yet I dont see any actual facts how it damages and how much it damages gaming industry.

Lets go take a look at google and check if they have less biased stories to tell.
<link=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars>US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus
<link=http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/04/14/study-us-piracy-and-counterfeiting-data-unsubstantiated>Study: U.S. Piracy and Counterfeiting Data is Unsubstantiated
Govt Questions RIAA, MPAA Piracy Figures
Also from the last link:

Government Accountability Office says the "illicit nature" of piracy means there is no real way to quantify actual losses, and that some studies have in fact shown piracy to have a "potential positive economic effect."

In conclusion: DRM is butt raping you. /jk ...RIAA & MPAA are.

---

Nintendo says they have had a nearly 50% drop in European DS games after a chip for pirating was made available.

And Nazis blame jews. Whats your point?

oh ye, Im gonna add this here oki.
The 14 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits Filed by the RIAA and the MPAA. Dead vietnam veteran. Homeless person. Grannies and granpops. Another dead person. Single mother. Oh I see, these are the threatful scum we must erase with all cost..

 

[Alma Mare]

It's amusing how many people are willing to pull up statistics out of the blue. Anyway, here are some amusing thoughts:

Piracy has been around since distributed media appeared. Hasn't stopped the industries from thriving.

DRM fails by design whenever it makes the legitimate product much less desirable than the pirated versions. I can use my own example, being an avid player of Dragon Age and Mass Effect 1 & 2 while my purchased copies are still wrapped in their celophane.

I've seen the phrase "gaming is a privilege, not a right" thrown around a lot. While this may be ultimately true, it's the single most idiotic stance any company hoping to mass-sell a product could take. In their dream world with a computer in every desk they expect them each to have a copy of their games in there. Better to bait the consumer in than snob them out. A product that sells in average for the price of music albuns (which many argue are overpriced themselves) cannot expect to be placed in the easy consumable category. That and sales projections in the millions are bound to clash.

On the same note, as far as entertainment goes video games have BY FAR the worst quality control around. Placing a product in the small luxury price range and delivering so often buggy software (sometimes to the point of being broken) is not a sound marketing strategy.

Last, no one thought of the poor old hardware developers sheer hardware power can't be pirated and for every downloader of new games giving 0$ to the publishers there is a guaranteed sale of a high-end graphics card and processor. They should have at least a say in this debate.

 

[thedeathscythe]

My experience with DRM has actually been more the same, not much of it has bothered me. Here's the thing though; the pirating community has NEVER bothered me.

You know what, that's a good point too. I don't think it has effected me personally at all, either. My view still stands but I completely see yours, though.

Steam is amazing, from having friends to the simplicity of purchasing and playing a game, then getting a new comp and getting all your games back, or gaming on another persons comp. It's very easy and that's the way to do it. Steam acts as the DRM as well, but still doesn't piss you off, it actually enhances the experience.

 

[Crumpet Man]

I would say piracy, but only because the fact that it exists is the primary reason there's DRM in the first place

 

[Irridium]

Both pirates and Publishers are being dicks to the same large degree.

Only difference is that some pirates can only play the game through pirating(when the game isn't sold anymore/in a nation/in a nation where the cost of the game is equal to a month's salary/DRM doesn't let you play the game).

I really can't support either one. Both tend to be complete assholes and refuse to compromise. It just keeps going in a stupid, vicious cycle.

The only time that piracy is not a really stupid idea is when the dev no longer gets money from it. AKA system shock 2, fallout, other greats like that.

Well the people who made Fallout 1+2, Interplay, are still around. So buy Fallout and support them and their upcoming Fallout MMO.

Really? huh. I shall do that as I recently found it on steam.

I suggest using Good Old Games.com

As each game is $6 on there, you get much more for your money(soundtracks, Fallout Bible, manuals, and basically a bunch of nice little extra's), and you don't have to deal with any DRM. Plus you support a site thats bringing old classics into the modern age and updating them to run on current systems. So supporting that site is a good thing.

I'm probably starting to sound like a prick right now, so I'll stop.

Links:

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/fallout
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/fallout_2

 

[Direwolf750]

drm. drm CAUSES more piracy than most incentive to evade cost ever did.

 

[direkiller]

Nintendo says they have had a nearly 50% drop in European DS games after a chip for pirating was made available.

And Nazis blame jews. Whats your point?

it was an example of how after an easy obtainable pirated version is made sales drop for a game
so if a company can delay that as much as possible they increase there profits
so basically DRM's do what there means to do delay piracy

Your articles in order:
1. The money the movie/game/music industry post as a loss is bullshit
2.No way to quantify the amount lost and car parts are being counterfeited
3.do like this "(about counterfeit/piracy)consumers benefited from increased access and lower costs."(NO really i never would have guessed that)
again it talks about $ amount lost cannot be quantified accurately
it also dose not talk about games just music

dint the thing i link also say there figures were bullshit?

i never said he wasn't biast he did(like with fox news)

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Piracy.
Without piracy there is no DRM.

I'm not even sure that would be true, there's a pretty desperate need for control out there, and I'm not entirely sure companies would give all that up even if there wasn't piracy.

If they can make us buy a CD, then a separate digital version because we couldn't rip the CD, they'd not go removing the protection, they'll take the 2nd payment.

I think a simple answer is to supply a digital download code with every CD, DVD, game, and even book. "I've just bought the new Terry Pratchett, but I'm going on holiday and don't want to carry a hardback where it'll be heavy and get damaged, oh look, I can upload it to my phone!" In facts books of all things are probably the least in danger of piracy, as most readers just LOVE having heaving shelves of books that they own.

Also, there's a lot of talk about old games not being available, companies to get off their butts and get them available, and provided you price them right (as in not 6 ancient SNES games for $30 on 360 and PS3), I think most companies would soon see the small investment in making them work on current systems and available for download, repaid over and over.

Stuff like the remakes of Monkey Island have been a success, but us retro gamers don't even demand that, give us the old games with their crappy graphics and 8 bit beepy sound, and we'll throw you a couple of bucks for making them available.

If not Steam, there's GOG (who demand no DRM in their products, yay), and many other options.

Just for heaven's sake, take our money and let us play the game, don't make us jump thru hoops with registration and online activation, you're just throwing thousands of dollars to combat spectres and spirits.

 

[Timmibal]

*snip*

No, you aren't. No, you don't. No, you haven't.

Remember the backlash over the indian company who allegedly DDOSed sites hosting material which couldn't/wouldn't be pulled by DMCA claims? Any AV company pulled what you claim, they would be buried so deep in litigation you'd need industrial machinery to dig through all the summonses.

Please in future limit "Big man on campus" claims to shit which is not instantaneously disprovable.

[HEADING=1]'Piracy' (Filesharing) =/= stealing[/HEADING]

[HEADING=1] 1 download =/= 1 lost sale[/HEADING]


It has never equeled stealing. nothing is taken, data is only copied without permission. It isn't even dealt with in criminal court, it's not really an 'offence' it is just between you and the copyright holder. If my freind copies and pastes an album he wants to see if he likes off my PC then i have not lost anything. No one has. Data has just been copied and a person now has something they would not have tried in the first place.

Doesn't matter how many times you outline it, seems some people just can't get the concept of digital data through their "How can u taek mi apple wivout me losing one LOL INTELLECTEWAL CHECKMATE LOL!" brains.

Piracy only affects sales of digital media when it is fallaciously assumed that a download equals a lost sale. Statistics consistantly prove that 'pirates' purchase more products than people who do not. This is no longer a matter of conjecture. DRM is invasive and has done more to destroy the PC as a viable gaming medium than every pirate since the beginning of time.

You know what? I'm inventing a new internet rule. I'm going to call it the "Digital Fruit" fallacy. In this, any argument which is based on the assumption that a digital download equals a lost sale is immediately rendered void.

 

[Gindil]

Doesn't matter how many times you outline it, seems some people just can't get the concept of digital data through their "How can u taek mi apple wivout me losing one LOL INTELLECTEWAL CHECKMATE LOL!" brains.

Piracy only affects sales of digital media when it is fallaciously assumed that a download equals a lost sale. Statistics consistantly prove that 'pirates' purchase more products than people who do not. This is no longer a matter of conjecture. DRM is invasive and has done more to destroy the PC as a viable gaming medium than every pirate since the beginning of time.

You know what? I'm inventing a new internet rule. I'm going to call it the "Digital Fruit" fallacy. In this, any argument which is based on the assumption that a digital download equals a lost sale is immediately rendered void.

Not really going against what you said (a agree full heartedly.) but I doubt the PC is destroyed. It's just changed to a place where Steam continues to dominate the landscape and GoG has come up.

But I support this Digital Fruit fallacy. Perhaps it could be called Digital Grapes after the Aesop?

 

[Timmibal]

Not really going against what you said (a agree full heartedly.) but I doubt the PC is destroyed. It's just changed to a place where Steam continues to dominate the landscape and GoG has come up.

I didn't mean to suggest that the PC WAS destroyed as a gaming platform, only that it has been wounded, and DRM has more blood on its hands than piracy. Even with Steam and GoG battling on for the PC gamer, it seems that less and less developers are even bothering with a timely PC release of AAA titles.

But I support this Digital Fruit fallacy. Perhaps it could be called Digital Grapes after the Aesop?

Me likey!

 

[Delusibeta]

i never said he wasn't biast biased he did(like with fox news)

Fixed it for you. I roll my eyes at every time that Tweak article is linked, since, frankly, he's hung up on the "Downloads are high, thus inevitably lost sales are high" theory with zero proof to back it up other than download numbers which are a) unreliable and b) not proof of lost sales.

 

[mew1234321]

I'd have to say that they're both at fault.

Piracy does debilitate the industry, but isn't to the extent many think. Many who pirate games, probably due so because either a) They do not have the disposable income to buy a AUD $120 game, or b) That game is unavailable in whatever region they're trying to get it from, whether due to age, or censorship, the point being, that they wouldn't buy the game anyway. But, when the people from group a) come into some money, they are likely to spend it on the legal purchase of a game, due to the difficult, and morally bankrupt nature of piracy, and be happy such a purchase, knowing the good games from the bad, and then will continue to do so. As opposed to someone who just decided to go without video gaming, and is likely to do so for a long, long time, costing sales, again.

DRM too, on the other hand, does constitute a problem in itself, driving quite a few to piracy, due to its incredibly intrusive nature, (see; Spore/Assassins Creed 2/ Quite a few others), making it simpler just to play it without any annoying security checks.

Yes, it's a flimsy argument, and piracy is obviously worse, but it's always nice to look at several sides of an argument.

 

[incal11]

But, when the people from group a) come into some money, they are likely to spend it on the legal purchase of a game, due to the difficult, and morally bankrupt nature of piracy, and be happy such a purchase, knowing the good games from the bad, and then will continue to do so

If it makes people want to pay for more good games, how is piracy morally bankrupt and obviously worse ?

Now im not saying piracy is good or even defenceable

I agree with the rest of your post, but you are basically defending "piracy" since you explain why it's impossible to stop the spreading of digital data.
I'll also go ahead and say piracy can be both good and defendable.

Eliminating piracy could eliminate both, so it's the biggest issue.

You can't eliminate piracy, and even if you could it wouldn't change anything. DRMs true purpose is only fighting day 1 downloads and the second hand market.

However, never in my life have I re-purchased content that I've gotten through shady means. No matter how much I loved the particular media item. So, as a whole, I disagree with this logic.

If you had a poor backround it's understandable if you became stingy, however you are not the majority in gaming. Big titles PCs and consoles are small luxuries, that is a barrier of entry in favor of gamers with enough income to consider at least donating a bit to their favorite devs.

Second, are we forgetting about demos? Almost every game that I've looked at for purchase had a demo available.

You're only looking at Steam, which would only be good if it wasn't on it's way to become a monopoly, most games don't have demos. Anyways recent demos are purposefully misleading on the quality of the games.

Lastly, if you want to get a better impression about how a game plays beyond the demo, go out and get some friends. And, nothing against online friends, but these friends should be people that you have actual physical

Weirdly most of my friends are not big gamers, you may call loosers the ones who consider online friends to be just as good, but it's a matter of perspective. What is so fundamentally different between online and offline friends ? Meeting someone face to face is not that important in the end. It's something most socialites can't wrap their heads around for some reason.

At the end of the day, piracy is stealing. If the manufacturer wanted to give their property away for free, they would provide an avenue for it ...

Copying data is not stealing, it's not a physical manufactured item.