bit-gamer.net

Handheld piracy costs industry £29 billion

Handheld piracy costs industry £29 billion

New figures from a Japanese trade group suggest the cost of handheld piracy is £29bn over five years.

New figures gathered as part of research by Japan's Computer Entertainment Suppliers Association suggest the piracy on handheld platforms alone has cost the industry more than £29 billion over a five year period.

The research was gathered by CESA, organisers of the Tokyo Game Show, with the aid of Tokyo University and was begun in June 2004. It focused only on PSP and DS games, excluding other handheld platforms like the iPhone or iPod touch.

The figures were gathered based on downloads of the top 20 games in Japan from 114 piracy sites, according to Andriasang. The cost of the downloaded titles from this period was ¥953 billion, which was then multiplied by four on the basis that Japan represents 25 percent of the global game market. Thus, £29 billion GBP.

The research did not take P2P networks into account, forcing the group to admit that actual costs may be much higher - especially since the amount of piracy varies by region.

CESA also revealed that the most pirate servers were to be found in America, with China coming in second place. Together America and China account for 60 percent of all piracy servers, with America also being first when it comes to number of accesses to piracy sites.

Sony has previously commented that the level of piracy on the PSP platforms is "sickening".

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

170 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
NuTech 7th June 2010, 12:28 Quote
What shocks me the most about handheld piracy is just how casual it is.

I was talking to a friend of mine a couple months ago about her son's birthday. She's a thirty something single mum who uses her computer about once a fortnight. Ever-so-casually she drops in "so I bought him a R4 card". It was so unexpected I actually did a double-take.

I don't think people like that even realise it's piracy.
Hustler 7th June 2010, 12:54 Quote
Again they make the assumption that every illegal download is a lost sale.....it isnt...no where near.

People download just because its easy and they can, if it wasnt, they would just go without.....and Sony and the rest would be no worse off.
rdhir 7th June 2010, 12:59 Quote
pirate download <> lost sale

However, piracy is very bad on the DS, I know computer illiterate people buying R4 style devices and SD cards with games for their children preloaded as they don't know how to go and buy an r4 and torrent themselves. I don't think they realise its theft. Clearly there is lost money here as they are paying £20-£30 for a disk of games.
DriftCarl 7th June 2010, 13:17 Quote
I agree with others. Just because it was downloaded, doesnt mean that the user would have gone and bought the game.
The games I have downloaded during the last 5 years, i would never have gone and purchased them. The ones I did want to purcahse, suprise suprise, I went out and purchased them, like halflife, MW2, BFBC2, Serious sam HD, and UT3, GTA4 and WoW.
The games that I downloaded, were very quickly uninstalled due to being crap after 5 minutes.

These companies need to concentrate on making good games rather than blaming every man and his dog if a game fails to live up to its expectations.
Mik3yB @ CCL 7th June 2010, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
The games that I downloaded, were very quickly uninstalled due to being crap after 5 minutes.

These companies need to concentrate on making good games rather than blaming every man and his dog if a game fails to live up to its expectations.

Oh, if it's a rubbish game it's fine to pirate it. :?
NuTech 7th June 2010, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Oh, if it's a rubbish game it's fine to pirate it. :?
And it makes you cool too!

Didn't you know this? Get the with times Mikey!

El Rando 7th June 2010, 13:38 Quote
I know everyone has their own reason for getting a pirate copy of a game so I'll give me point of view, as It kinda relates to DriftCarl's post.
I have never pirated a game purely because I want a proper hard copy but I used to download songs so I'm going to relate this to that.

My reason for downloading the song was to see if I'd like that whole album, if I did then I'd go out and buy it. Now that spotify is around I don't have to do this anymore. With games that I'm unsure about I try the demo to see if I like it, if there is no demo then I don't get it (unless a friend introduces me to it). So for some people I think every game needs some sort of demo, I know you can't really do this with cartridges.

Just my point of view. As I said before, I know some people just can't be bothered paying for it when they can get it for free.
TWeaK 7th June 2010, 13:51 Quote
It's fair enough to say that every download doesn't equate to a missed sale, and probably even that fewer than 1 in 1000 downloads is a missed sale. But when you take into account the sources of piracy the survey ignored (torrents and other P2P, probably Usenet as well) and that the number of downloads on the sites examined probably pales in significance to those other sources, then their estimate doesn't sound that bad.

Still, with handheld console games generally being terrible value for money (in one of the iPhone games articles here there was something about a game from Ubisoft selling for ~£5 in iTunes, yet the DS version cost £25/£30) you can't be too surprised about all this. The convenience of gaming on the go is no longer suitable justification to the consumer for the price that handheld console makers slap on their games. However, what this will likely lead to is console makers charging higher price for their handhelds, or releasing rehashed versions that require little development on their part but tempt people to upgrade for new gimmicky features. Oh wait, they've already started doing both of those.
Paddy 7th June 2010, 13:54 Quote
It happens all of the time, people exagerating simple statistics to make a point. This post from the Wolfire blog, the people behind the Humble Indie Bundle, sums everything up perfectly:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle
shanky887614 7th June 2010, 13:57 Quote
let me ask you a question

i have a couple games that i dont play becasue they are rubbish

and a lot of games now i wont play unless i have watched actual gameplay online or had a demo,

let me ask you this whihc game would you play if there were two games and they both were great, the one that costs £20+ or the free one

i think its a no brainer and in somecases the people who have pirated a game have liked it so much they have gone out and bought the game

and others like me only use there psp's as video players becasue lets face it if you can get 16GB memory cards for £40 its a good portable media player so you cant take hardware sales figures into account

bassically out of all the games that come out for a console it is pretty safe t osay that over 50% of them will be crap no two ways about it
NuTech 7th June 2010, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
Still, with handheld console games generally being terrible value for money (in one of the iPhone games articles here there was something about a game from Ubisoft selling for ~£5 in iTunes, yet the DS version cost £25/£30) you can't be too surprised about all this. The convenience of gaming on the go is no longer suitable justification to the consumer for the price that handheld console makers slap on their games. However, what this will likely lead to is console makers charging higher price for their handhelds, or releasing rehashed versions that require little development on their part but tempt people to upgrade for new gimmicky features. Oh wait, they've already started doing both of those.
You make a really good point about pricing.

Game pricing as a whole is just too arbitrary. Console games, regardless of quality/value, seem to mostly be one fixed price. Mobile is nicely varied. But handheld is just ridiculous. Some NDS games are the same price as AAA PC titles!

I think the problem is nobody wants to be the first to lower the price of their games because customers might think it implies the game is of lower quality.

Steve Jobs said something really interesting to media and entertainment publishers not so long ago, I think it's really relevant. When talking about how accessible entertainment-based consumer electronics have become, he said that content creators should ditch traditional business models, price very aggressively and aim for greater volume. I really think that applies to gaming too.
DriftCarl 7th June 2010, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL

Oh, if it's a rubbish game it's fine to pirate it. :?

I never said it was ok to pirate it, I jsut dont want to be ripped off by games companies cutting corners. If it crashes, glitches or runs badly on my computer, then its not worth the money. Games companies WILL NOT offer refunds for games you have bought. I am fed up of buying games only to find them extreemly bad and crash my computer, much like star trek online.

Every other entertainment product you can try before you buy, you can go into a show room to see a TV that you want, you can play a playstation in an electronics shop. With software you cannot return it unless it is a physically broken disk, and then they will just replace that with a new one.

Again I am not saying that pirating is OK. I am saying the whole computer games industry is pretty out of touch with the lives of today.
Valve are doing a fantastic job with STEAM, Pretty much all of my games I have bought are from steam, I was able to try them first to see if they were stable enough on my machine. When they were then I bought it.
The only game that I downloaded illegally and then going to buy was UT3.
I dont really get that many games personally as I did play WoW alot. My most recent purchase is starcraft2 which is due out next month, again I was able to test this during the beta andfeel that its worth my hard earned cash to keep playing.
Mik3yB @ CCL 7th June 2010, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
let me ask you a question

i have a couple games that i dont play becasue they are rubbish

and a lot of games now i wont play unless i have watched actual gameplay online or had a demo,

let me ask you this whihc game would you play if there were two games and they both were great, the one that costs £20+ or the free one

i think its a no brainer and in somecases the people who have pirated a game have liked it so much they have gone out and bought the game

and others like me only use there psp's as video players becasue lets face it if you can get 16GB memory cards for £40 its a good portable media player so you cant take hardware sales figures into account

bassically out of all the games that come out for a console it is pretty safe t osay that over 50% of them will be crap no two ways about it

The game's quality is irrelivant as to whether you buy it or steal it. If you buy a game that you don't like why not sell it or return it to the shop?

To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?
Pete J 7th June 2010, 14:13 Quote
£29 billion?!!! I can make up numbers as well!

For example, 1000 billion people illegally download 500 films and games every second.

I still don't get how games on handhelds are worth the same money as PC/console games though.
Fizzban 7th June 2010, 14:15 Quote
If they added up all the times people lend their friends and familys games, I'm sure they could come up with another 29 billion of 'lost sales'. And it makes about as much sense as that. Most (nearly all) piracy is not lost sales.
smc8788 7th June 2010, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
Valve are doing a fantastic job with STEAM, Pretty much all of my games I have bought are from steam, I was able to try them first to see if they were stable enough on my machine.

You were? How? If you mean game demos, then they exist whether you buy the game from Steam or not. Do you immediately go and pirate a game to try it out instead of searching for a demo?

I think you'll also find that you'll have even more trouble getting a refund out of Steam than you will from anywhere else. They simply do not refund purchases (unless it was a pre-order and the game hasn't been released yet), even if it doesn't work properly on your system.
Blademrk 7th June 2010, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
[
To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?

That's a bit of a bad analagy - if you were interested in purchasing a car, you'd take it for a test run wouldn't you?
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
The game's quality is irrelivant as to whether you buy it or steal it. If you buy a game that you don't like why not sell it or return it to the shop?

To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?

Firstly can we get past the old piracy = stealing nonsense please. It simply doesn't.

Secondly, to take your car analogy, to find a car you'd like you'd go and test drive them. Kinda tricky to do that with games when usually the first time you actually get to use it is after you've already handed over your money. Even in cases where demos are released, which is getting rarer and rarer these days, they are usually very limited and really don't give you a full picture of the game. Frankly if people are downloading games, buying the ones they like and ditching the ones they tried for 30 mins and never went near again where's the harm?
Snubbs 7th June 2010, 14:25 Quote
As others say, a pirate copy doesn't = a lost sale.

E.g. the amount of people you will know with Adobe Master Suite. Its very high cost means that the average person can't “afford” to buy it, however it is currently one of the number one tools for photo-editing (I'm not saying this is justified, I'm just stating what I believe to be fact).

At £2500 for CS5, most people will think it's about the same price as a cheap car. Average person thinks "Do I steal a car, or steal some software". One is certainly easier to hide, and is also not actively affecting the other partys (adobe) finances.

Piracy is a lot easier to stomach compared to theft.

It’s the same for a DS (with R4 or alike) - 8 DS games = £200, thats a new XBOX 360, or alike.

Personally, I used to acquire most of the games I played on PC, however in the last 3 years (as I've actually had jobs/money to buy) I've bought the games - even though I know the pirates don't have to put up with naff drm. I buy games such as BFBC2 knowing that the money will (hopefully) benefit the developers for making such a brilliant game.

Ultimately, I think that there should be the ability to try before you buy (e.g. like they did for Just Cause 2, you had 30mins to do anything you wanted). I played that 30min demo, and found I didn't like the game - I didn't buy it, so I didn't feel I lost out.

If I was to buy a game, and find it to be rubbish/buggy/not to my likings, I would be disappointed (and have been a couple of times - e.g. Juiced 2 - crap game...). I think that the pirates have the benefits here of being able to preview a game (although they may not buy it eventually)

One game I feel I should have bought is Fall Out 3 - its probably the only game I didn't buy myself which I actually loved & enjoyed for hours on end - I'll definitely be buying the next one though.

Essentially, what I’m saying is, many people will pirate without thinking its theft, personally I like to support developers when they make successful games – I don’t see piracy as a lost sale, but I do think that once an individual pirates a game, they probably have a 25% less chance of buying it should they actually enjoy the game, and were intending to use the pirate as a "demo".

/Mumble (tired!)
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
£29 billion?!!! I can make up numbers as well!

For example, 1000 billion people illegally download 500 films and games every second.

I still don't get how games on handhelds are worth the same money as PC/console games though.

developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less?
smc8788 7th June 2010, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Frankly if people are downloading games, buying the ones they like and ditching the ones they tried for 30 mins and never went near again where's the harm?

You assume everyone who pirates games does that? Really? So you think saying piracy is stealing is nonsense, then you come out with that bull****?
bigsharn 7th June 2010, 14:33 Quote
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpcvvy3eqK1qz4a62o1_500.jpg

I felt this was appropriate

In honesty I admit to downloading all of my games, for the pure and simple reason that my laptop's disc drive is buggered. I've got a pirated version of Red Alert 2 and 3 yet I own the games on disc from buying them previously.
JUST because you've downloaded something it doesn't mean you haven't paid for it

(I realise we're not talking about PC games, but it comes under the same kind of idea)


Also:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snubbs
At £2500 for CS5, most people will think it's about the same price as a cheap car.

That's an expensive car to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snubbs
One game I feel I should have bought is Fall Out 3 - its probably the only game I didn't buy myself which I actually loved & enjoyed for hours on end - I'll definitely be buying the next one though.

Buy the DLC, it's roughly as expensive as Fallout 3 anyway :p
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
You assume everyone who pirates games does that? Really?

You think saying piracy is stealing is nonsense, then you come out with that bollocks?

Did I say that I thought or assumed that everyone who pirates games does that? It was a response to the analogy about buying a car. Of course there are people who download games who never had any intention of buying them ever but there's a point where you have to consider whether the time and money being spent chasing them is worth it when you could be using that time and money to improve your product and/or market it better to people who will pay for it.

Not that there being people who download games with no intention of ever buying it does anything to change the fact that piracy isn't stealing/theft. Copyright infringement and theft are two completely different matters.
Mik3yB @ CCL 7th June 2010, 14:41 Quote
Ok, ok, the car analagy was bad, but you get the gist :D

I do agree with people who say the figure is massively debatable. They should word it as "missed opportunities to sell" rather than actual lost sales.
Unknownsock 7th June 2010, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snubbs
At £2500 for CS5, most people will think it's about the same price as a cheap car. Average person thinks "Do I steal a car, or steal some software". One is certainly easier to hide, and is also not actively affecting the other partys (adobe) finances.

I'd love to know the piracy rate on Adboes software tbh. All these kids using Photoshop left right and centre.

Let's think for a second, were did they get the money? Minus those rich brats :)
smc8788 7th June 2010, 14:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Copyright infringement and theft are two completely different matters.

They're different matters in the eyes of the law, but the net result to companies is the same as theft no matter what you call it.

But I agree the only way we would ever get accurate piracy statistics is if companies released proper demos for all of their games, so they can remove those who do pirate games 'just to try it out' from their statistics. And I bet there's many people who think "oh, I'll just download this game to see if it's any good", then end up playing all the way through because it is good, then end up not buying it all all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
I'd love to know the piracy rate on Adboes software tbh. All these kids using Photoshop left right and centre.

Let's think for a second, were did they get the money? Minus those rich brats :)

Yeah, I sometimes wonder how much more money they would make if they sold the full fat version of Photoshop for the same price as PSE, but I think they make 95% of their money from people who need it for their job and companies who buy hundreds of licenses at a time. It doesn't really make sense to me how it's cheaper for a huge company to buy the license, when they're going to be making money from it, than someone using it on their home computer for personal use. They really need different licenses for different users with costs which make it easier for home users to afford it.
TWeaK 7th June 2010, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
They're different matters in the eyes of the law, but the net result to companies is the same as theft no matter what you call it.

It's not though. The reason theft is different to copyright infringment in the eyes of the law is because they are different by definition. Theft is to take something and deprive the owner of it, in the case of someone selling a physical object they wouldn't be able to sell it if it was stolen as it would no longer be in their possession. With copywright infringement, the company has lost nothing in terms of their ability to sell the product to someone else, they've only missed an opportunity to make a sale to the infringing party.

Still, you're right about one thing: we need more demos.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
They're different matters in the eyes of the law, but the net result to companies is the same as theft no matter what you call it.

Except it isn't. Piracy has a lot more in common with second hand sales than it does with theft when you're considering the impact it has on publishers/developers.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 14:55 Quote
copyright infringement does not apply to downloading for personal use, only if you then share with others have you committed copyright infringement.

the law is pretty clear, its just people don't read the law properly, or say its a grey area. the way i read the uk copyright law, you have not committed copyright infringement as long as you do not distribute it to others, the minute you allow others to copy from you, then you have committed copyright infringement.

i still say illegaly downloading for personal use is theft.

i'm no legal expert, but surely dennis have lawyers who can read copyright law, maybe ask them to comment on behalf of the magazine?
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 15:00 Quote
as far as second hand sales are concerned, its up to the copyright holder to decide if they will allow second hand sales of a license.

copyright, allows the holder to control how their copyright material is distributed, that means if they say you can't sell a license second hand, the you would be breaking the license agreement if you sold it on second hand.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
copyright infringement does not apply to downloading for personal use, only if you then share with others have you committed copyright infringement.

the law is pretty clear, its just people don't read the law properly, or say its a grey area. the way i read the uk copyright law, you have not committed copyright infringement as long as you do not distribute it to others, the minute you allow others to copy from you, then you have committed copyright infringement.

i still say illegaly downloading for personal use is theft.

i'm no legal expert, but surely dennis have lawyers who can read copyright law, maybe ask them to comment on behalf of the magazine?

I'm fairly certain under UK law downloading can still constitute copyright infringement. Even copying something you own for your own personal use, i.e. ripping a cd to mp3, is currently illegal under UK law iirc.
TWeaK 7th June 2010, 15:02 Quote
As I understand it, it *is* copyright infringement if you download a copy. Making a copy of your own for personal use may or may not be acceptable depending on the terms of the license. The trouble is, sueing someone for just downloading a copy isn't going to go anywhere - a court would acknowledge that all the company lost was one sale then probably throw the case out as a waste of time. When you distribute something however it's a much bigger problem - the publisher could argue that you've facilitated the loss of several sales.

An interesting thought just occured to me: Copyright is only valid for something like 100 years after the author's death. In the case of games, perhaps films as well where big publishing companies hold the copyright, who's death would they go by?
Bakes 7th June 2010, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snubbs
At £2500 for CS5, most people will think it's about the same price as a cheap car. Average person thinks "Do I steal a car, or steal some software". One is certainly easier to hide, and is also not actively affecting the other partys (adobe) finances.

I'd love to know the piracy rate on Adboes software tbh. All these kids using Photoshop left right and centre.

Let's think for a second, were did they get the money? Minus those rich brats :)

Student version costs much less. £100-150 I think. But yes, there is a lot of Adobe piracy. That has partly been woven into their business model though. This is the scenario.

Kid steals CS4, learns how to use it well. He then does graphic design at college and becomes a pro graphic designer. Because he now works legit, he has to use legal software otherwise he could be arrested for a lot more because he's using the stolen IP for commercial purposes. He buys the latest version of the software, which is so useful it pays for itself in a few months (having talked to some graphic designers, this is the case). Pirating the software has turned him into a loyal Adobe user.

That's how it can work. Adobe have seemingly realised that the people who pirated their software were never going to buy it in the first place, and market saturation is only a good thing, because you get the de-facto standard which is used by millions of legal users worldwide.

This is unlike with handheld games, when your profits really do just depend on single titles. Jus because someone pirated Pokemon Sapphire does not mean that they'd necessarily then pirate Pokemon Heart Gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
[
To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?

That's a bit of a bad analagy - if you were interested in purchasing a car, you'd take it for a test run wouldn't you?

Yes, but you'd seek the dealer's permission before hotwiring it and driving away.

This is a good study, because at least it's been done scientifically. It's not like the RIAA, who have in the past claimed that piracy by Americans has lead to losses in the economy of so many billion, whilst forgetting that piracy then allows them to spend their money on other things that might benefit the economy more, like American grown food or American made clothes.
Pete J 7th June 2010, 15:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less?
Before I say anything, I must admit I have no idea what it takes to make a game. But:

Surely the latest and greatest games on PC take FAR longer to develop than a game that will only run on one system. Not only that but the actual capability of the PSP/DS/whatever means that textures and wireframe models can't be that good. Hence designing levels, characters vehicles etc. should not need that long to draw.
smc8788 7th June 2010, 15:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
An interesting thought just occured to me: Copyright is only valid for something like 100 years after the author's death. In the case of games, perhaps films as well where big publishing companies hold the copyright, who's death would they go by?

I think it's actually 70 years, but for everything else I seem to remember it's from the date of publication as no single person is responsible for its creation.
Bakes 7th June 2010, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
as far as second hand sales are concerned, its up to the copyright holder to decide if they will allow second hand sales of a license.

copyright, allows the holder to control how their copyright material is distributed, that means if they say you can't sell a license second hand, the you would be breaking the license agreement if you sold it on second hand.

Depends where you are. I don't know what the law is in the UK, I know that in America it depends on what state you're in whether you bought a game or a disk and the license to play a game.

That's why EA has started with that second hand blitz. If they could ban second hand, they would love to because it's a massive revenue sucker, but they can't.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 15:16 Quote
i think in previous posts about copyright i have quoted copyright information, cant remember where they are now though
kylew 7th June 2010, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
The game's quality is irrelivant as to whether you buy it or steal it. If you buy a game that you don't like why not sell it or return it to the shop?

To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?


Piracy and stealing aren't the same thing. That's why they have two different words for two different things. Do yourself a favour and commit this to memory.
NuTech 7th June 2010, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less?
Lolwut?

You think 'Neo Flowerpot Puzzle Party 4' has similar production costs to Bad Company 2 or Blur or Prince of Persia?

Ignoring the huge difference in team size, even the marketing budget alone is astronomically different.

It's one of the reasons why indie games on Steam are flourishing right now. They're small teams with lower overheads and they pass on the saving directly to the customer.
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Again they make the assumption that every illegal download is a lost sale.....it isnt...no where near.

People download just because its easy and they can, if it wasnt, they would just go without.....and Sony and the rest would be no worse off.

Everytime piracy is mentioned 2 secs later this moronic argument gets brought up. No, not every game pirated is a lost sale, but you can be damn sure some are. Your telling me every single person, moms whose kids have DS's, hardcore Pc gamers would up and quite gaming if piracy was not available? Hell no. Some would buy if they had no choice, I have friends like it, they got a PS3 and buy every single game at 70 a pop, has not bought a PC game in years, he admits he would buy them if he had to like he does his PS3.
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 16:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
I agree with others. Just because it was downloaded, doesnt mean that the user would have gone and bought the game.
The games I have downloaded during the last 5 years, i would never have gone and purchased them. The ones I did want to purcahse, suprise suprise, I went out and purchased them, like halflife, MW2, BFBC2, Serious sam HD, and UT3, GTA4 and WoW.
The games that I downloaded, were very quickly uninstalled due to being crap after 5 minutes.

These companies need to concentrate on making good games rather than blaming every man and his dog if a game fails to live up to its expectations.

That explains why the better and more popular a game is the more it is pirated.................. Oh snap.
Bakes 7th June 2010, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Lolwut?

You think 'Neo Flowerpot Puzzle Party 4' has similar production costs to Bad Company 2 or Blur or Prince of Persia?

Ignoring the huge difference in team size, even the marketing budget alone is astronomically different.

It's one of the reasons why indie games on Steam are flourishing right now. They're small teams with lower overheads and they pass on the saving directly to the customer.

No, because Neo Flowerpot Puzzle Party 4 isn't a real game. Even if it were, it would likely be a budget title, retailing for less than £15.

In any case, why would you value something based on how much time it took to make or build? I personally value my games based on how much I use them. If CoD4 cost £70, based on the amount of time I've got out of it I'd certainly regard it as money well spent.

Personally, I'd say that Pokemon and New Super Mario are games that are well worth the money spent on them. They're polished and are a lot of fun. Remember that handheld consoles are very popular in Japan, where the psyche is very different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Piracy and stealing aren't the same thing. That's why they have two different words for two different things. Do yourself a favour and commit this to memory.

What is there to gain from being aggressive and rude? Do you feel good? Does it help you in any way to be abusive? Just wondering.

Riddle me this. The old lady who lives next door to you has died. She's been taken away in an ambulance, you know she has no relatives, and she doesn't have a will. You got an invitation to the funeral.
Is it then morally justifiable to smash her window, nick all her valuables, crap on her fireplace and pee in her kettle? It's a victimless crime because she's died, remember.
steveo_mcg 7th June 2010, 16:25 Quote
How do PS3 unit sales compare to x360 these days? Have they sold enough PS3's to be able to broadly compare the two platforms?

Since piracy is basically non existent on the ps3 and since sales figures are easy enough to come across for both platforms it would make an interesting comparison to see how much of a difference piracy makes. It would have to be caveated to hell but still be interesting.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 16:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less?
Lolwut?

You think 'Neo Flowerpot Puzzle Party 4' has similar production costs to Bad Company 2 or Blur or Prince of Persia?

Ignoring the huge difference in team size, even the marketing budget alone is astronomically different.

It's one of the reasons why indie games on Steam are flourishing right now. They're small teams with lower overheads and they pass on the saving directly to the customer.

think about it, if that 1 game was developed on all platforms, at same time without porting, the costs would be similar. i didnt say anything about 1 game costing same as another, just developement costs, and i meant per game, of course bfbc2 is gonna cost more to develope than neo flowerpot puzzle party4
cyrilthefish 7th June 2010, 16:43 Quote
Dear the entertainment industry

The next time you want to raise piracy as an issue, don't start with the absurd statement of 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale. You might as well start with the statement "pirates cost us eleventy-squillion dollars!*" i'd be about as factually accurate.

It makes any statements following such silliness easily ignorable.

Thanks,
The world

(*source = because we said so)
kylew 7th June 2010, 16:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
What is there to gain from being aggressive and rude? Do you feel good? Does it help you in any way to be abusive? Just wondering.

Riddle me this. The old lady who lives next door to you has died. She's been taken away in an ambulance, you know she has no relatives, and she doesn't have a will. You got an invitation to the funeral.
Is it then morally justifiable to smash her window, nick all her valuables, crap on her fireplace and pee in her kettle? It's a victimless crime because she's died, remember.

Ah, abusive and rude, I see that I have no right at all to feel annoyance at the regular usage of the word "stealing" when piracy is involved, only to make piracy in to something that it isn't.

As for the example you've used, "riddle me this" what's that got to do with piracy? I said piracy and stealing aren't the same thing. You've just gave me an example of stealing and indecent behaviour.

Good job at talking nonsense though.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 16:45 Quote
p.s. it starts big massive forum debates
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime piracy is mentioned 2 secs later this moronic argument gets brought up. No, not every game pirated is a lost sale, but you can be damn sure some are. Your telling me every single person, moms whose kids have DS's, hardcore Pc gamers would up and quite gaming if piracy was not available? Hell no. Some would buy if they had no choice, I have friends like it, they got a PS3 and buy every single game at 70 a pop, has not bought a PC game in years, he admits he would buy them if he had to like he does his PS3.

There's a massive difference between saying you would and actually doing it. Besides the issue that publishers/developers should be looking at isn't how to stop all piracy but how to get those people who would part with their cash to actually do so instead of just downloading whatever it is they want.

And to be honest there's nothing moronic about pointing out that a study claiming there's been 29 billion dollars of lost sales is based on a flawed assumption. As consumers we should be the ones on the forefront of pointing out why these studies are flawed and trying to get publishers/developers to actually look at the real issues instead of implementing ever more complex and unfriendly drm schemes and trying to get ever more draconian laws passed in an attempt to get their hands on imaginary lost money.
kylew 7th June 2010, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrilthefish
Dear the entertainment industry

The next time you want to raise piracy as an issue, don't start with the absurd statement of 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale. You might as well start with the statement "pirates cost us eleventy-squillion dollars!*" i'd be about as factually accurate.

It makes any statements following such silliness easily ignorable.

Thanks,
The world

(*source = because we said so)

Additionally, what price do you think they use? The average street price? Or an inflated RRP?

I'm guessing it's the inflated RRP.
cyrilthefish 7th June 2010, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Additionally, what price do you think they use? The average street price? Or an inflated RRP?

I'm guessing it's the inflated RRP.
RRP of course, the bigger the number they can get for potential lost money the better
kylew 7th June 2010, 16:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Everytime piracy is mentioned 2 secs later this moronic argument gets brought up. No, not every game pirated is a lost sale, but you can be damn sure some are. Your telling me every single person, moms whose kids have DS's, hardcore Pc gamers would up and quite gaming if piracy was not available? Hell no. Some would buy if they had no choice, I have friends like it, they got a PS3 and buy every single game at 70 a pop, has not bought a PC game in years, he admits he would buy them if he had to like he does his PS3.

You seem to not understand how a discussion forum works.

Additionally, your "friend" obviously is a perfect example of everyone. It's a little convenient that you have a friend who does exactly what you're claiming is the "norm".

The point hat every download doesn't = a lost sale still stands either way. There are a lot of people who download games they've bought, just so that they can leave the game in the box and play the downloaded one with a crack. There are also people that download stuff, but never actually use it. What about the people that operate on try-before-you-buy? Or the ones that never buy games because they can't justify the cost, so download them instead?

It's too hard to produce accurate and representative figures, the people doing the "studies" are clearly going to be biased against piracy, so are clearly going to use the "results" that fall in their favour (that piracy is evil and people who kill and eat babies aren't as bad as those pirate "thieves".

Why is this hard to understand? Sony is obviously going to make out piracy is as bad as possible, they're clearly going to disregard anything other than piracy = lost sale, they're always going to add up the cost of the games using the highest price they can, regardless of if you can actually find the game at that price or not, and it wouldn't surprise me if they also included (or rather, didn't bother to disregard) incomplete or failed downloads either.
NuTech 7th June 2010, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
No, because Neo Flowerpot Puzzle Party 4 isn't a real game. Even if it were, it would likely be a budget title, retailing for less than £15.

In any case, why would you value something based on how much time it took to make or build? I personally value my games based on how much I use them. If CoD4 cost £70, based on the amount of time I've got out of it I'd certainly regard it as money well spent.

Personally, I'd say that Pokemon and New Super Mario are games that are well worth the money spent on them. They're polished and are a lot of fun. Remember that handheld consoles are very popular in Japan, where the psyche is very different.
Real or not doesn't really matter, I just used that facetious title to demonstrate a point.

Ubisoft estimates that the average DS game costs 20 times less than the average 360/PS3/PC game. Of course there are going to be some exceptions.

So yes, I do think its value should take into account how much it cost to build. I wouldn't pay Range Rover prices for a Nissan Micra, no matter how much more I used the Micra (hyperbolic I know, but true).

I agree, in a perfect world we should pay accordingly to how much we use something (Activision have hinted several times that they would like to do something like that for future MW games), however that is just not practical at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
How do PS3 unit sales compare to x360 these days? Have they sold enough PS3's to be able to broadly compare the two platforms?

Since piracy is basically non existent on the ps3 and since sales figures are easy enough to come across for both platforms it would make an interesting comparison to see how much of a difference piracy makes. It would have to be caveated to hell but still be interesting.
You sir, make a very good point.

I would love to know exactly how the PS3 attach rate compares to that of the 360 or Wii. The problem is manufacturers hate releasing accurate data like that, and analysts guesses are vague at best. No doubt people buying replacement 360's would tarnish the data even further.

Still, the PS3's current situation is unprecedented in recent console history (in regards to zero piracy). It would make for a great case study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
think about it, if that 1 game was developed on all platforms, at same time without porting, the costs would be similar. i didnt say anything about 1 game costing same as another, just developement costs, and i meant per game, of course bfbc2 is gonna cost more to develope than neo flowerpot puzzle party4
Sorry dude, I re-read that four times and I still have no clue what you mean. However, your initial post was pretty clear so I stand by my reply. You said "developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less? " and that is simply not true (click that Ubisoft link above for just one publisher's estimates).
kylew 7th June 2010, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrilthefish
RRP of course, the bigger the number they can get for potential lost money the better

Of course! Which could skew the results by an absolutely massive amount. Games with RRPs of £40 can often be found for £20 in a lot of places, such a situation would completely invalidate half of the figure they've came up with.
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 17:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
You seem to not understand how a discussion forum works.

Additionally, your "friend" obviously is a perfect example of everyone. It's a little convenient that you have a friend who does exactly what you're claiming is the "norm".

The point hat every download doesn't = a lost sale still stands either way. There are a lot of people who download games they've bought, just so that they can leave the game in the box and play the downloaded one with a crack. There are also people that download stuff, but never actually use it. What about the people that operate on try-before-you-buy? Or the ones that never buy games because they can't justify the cost, so download them instead?

It's too hard to produce accurate and representative figures, the people doing the "studies" are clearly going to be biased against piracy, so are clearly going to use the "results" that fall in their favour (that piracy is evil and people who kill and eat babies aren't as bad as those pirate "thieves".

Why is this hard to understand? Sony is obviously going to make out piracy is as bad as possible, they're clearly going to disregard anything other than piracy = lost sale, they're always going to add up the cost of the games using the highest price they can, regardless of if you can actually find the game at that price or not, and it wouldn't surprise me if they also included (or rather, didn't bother to disregard) incomplete or failed downloads either.

maybe comprehension is not your thing, you basically said there would be ZERO lost sales, and that's BS. There is some, that's obvious. I agree, one pirated copy is not 1 lost sale, that's been determined, and is not what i was debating.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 17:11 Quote
what they should have said was lost potential sales rather than lost sales
TWeaK 7th June 2010, 17:11 Quote
In defense of those who actually performed the study, I expect it was done fairly well, taking into account assumptions that had to be made. As I said earlier, they may make an assumption that one download is one lost sale (although, do we even know this is the case from the article?) but they also don't take into account P2P downloads, which is where the majority of pirates set sail. It's just a case of 'PIRACY IS COSTING US £29 BILLION in 5 years' grabbing more attention than 'We estimate piracy costs £29 billion over 5 years assuming everyone who downloaded a game would have bought it at full RRP'.

I think their estimate was probably quite conservative in some manner as well. They assume that because Japan accounts for 25% of the world's software market that it also accounts for 25% of the world's piracy market, whereas I think this will be more in favour of the USA and China. Still, at the end of the day it's a number plucked out of a bunch of assumptions that are difficult to justify - like most statistics.

Now, if someone can read Kanji/Kana and wants to read the full study from CESA, please do and come back to us with any details that haven't been summarised here or at andriasang.
kylew 7th June 2010, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
maybe comprehension is not your thing, you basically said there would be ZERO lost sales, and that's BS. There is some, that's obvious. I agree, one pirated copy is not 1 lost sale, that's been determined, and is not what i was debating.

No I didn't. :?
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
There's a massive difference between saying you would and actually doing it. Besides the issue that publishers/developers should be looking at isn't how to stop all piracy but how to get those people who would part with their cash to actually do so instead of just downloading whatever it is they want.

And to be honest there's nothing moronic about pointing out that a study claiming there's been 29 billion dollars of lost sales is based on a flawed assumption. As consumers we should be the ones on the forefront of pointing out why these studies are flawed and trying to get publishers/developers to actually look at the real issues instead of implementing ever more complex and unfriendly drm schemes and trying to get ever more draconian laws passed in an attempt to get their hands on imaginary lost money.

Is english hard to understand? Please show me where I was arguing that 1 lost sale equates to 1 pirated copy? It's obvious it doesn't, and is not what i said at all. Inferring NOT one sale is lost though, is indeed moronic.
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 17:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Again they make the assumption that every illegal download is a lost sale.....it isnt...no where near.

People download just because its easy and they can, if it wasnt, they would just go without.....and Sony and the rest would be no worse off.

Sorry, you never, but this guy did, saying "They would just go without", is BS. So, at least know what and who i was referring to.
kylew 7th June 2010, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Sorry, you never, but this guy did, saying "They would just go without", is BS.

To be fair, it's just as much BS as you saying they wouldn't go without. You have no way of knowing that that's exactly what the majority would do or would not do.

My argument is that there's more to it, by quite a bit, than "they would/wouldn't go without" I think that's just too black and white.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 17:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Is english hard to understand? Please show me where I was arguing that 1 lost sale equates to 12 pirated copy? It's onvious it doesn't, and is not what i said at all. Inferring NOT one sale is lost though, is indeed moronic.

For someone who's accusing people of not being able to understand english or comprehend people's posts you really should put more time and effort into your own attempts.

I never said, nor implied, that you were arguing that 1 lost sale equates to 1 pirated copies or anything like that. Nor did the original post you quoted say that there are no lost sales due to download copies. What is said was that they were using the assumption that one download equals one last sale when the real figure is probably nowhere near that. Just because he talked about people going without doesn't mean that he was saying or implying that's the case in every instance.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 17:22 Quote
some would, some wouldn't, some would just go down to the local store that has 'live' cases, and nick it, some would go and buy it, others wouldn't bother, i am of the 'wouldn't bother' if i couldn't afford it.
NuTech 7th June 2010, 17:36 Quote
It's a shame that whenever video game piracy is brought up, people always end up debating semantics and technicalities.

Whether it's "1 pirated copy = 1 sale" or "They're calculating it using RRP!" or "They're not taking into account people who want to crack their legal copy", it all doesn't matter.

Pirating exists, it's prevalent and it is really hurting the industry. Even if the estimated number is off by over 50%, that's still huge.

According to this article, the current generation is the first one in history that has caused the game industry to shrink because of piracy.

Unfortunately, it's us (the ones who actually buy the games) that will ultimately be affected.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles are locked up tighter than a duck's arsehole.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 17:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
It's a shame that whenever video game piracy is brought up, people always end up debating semantics and technicalities.

Whether it's "1 pirated copy = 1 sale" or "They're calculating it using RRP!" or "They're not taking into account people who want to crack their legal copy", it all doesn't matter.

Pirating exists, it's prevalent and it is really hurting the industry. Even if the estimated number is off by over 50%, that's still huge.

According to this article, the current generation is the first one in history that has caused the game industry to shrink because of piracy.

Unfortunately, it's us (the ones who actually buy the games) that will ultimately be affected.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles are locked up tighter than a duck's arsehole.

I disagree, the semantics are important to the discussion. If you can't even properly define what it is you're discussing or trying to stop then you have no hope in hell of achieving anything.
NuTech 7th June 2010, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I disagree, the semantics are important to the discussion. If you can't even properly define what it is you're discussing or trying to stop then you have no hope in hell of achieving anything.
But as you (and many others in this thread) have admitted, the exact number is impossible to accurately estimate. You guys are counting matchsticks while forests are being destroyed.

Of course the industry is going to estimate loses using the highest possible amounts, that's their job. But even if the numbers quoted are the worst case scenario, that doesn't mean the best case scenario will be much better.

Just take one example from that link, the PSP. Third best selling platform this generation (as of 2008), but not a single game in the Top100 (yes, top100).

Sitting around all day defining piracy won't help those kind of sobering statistics.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 18:04 Quote
i agree with nutechs last but 1 post.
Mentai 7th June 2010, 18:16 Quote
I bought Dirt 2 off steam for $15NZ off steam 5 months after it came out. I get a DS and look for a 3 year old copy of Zelda to find them no lower than $75NZ. 5 times the price to buy a DS game that costs 1/20 to develop? Nintendo is taking the piss, they have the most successful system ever and are raking it in. The R4 hasn't damaged them in the slightest, and I wish it would so that there games would actually get to reasonable prices.

As a side rant, this is nothing new either. They were charging this much for GBA games back in the day, and nearly all of the top titles were simply SNES ports, meaning next to no cost to dev at all! Now I'm not saying older games shouldn't be paid for, but I do think they could be listed at MUCH more reasonable prices.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 18:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Sitting around all day defining piracy won't help those kind of sobering statistics.

Maybe not, but what it will help do is give a realistic idea of where possible sales are being lost which can then be used to determine why sales are being lost and what can be done to solve that problem. There's no point using figures that include god knows how many imaginary sales when trying to work out the true impact piracy is having on any industry, the only thing that really matters is how many sales were lost to people who would have otherwise paid if the product had been cheaper, easier to get hold of, more polished etc.

And let's not forget that the current method of quantifying piracy gives such skyhigh figures that any other possible cause is swept out of the way and the blame for the decline is put squarely at the feet of pirates.
NuTech 7th June 2010, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Maybe not, but what it will help do is give a realistic idea of where possible sales are being lost which can then be used to determine why sales are being lost and what can be done to solve that problem. There's no point using figures that include god knows how many imaginary sales when trying to work out the true impact piracy is having on any industry, the only thing that really matters is how many sales were lost to people who would have otherwise paid if the product had been cheaper, easier to get hold of, more polished etc.
Chit-chatting on these forums will not help us get any further insight into how accurate these numbers are (or aren't). Unless there is a secret statistics and demographics genius hiding among us, you're giving the Bit-Tech far too much credit.

But please, by all means continue to debate arbitrary numbers if you really think something tangible will come out of it. ;)
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 18:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Chit-chatting on these forums will not help us get any further insight into how accurate these numbers are (or aren't). Unless there is a secret statistics and demographics genius hiding among us, you're giving the Bit-Tech far too much credit.

But please, by all means continue to debate arbitrary numbers if you really think something tangible will come out of it. ;)

I don't seem to recall saying that anyone here would be able to do anything tangible about the problem, but I don't see why that means we have to ignore the simple facts about stories such as this or just accept what we're told by the industry as gospel.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 18:31 Quote
what they should do, is something similar to the microsoft office / windows 7 model.

allow it to work for X amount of uses, then if you want to continue to play, you pay a modest fee.

they could also add advertising to the non payed for version, which is removed on purchase of a key.

maybe have a tiered key system, so if you dont want to pay full price, you can pay a lesser amount, but it still has advertising in it and your game gets interrupted slightly during gameplay for the adverts, for multiplayer, this could mean having the adverts during map changes and take a little longer to join a game.

'we interrupt your game to bring you a presentation from our sponsors'
mastorofpuppetz 7th June 2010, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
It's a shame that whenever video game piracy is brought up, people always end up debating semantics and technicalities.

Whether it's "1 pirated copy = 1 sale" or "They're calculating it using RRP!" or "They're not taking into account people who want to crack their legal copy", it all doesn't matter.

Pirating exists, it's prevalent and it is really hurting the industry. Even if the estimated number is off by over 50%, that's still huge.

According to this article, the current generation is the first one in history that has caused the game industry to shrink because of piracy.

Unfortunately, it's us (the ones who actually buy the games) that will ultimately be affected.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles are locked up tighter than a duck's arsehole.

Good post, PC gamers are their own worse enemy, we complain about everything. For years people asked for a dev to actually make a game for PC that was built for PC that utilized the latest and greatest tech, then when it happens we complain you need powerful hardware and use that as an excuse to pirate it. Don't think i saw a more whiney, group then gamers and Pc gamers in particular anywhere. Impossible to please, helping the demise of the platform they enjoy the most. Devs are in a no win with the PC gamers.
ZERO <ibis> 7th June 2010, 19:39 Quote
It would be as if I said hey you can buy these 100 X for 100$ each and no one buys them so I put them on sale for $50 each and they sell out. Then my manager comes and fires me saying look we sold out we could have charged $200 for those!

The basic assumption that demand for a good is equal across all price ranges is crazy. The basic principal of capitalism is that the demand is vastly different as cost changes. If these companies even had a basic understanding of economics then they would possibly be able to find real ways to make money rather than cry about things they can not change.
Glix 7th June 2010, 20:42 Quote
I saw someone make an amazing post I thought I'd carry over here.

Piracy doesn't exist on PS3, yet explain why the prices are relative to Xbox 360 and more expensive than PC.

Same carries across to DS game prices and PSP.


ALL have silly pricing. Publishers go *meh*, we're losing sales blame piracy...
Ne0ne 7th June 2010, 20:47 Quote
Rubbish! Developers hanging onto old consoles cost me 29 Billion new PC games.
Glix 7th June 2010, 20:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
It's a shame that whenever video game piracy is brought up, people always end up debating semantics and technicalities.

Whether it's "1 pirated copy = 1 sale" or "They're calculating it using RRP!" or "They're not taking into account people who want to crack their legal copy", it all doesn't matter.

Pirating exists, it's prevalent and it is really hurting the industry. Even if the estimated number is off by over 50%, that's still huge.

According to this article, the current generation is the first one in history that has caused the game industry to shrink because of piracy.

Unfortunately, it's us (the ones who actually buy the games) that will ultimately be affected.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles are locked up tighter than a duck's arsehole.

Good post, PC gamers are their own worse enemy, we complain about everything. For years people asked for a dev to actually make a game for PC that was built for PC that utilized the latest and greatest tech, then when it happens we complain you need powerful hardware and use that as an excuse to pirate it. Don't think i saw a more whiney, group then gamers and Pc gamers in particular anywhere. Impossible to please, helping the demise of the platform they enjoy the most. Devs are in a no win with the PC gamers.

So your not a PC gamer then? That's what you imply in your post, so why are you on bit-tech :S

Why do you want the Console manufacturers to lock up their systems for? What benefit does that bring to you as an individual? They killed the useful applications of the PS3 by doing that.

Oh and look at Epic, they claim that PC piracy made them move to consoles. Funny last time I looked a lot of xbox 360's got banned from Live, and that's only the one's caught or hooked up with older methods of modding it.

Why can't they just be honest and say they wanted to try the console market for the time being (to make money)?

Oh and PC gaming isn't dying. We have MMO's, RTS and even FPS (yes it still belongs on PC) to prove it.
And another thing, I have a R4-like card, but that doesn't automatically make me a pirate. You can do lots of legal and fun things with them whilst making for a cheap SDK platform.
kylew 7th June 2010, 21:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snubbs
At £2500 for CS5, most people will think it's about the same price as a cheap car. Average person thinks "Do I steal a car, or steal some software". One is certainly easier to hide, and is also not actively affecting the other partys (adobe) finances.

I'd love to know the piracy rate on Adboes software tbh. All these kids using Photoshop left right and centre.

Let's think for a second, were did they get the money? Minus those rich brats :)

Student version costs much less. £100-150 I think. But yes, there is a lot of Adobe piracy. That has partly been woven into their business model though. This is the scenario.

Kid steals CS4, learns how to use it well. He then does graphic design at college and becomes a pro graphic designer. Because he now works legit, he has to use legal software otherwise he could be arrested for a lot more because he's using the stolen IP for commercial purposes. He buys the latest version of the software, which is so useful it pays for itself in a few months (having talked to some graphic designers, this is the case). Pirating the software has turned him into a loyal Adobe user.

That's how it can work. Adobe have seemingly realised that the people who pirated their software were never going to buy it in the first place, and market saturation is only a good thing, because you get the de-facto standard which is used by millions of legal users worldwide.

This is unlike with handheld games, when your profits really do just depend on single titles. Jus because someone pirated Pokemon Sapphire does not mean that they'd necessarily then pirate Pokemon Heart Gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
[
To find out which car you like, do you steal various models off the street? Abandon the ones that you're not keen on and visit a showroom to buy the ones you do like?

That's a bit of a bad analagy - if you were interested in purchasing a car, you'd take it for a test run wouldn't you?

Yes, but you'd seek the dealer's permission before hotwiring it and driving away.

This is a good study, because at least it's been done scientifically. It's not like the RIAA, who have in the past claimed that piracy by Americans has lead to losses in the economy of so many billion, whilst forgetting that piracy then allows them to spend their money on other things that might benefit the economy more, like American grown food or American made clothes.

Piracy IS NOT THEFT get it in to your head, it's not stealing. Stop saying it is. Additionally, you don't get "done" for having or using copyrighted stuff, you get "done" for uploading it, or "supply". Companies can get in to trouble, but individuals can't as it's a civil matter.

Or do you think the Adobe License Police go around checking who is using PS, and what work is done on a cracked copy?
NuTech 7th June 2010, 21:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Good post, PC gamers are their own worse enemy, we complain about everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
So your not a PC gamer then? That's what you imply in your post, so why are you on bit-tech :S
He was being self-critical. And he's right, as PC gamers we're sometimes our own worst enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Piracy IS NOT THEFT get it in to your head, it's not stealing. Stop saying it is. Additionally, you don't get "done" for having or using copyrighted stuff, you get "done" for uploading it, or "supply". Companies can get in to trouble, but individuals can't as it's a civil matter.

Or do you think the Adobe License Police go around checking who is using PS, and what work is done on a cracked copy?
Dude, would it kill you to stop being so aggressive in each one of your posts? You're not really doing yourself any favours.
Tulatin 7th June 2010, 21:11 Quote
Pirated games != Lost sales. Besides, people are either going to pay for a game, or they aren't. If they arent, they'll end up borrowing it from a friend / buying it second hand. To a developer, piracy is financially identical to those two situations.
Hovis 7th June 2010, 21:36 Quote
A lot of the noise about piracy stems from the inaccuracy in how piracy is described. It is not theft, it is copying, and there is a huge difference between the two. Theft requires that something be taken away from somebody else. If I walk into a games shop with a shotgun and a big bag and get them to give me all the games, that's theft, because they no longer have the games to sell.

That's not to say piracy doesn't cost the industry money, of course it does, however we, as Free People Of Teh Internets™ need to wise to industry efforts to push agendas. There is nothing that would please the old media companies like Sony more than tighter government regulation of the internet. If we lose freedom of the internet don't expect to ever get it back.
Sloth 7th June 2010, 21:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Piracy IS NOT THEFT get it in to your head, it's not stealing. Stop saying it is. Additionally, you don't get "done" for having or using copyrighted stuff, you get "done" for uploading it, or "supply". Companies can get in to trouble, but individuals can't as it's a civil matter.

Or do you think the Adobe License Police go around checking who is using PS, and what work is done on a cracked copy?
I don't quite get how you're rationalizing that.

Downloading/installing/playing/consuming property, intellectual or otherwise, which you have no consent or permission to use and have not payed for is NOT theft? What is theft then?

You didn't enjoy the game, or you wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it's okay? You've had an experience due to a product which you did not purchase. If I steal an apple from the store and eat it then I am a thief, whether I enjoy the apple or not! It is an experience due to a product which I did not purchase, one cannot return an experience, even if I magically returned the apple or replaced it. I will have forever robbed the store owner of the experience of eating his apple.

Furthermore, it is an illegal act. There are current laws against it. Every single pirate is a criminal, like it or not. Whether they feel they are justified or whether they feel the law is wrong does not matter.

Also, can't remember if it was you or someone else who said it earlier, but the word "piracy" exists to specify what kind of theft it is, not to differentiate it from theft. Dictionary.com defines it as:

"the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc"

Simply a word to specify that it is theft of intellectual property as opposed to physical property.
jonmcc33 7th June 2010, 22:06 Quote
I just think back to the games I have purchased recently and regretted it. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Aliens vs Predator. That's $90 between the two games and both were garbage. Neither have any multiplayer to speak of, yet both promised just that. Nobody plays those games because they don't allow dedicated servers. OFPDR didn't even come with a CD key!

Sorry, I don't care about the gaming market. I care about the $90 I wasted.
dyzophoria 7th June 2010, 22:18 Quote
Im also disturbed at casual people who pirate handheld games like it was the norm. and take pride on it. if you want to pirate it i really dont care, but its just so wrong to say its right to pirate, just keep it yourself imo.
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 22:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I don't quite get how you're rationalizing that.

Downloading/installing/playing/consuming property, intellectual or otherwise, which you have no consent or permission to use and have not payed for is NOT theft? What is theft then?

Theft is the act of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Copyright infringement provides you with a copy of the original and as such cannot constitute theft under it's current definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
You didn't enjoy the game, or you wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it's okay? You've had an experience due to a product which you did not purchase. If I steal an apple from the store and eat it then I am a thief, whether I enjoy the apple or not! It is an experience due to a product which I did not purchase, one cannot return an experience, even if I magically returned the apple or replaced it. I will have forever robbed the store owner of the experience of eating his apple.

The "experience" of eating an apple or playing a game isn't a tangible item which you can deprive someone of. Even if it was the experience would be uniquely yours and not something you would be taking from someone else. You'd only be a thief in your example because you'd taken an item, in this case the apple, from the store owner dishonestly with the intention of depriving him of that item. Not to mention that you can return games in cases where you don't like them, altho this is getting trickier due to people having bought games, played them fully and then returning them within the allowed window. Furthermore if I, you, or anyone else, did download a game, played it for 30 mins and decided it was crap so never went near it again what harm has actually been done?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Furthermore, it is an illegal act. There are current laws against it. Every single pirate is a criminal, like it or not. Whether they feel they are justified or whether they feel the law is wrong does not matter.

Actually copyright infringement, in the situation we're discussing here, is a civil matter so you're not actually a criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Also, can't remember if it was you or someone else who said it earlier, but the word "piracy" exists to specify what kind of theft it is, not to differentiate it from theft. Dictionary.com defines it as:

"the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc"

Simply a word to specify that it is theft of intellectual property as opposed to physical property.

No, it's a word to describe something that is completely different from theft.
FelixTech 7th June 2010, 22:25 Quote
Rather than just debating piracy, I think the biggest element here is just the size of the games and the ease of downloading. These games are almost all under 50Mb, and readily avaible via ftp rather than p2p. Using an example of MW2, we get something like 8Gb = £40 lost sale. Now with the same amount of data we get 160 (x 50Mb) x £30 = £4800.

If the games cost a reasonable price (few are more complex than a decent iPhone game) then this would be less of a problem.
Bakes 7th June 2010, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Ah, abusive and rude, I see that I have no right at all to feel annoyance at the regular usage of the word "stealing" when piracy is involved, only to make piracy in to something that it isn't.

You have the right to feel annoyance, but it's very immature to then express it in words. It's perfectly acceptable to simply move your hands away from the keyboard, and if you type calmly most people will respect you for it. As for your justification to get annoyed, it's almost nil. You see someone disagreeing with your opinion, you start lambasting them. It's not really proportional.
Quote:
As for the example you've used, "riddle me this" what's that got to do with piracy? I said piracy and stealing aren't the same thing. You've just gave me an example of stealing and indecent behaviour.

Good job at talking nonsense though.

Ok, how is piracy not indecent behaviour? It's caused companies such as Crytek and Epic to stop developing exclusives for the PC, and it's caused Activision to remove some of the cores of PC gaming. Pirates directly affect the gaming experiences of others, because developers use piracy as an excuse to either develop exclusively for console or to develop sub-standard ports for PC.

Also, the usual rhetoric I hear from people who are trying to justify piracy is that it's a victimless crime because they would never buy it in the first place so no-one is losing out.

With my analogy, noone would be losing out because the owner of the possessions would be dead. In that case, noone would lose out, except perhaps the Government. Is it acceptable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Real or not doesn't really matter, I just used that facetious title to demonstrate a point.

Ubisoft estimates that the average DS game costs 20 times less than the average 360/PS3/PC game. Of course there are going to be some exceptions.

So yes, I do think its value should take into account how much it cost to build. I wouldn't pay Range Rover prices for a Nissan Micra, no matter how much more I used the Micra (hyperbolic I know, but true).

I would pay Range Rover prices for a Nissan Micra if it got me the same levels of driving pleasure that the Nissan would. Of course the Nissan wouldn't, but it's silly to judge something based on how much it cost to make or how massive the world is, if what really matters is how much pleasure and time it gives you.
Quote:
I agree, in a perfect world we should pay accordingly to how much we use something (Activision have hinted several times that they would like to do something like that for future MW games), however that is just not practical at the moment.

Lol, does that mean that Activision would be pretty much paying people to not play CoD?
Quote:
I would love to know exactly how the PS3 attach rate compares to that of the 360 or Wii. The problem is manufacturers hate releasing accurate data like that, and analysts guesses are vague at best. No doubt people buying replacement 360's would tarnish the data even further.

Still, the PS3's current situation is unprecedented in recent console history (in regards to zero piracy). It would make for a great case study.

It would be easy enough to contact Elspa to try and get some exact numbers, in my opinion.
Quote:
Sorry dude, I re-read that four times and I still have no clue what you mean. However, your initial post was pretty clear so I stand by my reply. You said "developement costs for any platform will be similar, so why would a console/hand held console game cost any less? " and that is simply not true (click that Ubisoft link above for just one publisher's estimates).

What he's saying is that because you don't need to port Pokemon to different consoles, or develop different levels of graphics, the development costs are somewhat lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Maybe not, but what it will help do is give a realistic idea of where possible sales are being lost which can then be used to determine why sales are being lost and what can be done to solve that problem. There's no point using figures that include god knows how many imaginary sales when trying to work out the true impact piracy is having on any industry, the only thing that really matters is how many sales were lost to people who would have otherwise paid if the product had been cheaper, easier to get hold of, more polished etc.

And let's not forget that the current method of quantifying piracy gives such skyhigh figures that any other possible cause is swept out of the way and the blame for the decline is put squarely at the feet of pirates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
So your not a PC gamer then? That's what you imply in your post, so why are you on bit-tech :S

Why do you want the Console manufacturers to lock up their systems for? What benefit does that bring to you as an individual? They killed the useful applications of the PS3 by doing that.

Locking up the systems that are designed exclusively to play games is good because it means that people with an off-North moral compass can't steal the games and reduce the return on investment for game developers, thus reducing the likelihood of them investing big in new games. What are the useful applications of the PS3 anyway? Gaming? Blu-Ray? iPlayer? Folding? Last I checked they all worked fine without a locked down system.

Before you quote Linux running on the PS3, it was crap. The PS3 has about 200MB ram, so Linux just couldn't run fast enough.
Quote:
Oh and look at Epic, they claim that PC piracy made them move to consoles. Funny last time I looked a lot of xbox 360's got banned from Live, and that's only the one's caught or hooked up with older methods of modding it.
Thus meaning that they can't then pirate Epic games very well. People pirate games on 360 as well, but it's many orders of magnitude lower than the PC purely because you do need to risk your console and usually pay someone to install the modchip (unless you're feeling risky). At least Microsoft can do something about piracy, ie by banning the consoles that do it, and at the end of the day that looks good to game developers.
Quote:
Why can't they just be honest and say they wanted to try the console market for the time being (to make money)?

I'm sure they don't. The people who make games are dedicated to their work, they love what they are doing. Games aren't cheap, a typical high-profile game such as Crysis 2 may cost over $20 million to produce, and the direct result of piracy is that the studio or publisher has less money in their pockets with which to invest in new talent or games.
Quote:
Oh and PC gaming isn't dying. We have MMO's, RTS and even FPS (yes it still belongs on PC) to prove it.

The majority of revenue from the PC platform comes from MMOs. The whole market is said to be worth $11 billion each year, but World of Warcraft has around 12 million subscribers that each pay $15 per month, which works out as about $2 billion per year. Considering that there is a whole market of games in Asia, which too have subscription fees, it's reasonable to guess that a majority of revenue from PC gaming is based on subscriptions.
Quote:
And another thing, I have a R4-like card, but that doesn't automatically make me a pirate. You can do lots of legal and fun things with them whilst making for a cheap SDK platform.

R4 cards and similar are almost exclusively used for piracy. There are a few people who use it for homebrew (who likely number in three or four figures) but the majority simply use it for piracy of well known games, thus affecting developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
I saw someone make an amazing post I thought I'd carry over here.

Piracy doesn't exist on PS3, yet explain why the prices are relative to Xbox 360 and more expensive than PC.

Same carries across to DS game prices and PSP.

ALL have silly pricing. Publishers go *meh*, we're losing sales blame piracy...

Consoles have the so-called 'Console Tax'. By this, consoles are subsidized partly at purchase, with the investment by the manufacturer at purchase offset by a small 'tax' on game purchases, usually about $10. In this way, the manufacturer gets their money back quicker and can sell their console at a lower price than it cost to make, whilst still setting mostly acceptable prices.

Furthermore, if you could sell stuff at £30 and have people buy it or sell it at £40 and have 90% of the people who would have bought it at £30 buy it, from a purely economical point of view it's worth setting the price even higher. The MW2 DLC is an example of this - it costs £11, but so many million people still bought it on the day of release. Because of this, one analyst suggested that the price should have been even higher because people will still buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Piracy IS NOT THEFT get it in to your head, it's not stealing. Stop saying it is.

Piracy is not theft by definition, but the effect is the same. You get something for free that you should have paid for. Whether you would have bought it or not in the first place is irrelevant.
Quote:
Additionally, you don't get "done" for having or using copyrighted stuff, you get "done" for uploading it, or "supply". Companies can get in to trouble, but individuals can't as it's a civil matter.

Well, you do, actually. In America, there's copyright lawyers who have this year sued 10k people, asking for $1500 in damages for having downloaded films ranging from Uwe Boll's atrocity "Far Cry" to Oscar winning "The Hurt Locker".
In the UK, ACS:Law is providing a similar function.
Quote:
Or do you think the Adobe License Police go around checking who is using PS, and what work is done on a cracked copy?

As I said, if your graphic design firm was found by Adobe to be using pirated software, ie you were using pirated software for commercial means, you could be sued for a lot of money.

Also, when your business is based on trust (as many graphic design firms are), it is bad practice to be using software you obtained illegally. Adobe is the exception, however, because their software is the de-facto of professionals and it sells really well anyway. It's like people pirating WoW, even though they're playing illegally on private servers Blizzard still makes $200 million per month.

What I find irritating is that people are preaching as if it's acceptable to pirate stuff. I doubt any of the people who are currently preaching about how piracy isn't theft and how they wouldn't have bought the crappy game anyway would be able to stand up, face a game developer and say "I didn't want to pay for the time you spent developing this game, so I simply downloaded it illegally at no charge. It's ok, I wasn't going to buy it in the first place because it's a crap game."
Krazeh 7th June 2010, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Piracy is not theft by definition, but the effect is the same. You get something for free that you should have paid for. Whether you would have bought it or not in the first place is irrelevant.

No, the outcome is the same in that in both cases you end up with something for free that you should have paid for but the effect it has, assuming we're discussing the developer/publisher, is very different. Theft actually deprives them of a physical product which they are then unable to sell to anyone, i.e. they have actually lost something that can be quantified, copyright infringement on the other hand doesn't deprive them of anything other than possibly the potential to sell you a copy of the game. As I said earlier the effect of copyright infringement on developers/publishers is much closer to that of the second hand market than it is to theft. Funny tho how the second hand market is held up as an important concept that developers/publishers shouldn't attempt to stop even tho it means people are using their product without paying for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
What I find irritating is that people are preaching as if it's acceptable to pirate stuff. I doubt any of the people who are currently preaching about how piracy isn't theft and how they wouldn't have bought the crappy game anyway would be able to stand up, face a game developer and say "I didn't want to pay for the time you spent developing this game, so I simply downloaded it illegally at no charge. It's ok, I wasn't going to buy it in the first place because it's a crap game."

I'd quite happily stand up to a developer and tell them I downloaded one of their games, played it for a bit, realised it was crap and never touched it again. I'm not gonna feel guilty for not being fleeced out of money for some of the utter tripe they release as finished games these days.
Sloth 7th June 2010, 23:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

The "experience" of eating an apple or playing a game isn't a tangible item which you can deprive someone of. Even if it was the experience would be uniquely yours and not something you would be taking from someone else. You'd only be a thief in your example because you'd taken an item, in this case the apple, from the store owner dishonestly with the intention of depriving him of that item. Not to mention that you can return games in cases where you don't like them, altho this is getting trickier due to people having bought games, played them fully and then returning them within the allowed window. Furthermore if I, you, or anyone else, did download a game, played it for 30 mins and decided it was crap so never went near it again what harm has actually been done?
The harm done is that I had enough interest to research DRM bypassing methods and safe download sources, then download and install the game and then play it and never pay for it. The particular harm that various developers cite is the "never went near it again" part. There's no obligation on the developer's or publisher's part to sell you a game you'll enjoy and there's no entitlement on your part to take a sample which hasn't been offered. Some developers offer demos to convince people to buy their games, some don't. It's not some God-given right to have demos of every game you want and not justified to pirate a game just because there's no demo. In sales of all things there is an aspect of promoting an item so that people will purchase it, regardless of whether they really want or need it. Is it such a novel concept that maybe, just once in a rare while, people have to make decisions and perhaps choose to never play a game they have an slight interest in if they really don't think it's worth buying? A great many people act like they have the right to play any and every game, and choose which ones are worth paying for.

I will, however, agree that it is an exaggeration to say that every pirated copy is a lost sale, but it is quite fair to say that every pirated copy is a lost possible sale. To delve into the murky waters of "what if", there are a great many pirates who claim to have made a decision to not purchase a game based on their experience with a pirated copy, yet there are strikingly few stories of purchasing a game after pirating. This is getting entirely into theorycrafting, but I would be willing to bet that the majority of "try before you buy" acts of piracy end without a purchase, even for decent games. A person will find a game hard to justify once they know it can be had for free. Much like the way I find it hard to buy lunch at Costo because I know I can mooch off free samples. The temptation to say "well, I've already pirated it so I may as well keep playing. It's really not that great anyway." is far greater than the one to pay $50+ for something you've already got, albiet illegally. People are predisposed to defend their own actions, even when they know they're wrong, and as such a review of a pirated game is likely to be far worse than that of a purchased game. The pirate will try to justify reasons for not buying it claim that it is not worth it (even after playing the whole thing and enjoying it) and the one who purchased it will claim that it is great in an effort to justify their hard earned money being spent, even if it isn't great.
Quote:
Theft is the act of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Copyright infringement provides you with a copy of the original and as such cannot constitute theft under it's current definition.

No, it's a word to describe something that is completely different from theft.
I will give you that then. But I ask, does that make piracy any better than theft?
Bakes 7th June 2010, 23:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No, the outcome is the same in that in both cases you end up with something for free that you should have paid for but the effect it has, assuming we're discussing the developer/publisher, is very different. Theft actually deprives them of a physical product which they are then unable to sell to anyone, i.e. they have actually lost something that can be quantified, copyright infringement on the other hand doesn't deprive them of anything other than possibly the potential to sell you a copy of the game. As I said earlier the effect of copyright infringement on developers/publishers is much closer to that of the second hand market than it is to theft. Funny tho how the second hand market is held up as an important concept that developers/publishers shouldn't attempt to stop even tho it means people are using their product without paying for it.

Developers are trying to stop the second hand market, yes. EA has it's system by which games come with a single-use code that activates important features such as online, which must be purchased for $10 by prospective second hand purchasers, reducing the appeal.
Quote:

I'd quite happily stand up to a developer and tell them I downloaded one of their games, played it for a bit, realised it was crap and never touched it again. I'm not gonna feel guilty for not being fleeced out of money for some of the utter tripe they release as finished games these days.

So begins the vicious circle.

You don't buy games because in your opinion the games on the market aren't good enough for your money, the developer then doesn't spend as much on future games for the PC platform because their revenues are not as high as they could be, and so the cycle begins again.

Perhaps you should check reviews to see whether a game is to your high standards?

When developers make genuinely good games such as Arkham Asylum, CoD4 or HL2, people still pirate the crap out of them. Claiming that the main reason for piracy is that people don't like buying crap games is complete tripe - piracy is demonstrably higher on good games.
Sloth 7th June 2010, 23:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

I'd quite happily stand up to a developer and tell them I downloaded one of their games, played it for a bit, realised it was crap and never touched it again. I'm not gonna feel guilty for not being fleeced out of money for some of the utter tripe they release as finished games these days.
So why not simply... stop buying new games? Or stop buying from certain developers? Or read thorough reviews and hear from first hand experiences?

If you don't like someone's product then dont buy it. Since you've shown theft and piracy really are two different things I'll use another example. A lot of "comtempory" "literature" is pretty trash imo. That doesn't mean I should get to pirate an ebook of Twilight and try reading it just because I don't think it's worth my money before trying.
Bonzo45 7th June 2010, 23:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
It's a shame that whenever video game piracy is brought up, people always end up debating semantics and technicalities.

Whether it's "1 pirated copy = 1 sale" or "They're calculating it using RRP!" or "They're not taking into account people who want to crack their legal copy", it all doesn't matter.

Pirating exists, it's prevalent and it is really hurting the industry. Even if the estimated number is off by over 50%, that's still huge.

According to this article, the current generation is the first one in history that has caused the game industry to shrink because of piracy.

Unfortunately, it's us (the ones who actually buy the games) that will ultimately be affected.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles are locked up tighter than a duck's arsehole.

Sums it up perfectly, it's this kind of stuff that makes me really feel for Ubisoft. Piracy IS stealing, no way around it. Gamers bring it on themselves (not all of you) and it's the people that pay for the games that have to pay with intrusive DRM systems. Even if the figures are off, which no doubt these statistics are it remains a major problem.

Come on people, try before you buy is not a valid excuse - read a review you spanner!
I read this the other day, you could pay whatever you wanted for this indie game pack - from 1cent upwards and much of the proceeds went to charity, but people still pirated the games!!!
Pieface 7th June 2010, 23:39 Quote
I don't get anyone who can justify Piracy for games at all. Don't have the money? Don't buy it, not sure about the game? Simply don't get it.

People don't seem to understand at all, that it actually costs a hell of a lot of money to make a game and you're pretty much stealing their intellectual property. Piracy destroys the industry, and us people who actually buy the games have to suffer through your ignorance. If you can't get a game legally, then tough, you don't need it, it is a luxury so suck it up.
RichCreedy 7th June 2010, 23:43 Quote
Encarta definition of Piracy

piracy [ prəssi ]


noun

Definition:

1. robbery on high seas: robbery on the high seas, especially the stealing of a ship's cargo


2. robbery on any form of transport: robbery committed on board any form of transport, especially an aircraft


3. hijacking: the hijacking of an aircraft or another form of transport


4. use of copyright material without permission: the taking and using of copyright or patented material without authorization or without the legal right to do so


5. illegal broadcasting: the unauthorized or illegal broadcasting of TV or radio programmes


[Mid-16th century. < medieval Latin piratia< Latin pirata (see pirate)]
M7ck 7th June 2010, 23:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
I don't get anyone who can justify Piracy for games at all. Don't have the money? Don't buy it, not sure about the game? Simply don't get it.

People don't seem to understand at all, that it actually costs a hell of a lot of money to make a game and you're pretty much stealing their intellectual property. Piracy destroys the industry, and us people who actually buy the games have to suffer through your ignorance. If you can't get a game legally, then tough, you don't need it, it is a luxury so suck it up.

I agree with this 100%, I said something similar the last time piracy was a topic on here. However you can't argue the rights and wrongs with thieving pirates (and yes, they are thieves) they will ALWAYS try and justify it with some far fetched excuse. Piracy is wrong, full stop.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 00:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I agree with this 100%, I said something similar the last time piracy was a topic on here. However you can't argue the rights and wrongs with thieving pirates (and yes, they are thieves) they will ALWAYS try and justify it with some far fetched excuse. Piracy is wrong, full stop.

Why? Because they're using someone's work without providing any recompense to that person? If that's the case then people who only buy second hand games are just as bad. Or is it simply because they're not giving money to anyone? Would it make you happier if they gave the money they didn't spend on a game to a charity?
yougotkicked 8th June 2010, 00:02 Quote
say what you will about piracy, but I simply cannot abide companies claiming a loss of revenue because of it. there have been several studies that proved that if pirates didn't steal games, they really would not have bought them either. one company that carried out their own study found that every 1000 copies of a game they prevented from being pirated, they only sold a single game. so the real loss figures are likely about 0.1% of this estimate.

pirates download much more than customers buy, so this method of revenue loss estimation is simply wrong.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 00:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Why? Because they're using someone's work without providing any recompense to that person? If that's the case then people who only buy second hand games are just as bad. Or is it simply because they're not giving money to anyone? Would it make you happier if they gave the money they didn't spend on a game to a charity?

See what I mean about excuses :( Now you are trying to class pirates as the same as someone who buys second hand? In a pirates warped mind perhaps but to the rest of the (law abiding) world it is not.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 00:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
I don't get anyone who can justify Piracy for games at all. Don't have the money? Don't buy it

But I take it you have no problem with people buying games when they're going for a fraction of what they were released at? Or as a second hand purchase? Situations which dramatically reduce, and in the case of second hand eliminates entirely, the amount of recompense the developer gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
not sure about the game? Simply don't get it.

So trying it to see whether you think it's worth purchasing and then very potentially going ahead and buying it is worse for the developer than not buying it all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
People don't seem to understand at all, that it actually costs a hell of a lot of money to make a game and you're pretty much stealing their intellectual property. Piracy destroys the industry, and us people who actually buy the games have to suffer through your ignorance. If you can't get a game legally, then tough, you don't need it, it is a luxury so suck it up.

No, I understand that entirely, I just disagree with the conclusions you draw. As I see it there's 3 sorts of consumers:

1. Those who will buy games without question.
2. Those who can be convinced to part with their money but may, for one reason or another, end up downloading it.
3. Those who would never buy it even if they were unable to download it.

The first 2 groups are what the industry should be concerned with and what they should be using to gauge their potential sales and losses. The 3rd group should not come into consideration either when considering potential sales you might make or losses you think you've made. You always going to end up making a loss if you market projections include an entire group of people who you'll never convince to part with their cash regardless of what you do.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 00:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
See what I mean about excuses :( Now you are trying to class pirates as the same as someone who buys second hand? In a pirates warped mind perhaps but to the rest of the (law abiding) world it is not.

From the point of view of the developer how is it different? They're not seeing any money either way, so how does buying second hand have some sort of moral high ground when discussing the problems faced by developers/publishers?
M7ck 8th June 2010, 00:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
From the point of view of the developer how is it different? They're not seeing any money either way, so how does buying second hand have some sort of moral high ground when discussing the problems faced by developers/publishers?

Again we dont have exact numbers so I will try guesstimate the following.

One pirate buys the game, rips it and a hundred people download it. The publisher gets one sale.

Ten people buy it and then trade it in, ten people buy the trade ins and then trade it in, yet another ten people buy them and then also trade it in, and so on. The publisher still made ten sales.

Only a complete muppet would honestly think that the second hand market is comparable to stealing games.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 00:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Again we dont have exact numbers so I will try guesstimate the following.

One pirate buys the game, rips it and a hundred people download it. The publisher gets one sale.

Ten people buy it and then trade it in, ten people buy the trade ins and then trade it in, yet another ten people buy them and then also trade it in, and so on. The publisher still made ten sales.

Only a complete muppet would honestly think that the second hand market is comparable to stealing games.

Yes, well guesstimated to exactly fit the point you were trying to prove. I can do that too, look:

10 people buy the game, rip it and pass copies to 10 of their friends. The publisher makes 10 sales.

5 people buy the game, trade it in, 5 more people buy the trade ins, trade it in and so on. The publisher makes 5 sales.

Clearly piracy must be the far better option!!!

Now, on a serious point, you are completely missing the issue at the heart of the comparison. People who pirate games and people who buy games second hand have exactly the same impact on the developer, they are using that developer's work without providing any recompense to them. The only difference is the person who has bought the game second hand has presumably paid money to someone along the line, either a retail store who will pocket it all or the person who bought the game before them.

From a point of view of the recompense recieved by the developer/publisher there is no difference between downloading a game or buying it secondhand, the developer/publisher gets no recompense whatsoever for your use of their work. Does this make downloading all your games and never buying them right? No, of course it doesn't but it does mean that people shouldn't be acting superior about buying second hand games.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 00:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yougotkicked
say what you will about piracy, but I simply cannot abide companies claiming a loss of revenue because of it. there have been several studies that proved that if pirates didn't steal games, they really would not have bought them either. one company that carried out their own study found that every 1000 copies of a game they prevented from being pirated, they only sold a single game. so the real loss figures are likely about 0.1% of this estimate.

pirates download much more than customers buy, so this method of revenue loss estimation is simply wrong.
As I've said in other piracy threads, this is truly hard to quantify. Do those people pirate games they wouldn't buy merely because they know they can? There's a very small number of people who cannot afford to buy a game, everyone who has the money to purchase a game is a potential customer. A good number of those people may judge games with the thought of piracy in mind and determine that a game is not worth paying $50 for simply because it may be had for free if they wanted, not because they didn't want it all. If a perfect DRM is ever developed people will still buy the game, and indeed many who say they would never buy it will end up buying it because they truly want to play the game, only this time they can't pirate it and say they wouldn't.


As far as second hand games, I'm all for developers/publishers making ways to add an additional fee for secondhand users. It seems I agree with Krazeh that piracy and second hand are indeed similar, only on other sides of the reason.
Pieface 8th June 2010, 00:41 Quote
Krazeh, face it, you're a thief. And trying to justify it is making you look like a dick. It's simply pathetic how you think you can justify stealing intellectual rights. As I said, if you don't want the game, don't bloody get it.

I'm ashamed to be on the same forum as you. Saying Piracy is the better option is pure comedy. Grow the hell up, get some money, and buy the games like us. People like you destroy the industry so GTFO.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 00:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
Krazeh, face it, you're a thief. And trying to justify it is making you look like a dick. It's simply pathetic how you think you can justify stealing intellectual rights. As I said, if you don't want the game, don't bloody get it.

Wow, awesome discussion skills there, too much trouble to actually think up a proper argument so resorting to insults eh?

Firstly, i'm not a thief, at worst you could claim i'm a copyright infringer for having tried games out before deciding whether it is actually worth spending my cash on but that's a long way from being a thief (even if you can't fully understand the difference). Anything I have actually played for anymore than a brief period I have paid for. Yes I could have not downloaded stuff to try it out and therefore not bought it at all but how is that a better option for the industry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
I'm ashamed to be on the same forum as you. Saying Piracy is the better option is pure comedy. Grow the hell up, get some money, and buy the games like us. People like you destroy the industry so GTFO.

You may have noticed the "Piracy is the better option" statement was made in a sarcastic fashion and was there to point out the pointlessness of M7ck's made up statistics. It wasn't a serious comment and that would have been obvious had you actually read my entire post properly. And to be honest if you're ashamed to be on the same forum as people who don't agree with your views and can actually argue a differing viewpoint then I'd have to imagine there's not a lot of forums you're not ashamed to be on.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 00:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Anything I have actually played for anymore than a brief period I have paid for.
I may have raped her, but I only stuck the tip in!

Any more and I made sure to say thank you after!
Pieface 8th June 2010, 01:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Wow, awesome discussion skills there, too much trouble to actually think up a proper argument so resorting to insults eh?

Firstly, i'm not a thief, at worst you could claim i'm a copyright infringer for having tried games out before deciding whether it is actually worth spending my cash on but that's a long way from being a thief (even if you can't fully understand the difference). Anything I have actually played for anymore than a brief period I have paid for. Yes I could have not downloaded stuff to try it out and therefore not bought it at all but how is that a better option for the industry?



You may have noticed the "Piracy is the better option" statement was made in a sarcastic fashion and was there to point out the pointlessness of M7ck's made up statistics. It wasn't a serious comment and that would have been obvious had you actually read my entire post properly. And to be honest if you're ashamed to be on the same forum as people who don't agree with your views and can actually argue a differing viewpoint then I'd have to imagine there's not a lot of forums you're not ashamed to be on.

You still don't understand the term piracy fully do you? It's the robbery of intellectual rights. You could call stealing in a shop just shoplifting and not really theft. You go learn how much a major games company spends on making a game, and then work out why pricing of games are such as they were. You're STILL trying to justify Piracy (Theft) and saying you're doing a better job for the industry which is laughable.

And I'm fine with people sharing the same LEGAL views as me. That's like a user coming on, going I stole a cool car and then trying to justify it and I don't share the same views as them. You go and understand why Piracy is actually illegal before trying to justify it. Funny how it is illegal eh? I mean if it is alright and is pretty much not harming the industry that much as you say, I wonder why it hasn't been made legal? Funny that isn't it.

You're breaking the law, end of. And you're ruining the industry for the ones of us who pay to play games. I read reviews, or try out Game Demo's before I buy games, you know, those legal options that are out there?! So don't come up with the crap that you're still supporting the industry by not buying the games you like.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 01:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You still don't understand the term piracy fully do you? It's the robbery of intellectual rights. You could call stealing in a shop just shoplifting and not really theft. You go learn how much a major games company spends on making a game, and then work out why pricing of games are such as they were. You're STILL trying to justify Piracy (Theft) and saying you're doing a better job for the industry which is laughable.

No, i fully understand the term piracy, it's essentially shorthand for copyright infringement which in this case is producing a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission or authorisation. An act which is completely different from that of theft and indeed your claim about the robbery of intellectual rights, i've not dishonestly appropriated or deprived anyone of their intellectual rights. In order to do that i'd actually have to steal the source code for the game in question.

You still haven't actually come up with a argument to refute that trying a game and then going on to buy it is worse for the industry than just not buying it all, how about giving that a try?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
And I'm fine with people sharing the same LEGAL views as me. That's like a user coming on, going I stole a cool car and then trying to justify it and I don't share the same views as them. You go and understand why Piracy is actually illegal before trying to justify it. Funny how it is illegal eh? I mean if it is alright and is pretty much not harming the industry that much as you say, I wonder why it hasn't been made legal? Funny that isn't it.

I fully understand why copyright infringement hasn't been made legal, but then again I also understand what it is and why it differs from theft. Perhaps you should learn the difference before continuing to claim they're the same thing? And I'm not justifying or condoning piracy in the sense of downloading all your games and never paying for them. I don't think at any point i've said that is acceptable or something people should be doing. I do however disagree that sampling a game before deciding whether or not to buy it is some sort of morally reprehensible act or that it causes any of the harm you're trying to imply it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You're breaking the law, end of.


People break the law all the time, in all manner of ways. Or are you claiming that you've never ever ever breached any law in any form whatsoever? Take it you've never copied one of your cds for your own personal use? Or ripped it to another format like MP3? Or exceeded a speed limit? Or walked across someone else's property without their permission? Or do one of the other multitude of things people do every day without thinking about it but are technically against the law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
And you're ruining the industry for the ones of us who pay to play games. I read reviews, or try out Game Demo's before I buy games, you know, those legal options that are out there?! So don't come up with the crap that you're still supporting the industry by not buying the games you like.

Seriously, try coming up with a serious argument to back up this statement. I'd love to see how you argue that not buying games at all is less ruining to the industry than actually buying games.
Pieface 8th June 2010, 01:36 Quote
You say you try the games, yet you trying games you were contemplating but never took further was losing royalties for the company, as I said if you can't afford it then suck it up and don't get it. I think any company would rather you outright didn't buy their game as opposed to downloading it illegaly and then playing it.

You state there are no royalties lost and it is less ruining the industry than buying them? What are the big pirated games then? I'm guessing it's not Indie Games, I'd guess it's moreso the Grand Theft Auto's, Call of Duty's etc. And I bet you many of those who pirate the game would have bought it had their been no opportunity to get the game by stealing it.

Oh, and ripping a CD to MP3, or another CD for my own personal use is not against the law, as if I already hold a license to use it I can do it. And if you're trying to address stepping on someone's property is anywhere near close to piracy, then your argument is just pedantic and out of touch. Also I, unlike you probably, try not to speed. I don't drive much anyway to really speed as my work is a couple of miles away down dangerous country roads you could barely beat the speed limit if at all, especially with all the pot holes about.

You try coming back with a real argument to how you can justify Piracy, and how it has never harmed the industry, because you know full well it has harmed it a heck of a lot. And why don't you decide to actually follow the law, and not come up with crap excuses. As I've said, download demo's, or read reviews before you buy games, but don't go destroying the industry, and stop promoting piracy in your threads as a good thing to do.

You should learn the similarities to Copyright infringement and theft. You go out their, pay Millions to make a game, and then get someone like you to just simply download the game you paid lots of money to make so therefore you can be left out of pocket due to someone stealing your hard work. There's no difference to stealing a hard copy of a game within a store, and stealing a game via downloading it through the internet. Yet I would bet you would say stealing a hard copy of a game is theft (Would you not?) whereas you say Pirating the game is differing to theft. In both ways a company has lost potential money for exactly the same product.

You stop saying that people use Piracy to "test" a game and realise about 99.99% of those who are doing piracy will never pay for the game even though they may play the game a hell of a lot.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 02:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You say you try the games, yet you trying games you were contemplating but never took further was losing royalties for the company, as I said if you can't afford it then suck it up and don't get it. I think any company would rather you outright didn't buy their game as opposed to downloading it illegaly and then playing it.

So if I try the game for 20-30 mins, realise it's crap so delete it and don't buy it then i'm causing a loss for the company? But if I don't try it and don't buy it i'm not? How exactly are you working that out? And it has nothing to do with not being able to afford to buy it, i'm happy to do so if it's actually worth the money but I'm gonna want to know that i'm actually spending my money on something worthwhile before I hand it over. Perhaps you're lucky enough to have money to just throw away on crap and mark it down as "oh well never mind, that's another 30 quid down the drain for nothing" but not everyone has that luxury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You state there are no royalties lost and it is less ruining the industry than buying them? What are the big pirated games then? I'm guessing it's not Indie Games, I'd guess it's moreso the Grand Theft Auto's, Call of Duty's etc. And I bet you many of those who pirate the game would have bought it had their been no opportunity to get the game by stealing it.

What has trying the game and buying it if it's good got to do with people who had no intention of buying it downloading a copy? You could actually make an attempt to understand the argument i'm making before responding. I'm not saying that downloading games and keeping them with no intention of paying for them is right or acceptable; i'm talking about an entire different proposition which you appear to have skipped right past on your way to rant about the evils of something i've not even said I agree with.

As for your 'bet' I completely disagree, I think a lot of people who download and keep a game would happily go without if there had been no opportunity for them to download it in the first place. I'd go even further and think that a lot of people who download and keep games do it simply because they can and don't really have all that much interest in the game they're getting at the best of times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
Oh, and ripping a CD to MP3, or another CD for my own personal use is not against the law, as if I already hold a license to use it I can do it.

Actually under current UK law it is illegal to do exactly that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
And if you're trying to address stepping on someone's property is anywhere near close to piracy, then your argument is just pedantic and out of touch. Also I, unlike you probably, try not to speed. I don't drive much anyway to really speed as my work is a couple of miles away down dangerous country roads you could barely beat the speed limit if at all, especially with all the pot holes about.

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort, what I was doing is pointing out that the "You're breaking the law therefore you're automatically evil" argument doesn't hold up when we live in a society where we all break laws, albeit ones we consider minor and to not have much merit but laws nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You try coming back with a real argument to how you can justify Piracy, and how it has never harmed the industry, because you know full well it has harmed it a heck of a lot. And why don't you decide to actually follow the law, and not come up with crap excuses. As I've said, download demo's, or read reviews before you buy games, but don't go destroying the industry, and stop promoting piracy in your threads as a good thing to do.

I never promoted piracy as a good thing, it's not and I've never said otherwise. But then again I can see a distinction between sampling a game for 30 mins and then buying it or deleting it and downloading and keeping games with no intention of ever buying them. It's the former that i'm stating doesn't harm the industry because it simply doesn't, the latter of course is a problem and while I think the impact it has is overblown in cases and could be better handled if the industry realised that certain people will never pay for their games and should not be included in considerations about possible profit and loss I don't condone it or partake in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You should learn the similarities to Copyright infringement and theft. You go out their, pay Millions to make a game, and then get someone like you to just simply download the game you paid lots of money to make so therefore you can be left out of pocket due to someone stealing your hard work. .

Again, how does me testing a game and then either buying or deleting it leave anyone out of pocket? The only possible way that happens is if you consider that I should just hand over money for any old crap simply because someone had to spend time making it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
There's no difference to stealing a hard copy of a game within a store, and stealing a game via downloading it through the internet. Yet I would bet you would say stealing a hard copy of a game is theft (Would you not?) whereas you say Pirating the game is differing to theft. In both ways a company has lost potential money for exactly the same product.

Yes, there is the argument that both ways lead to a company losing potential money but the major distinction is that if someone downloads a copy then the company has lost, at most, the potential sale to that one person. If someone steals a physical product then the company has lost that actual item and therefore the potential sale to not only the person who stole it but to the person who would have otherwise bought that stolen item. That's the distinction, copyright infringement doesn't deprive the company of any physical property or prevent them from selling that on to someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
You stop saying that people use Piracy to "test" a game and realise about 99.99% of those who are doing piracy will never pay for the game even though they may play the game a hell of a lot.

Where did I say that anyone who downloads something is only using it to "test"? I'm fully aware that a lot of people who download things will use it and not end up paying for it but I also realise there are people who will part with their money.
Lazarus Dark 8th June 2010, 02:17 Quote
While it doesn't apply on DS games... for PC games DRM is a big issue. When looking at PC pirating "statistics", I always wonder... how many people do what I do... Buy the game, but download the cracked-drm free version to actually install (when possible). In this case 1 pirate=1 purchase. I just always wonder, how much does this really happen....

BTW I have a ton of gamer friends and none of them pirate. Even the brokest will wait till they can afford it, even though they are plenty savvy enough to download. Who are all these pirates anyway...
Yslen 8th June 2010, 03:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
The games that I downloaded, were very quickly uninstalled due to being crap after 5 minutes.

These companies need to concentrate on making good games rather than blaming every man and his dog if a game fails to live up to its expectations.

Oh, if it's a rubbish game it's fine to pirate it. :?

Well yes, if you don't keep it. It's like taking it back to the store. They don't get your money, you don't get their product, so morally speaking, there's nothing wrong there as far as I can see. If anything it avoids the situation where a user is conned into buying junk games by advertising, which despite being legal, is a definite moral grey area.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 04:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

I'd quite happily stand up to a developer and tell them I downloaded one of their games, played it for a bit, realised it was crap and never touched it again. I'm not gonna feel guilty for not being fleeced out of money for some of the utter tripe they release as finished games these days.
So why not simply... stop buying new games? Or stop buying from certain developers? Or read thorough reviews and hear from first hand experiences?

If you don't like someone's product then dont buy it. Since you've shown theft and piracy really are two different things I'll use another example. A lot of "comtempory" "literature" is pretty trash imo. That doesn't mean I should get to pirate an ebook of Twilight and try reading it just because I don't think it's worth my money before trying.

I want to buy new games, but I only want to buy titles I will enjoy. A company that sells me something I don't like can only do so by tricking me into thinking I will like it. I see this as far more morally wrong than making copies of games for the purposes of making informed purchasing decisions. I can't see how anyone can object to this if I am being honest about it - it's not different to taking some shoes back to a shop because they don't fit properly.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 04:20 Quote
Just to clarify, before someone flames me for it; I believe that pirating a game and then keeping it without paying is wrong, and cannot be justified. I do not do this, and anybody who does is shooting themselves in the foot if they love gaming.
Denis_iii 8th June 2010, 06:48 Quote
its there own fault for charging so much for lil poo bear hand held games
Bakes 8th June 2010, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark
While it doesn't apply on DS games... for PC games DRM is a big issue. When looking at PC pirating "statistics", I always wonder... how many people do what I do... Buy the game, but download the cracked-drm free version to actually install (when possible). In this case 1 pirate=1 purchase. I just always wonder, how much does this really happen....

BTW I have a ton of gamer friends and none of them pirate. Even the brokest will wait till they can afford it, even though they are plenty savvy enough to download. Who are all these pirates anyway...

you can just download the crack for that, you don't need torrents. There are sites.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 14:48 Quote
I am surprised that Bit-Tech staff are allowing a lot of these comments to stay on the forums. Bit Techs own rules state 'Promotion' of piracy is not allowed. All these members trying to justify piracy should be banned from these forums before Bit-Tech is affected by it. Surely we dont want to be known for having members who openly break the law and say that it is ok.

Come on Bit-Tech make an example of these thieves.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 14:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I am surprised that Bit-Tech staff are allowing a lot of these comments to stay on the forums. Bit Techs own rules state 'Promotion' of piracy is not allowed. All these members trying to justify piracy should be banned from these forums before Bit-Tech is affected by it. Surely we dont want to be known for having members who openly break the law and say that it is ok.

Come on Bit-Tech make an example of these thieves.

Where has anyone promoted piracy? I think everyone has pretty much agreed that piracy is a bad thing.
Pete J 8th June 2010, 15:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I am surprised that Bit-Tech staff are allowing a lot of these comments to stay on the forums. Bit Techs own rules state 'Promotion' of piracy is not allowed. All these members trying to justify piracy should be banned from these forums before Bit-Tech is affected by it. Surely we dont want to be known for having members who openly break the law and say that it is ok.

Come on Bit-Tech make an example of these thieves.
I'm a bit surprised too but not in a bad way. Most forums I've visited will pretty much immediately close any thread and ban any members that discuss piracy.

Personally I'm glad to see that Bit-Tech allows active discussion of piracy. And besides, it's not Bit-Tech themselves who are promoting piracy, so no issues.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 15:13 Quote
Its all very well discussing piracy however we have members trying to justify it and admit they are doing it, and then having the gall to try and insinuate that honest members are just as bad for buying second hand games.

Piracy is illegal, full stop. There is no justification for it.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Its all very well discussing piracy however we have members trying to justify it and admit they are doing it, and then having the gall to try and insinuate that honest members are just as bad for buying second hand games.

Piracy is illegal, full stop. There is no justification for it.

Seriously, please point out where anyone has admitted to downloading and keeping games that they've had no intention of paying for.

And you're still really not getting the point about second hand games are you? If your concern about piracy is that it means people are playing a developer's game without providing that developer with any recompense and therefore destryong the industry then you should be just as concerned about the second hand market doing exactly the same thing.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Seriously, please point out where anyone has admitted to downloading and keeping games that they've had no intention of paying for.

Piracy isn't defined by whether you keep it or not, the fact that you downloaded it makes it piracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

And you're still really not getting the point about second hand games are you? If your concern about piracy is that it means people are playing a developer's game without providing that developer with any recompense and therefore destryong the industry then you should be just as concerned about the second hand market doing exactly the same thing.

Piracy is illegal, buying second hand games is not.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 15:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Piracy isn't defined by whether you keep it or not, the fact that you downloaded it makes it piracy.

Copyright infringement is something people break all the time, even by doing things as simple as copying their own cds. 'Piracy' is all about people downloading and keeping games with no intention of ever paying for them, do you think the industry is honestly that bothered about people who download stuff, try it and then either buy it or delete it?

Edit: Do you consider anyone who's ever copied one of their cds or ripped it to mp3 or some other digital format to be a pirate? Or someone who's ripped some of their dvds so they could put it on a laptop and watch while on holiday? Or someone who's backed up a copy of a game they own so they don't need to risk damaging the original disk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Piracy is illegal, buying second hand games is not.

Right so you don't actually give a **** about the industry, it's all about the fact that someone has got something for free whereas you've paid for it. I mean that's fine as something to be outraged about but let's not pretend that you're any better for the games industry for having bought stuff second hand.

And while we're on the issue of legality it's pretty much the case that most games sold second hand are being sold in breach of the license agreement, which is a civil issue in the same way as copyright infringement. It's just that in the case of second hand games we have decided, as a society, that it's acceptable to break the license agreement in that fashion.
Bakes 8th June 2010, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Copyright infringement is something people break all the time, even by doing things as simple as copying their own cds. 'Piracy' is all about people downloading and keeping games with no intention of ever paying for them, do you think the industry is honestly that bothered about people who download stuff, try it and then either buy it or delete it?

Based on the a) way that you are adamant that most people just download to try and then buy and b) the way that the industry has reacted to piracy, and the fact that less games are being made for pc, and the fact that those games are more and more just ports.

Yes.
Quote:
Edit: Do you consider anyone who's ever copied one of their cds or ripped it to mp3 or some other digital format to be a pirate? Or someone who's ripped some of their dvds so they could put it on a laptop and watch while on holiday? Or someone who's backed up a copy of a game they own so they don't need to risk damaging the original disk?

No, because they're making a personal copy of something they own. There's a difference between buying something and making a copy that you then don't give to anyone else and merely downloading intellectual property.
Quote:
Right so you don't actually give a **** about the industry, it's all about the fact that someone has got something for free whereas you've paid for it. I mean that's fine as something to be outraged about but let's not pretend that you're any better for the games industry for having bought stuff second hand.

Well, personally, I'm annoyed that people like you are ruining games for people like me by reducing the profits of the industry.

Anyway, I think there was an excellent example.

Say a hacker buys a game, cracks it and puts it online. 30 people then download it (there's more than that in general, more like 200,000, but still.

Alternatively, ten people buy a game. play it, then sell it on. This happens three times. See the key difference there? With second hand, ten people bought the game. With pirating, one person bought the game.

In any case, this point is moot. There is no second hand games market for PC games because they can't be resold due to the use of CDkeys in almost every title.
Quote:
And while we're on the issue of legality it's pretty much the case that most games sold second hand are being sold in breach of the license agreement, which is a civil issue in the same way as copyright infringement. It's just that in the case of second hand games we have decided, as a society, that it's acceptable to break the license agreement in that fashion.

I like the book analogy, because books are also full of intellectual property.

It's legal to buy a book. It's legal to sell a book. That's because you own the paper and the ink that it's printed on. You have the right to sell it.

You can't download that book off the internet, legally (unless it's out of copyright) without the permission of the publishers. Understand? Even if you've bought the paper copy.
mrbens 8th June 2010, 17:08 Quote
Oh well, there are worse crimes going on than piracy. Everybody likes getting something for free.

As long as you don't pirate 100% of your games the world's not gonna come to an end.

I'm sick of hearing people get on their high horse when discussing piracy.

Don't forget people playing pirated games don't get the full experience like online modes, achievements, etc so having the original is always preferable.
Mik3yB @ CCL 8th June 2010, 17:15 Quote
Rather than everyone repeating themselves over and over (its pretty clear what peoples views on the matter are!), what do you think is the solution so that both developers/publishers are happy and the end users are happy? Or should piracy just continue?

It seems price and quality are the main issues..

I doubt if piracy stopped overnight, prices would be reduced the following day. But surely if games were pirated less or on a smaller scale the prices would eventually fall as publishers would have no excuse to keep the prices high?

As for quality, I don't think they make poor games on purpose - it's all down to the skill and creativity of the developers, there are good ones and not so good ones. There always will be.
Glix 8th June 2010, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
No, because they're making a personal copy of something they own. There's a difference between buying something and making a copy that you then don't give to anyone else and merely downloading intellectual property.

Actually, it does say on the intro your not allowed to go around the copy protection used on most DVDs so... You are not actually allowed to make a backup copy. Good thing my back up copies don't say that so I can actually enjoy the content I paid for :)
Glix 8th June 2010, 17:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Rather than everyone repeating themselves over and over (its pretty clear what peoples views on the matter are!), what do you think is the solution so that both developers/publishers are happy and the end users are happy? Or should piracy just continue?

It seems price and quality are the main issues..

I doubt if piracy stopped overnight, prices would be reduced the following day. But surely if games were pirated less or on a smaller scale the prices would eventually fall as publishers would have no excuse to keep the prices high?

As for quality, I don't think they make poor games on purpose - it's all down to the skill and creativity of the developers, there are good ones and not so good ones. There always will be.

Said it before, PS3 prices are still high. There's no excuse for them now, they aren't recouping hardware costs anymore, just ripping people off (although I don't know the quality of the games since I don't have a PS3 to form an opinion on that).
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Based on the a) way that you are adamant that most people just download to try and then buy and b) the way that the industry has reacted to piracy, and the fact that less games are being made for pc, and the fact that those games are more and more just ports.

Yes.

I'm not adamant that most people just download to try and then buy in the slightest, where have I said that? Just because i'm aware that some people do download games to try them doesn't mean I think they're in the majority or that there aren't people downloading games because they can and with no intention to pay for them.

As for the way the industry has reacted to piracy that's firstly an issue of people who are downloading and keeping their games without ever paying for them and secondly I still think it's a ridiculous business practice to look at a segment of a market that will never pay for your product and use them in your profit/loss calculations. To put it another way, do you think it's sensible for a developer to goto a publisher and ask for X million pounds based on calculations they have made on the number of potential sales they think are possible when that calculation has included potential sales from a group of people who we know are not going to pay for what they get? Of course there's going to be a loss after release because the initial projections were based on the ridiculous assumption that people who pirated games in the past are now going to buy this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
No, because they're making a personal copy of something they own. There's a difference between buying something and making a copy that you then don't give to anyone else and merely downloading intellectual property.

Not under current UK copyright law there isn't. Each of those things I mentioned are acts of copyright infringement and are against the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Well, personally, I'm annoyed that people like you are ruining games for people like me by reducing the profits of the industry.

Why because I don't buy crap games? How terrible of me to reduce the profits of the industry by not buying crap. All the games I have on my machine I own and have paid for with my money so don't give me crap about me reducing the profits of the industry. And as I've said before, if you're so annoyed at people reducing the profits of the industry then go have a yell at people buying their games second hand as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Anyway, I think there was an excellent example.

Say a hacker buys a game, cracks it and puts it online. 30 people then download it (there's more than that in general, more like 200,000, but still.

Alternatively, ten people buy a game. play it, then sell it on. This happens three times. See the key difference there? With second hand, ten people bought the game. With pirating, one person bought the game.

Right so pirating is bad because of the scale? It's ok to deprive the developer of money for their work as long as it's only down on a small scale? Good to see where your moral line is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
In any case, this point is moot. There is no second hand games market for PC games because they can't be resold due to the use of CDkeys in almost every title.

So? Even if it were the case that it wasn't possible to sell on PC games it doesn't mean that the selling of second hand games for other formats doesn't impact on the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
I like the book analogy, because books are also full of intellectual property.

It's legal to buy a book. It's legal to sell a book. That's because you own the paper and the ink that it's printed on. You have the right to sell it.

What has that got to do with the license you agreed to when you use a game saying that you are not entitled to transfer the license? Second hand sales of games are in breach of the license agreement, it is however something that society accepts as an acceptable breach so is considered to be absolutely fine to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
You can't download that book off the internet, legally (unless it's out of copyright) without the permission of the publishers. Understand? Even if you've bought the paper copy.

But wait a minute, didn't you say earlier you could copy items you own? So it's alright to copy a book I own but I can't download a copy of that book? Interesting concept.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 17:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3yB @ CCL
Rather than everyone repeating themselves over and over (its pretty clear what peoples views on the matter are!), what do you think is the solution so that both developers/publishers are happy and the end users are happy? Or should piracy just continue?

It seems price and quality are the main issues..

I doubt if piracy stopped overnight, prices would be reduced the following day. But surely if games were pirated less or on a smaller scale the prices would eventually fall as publishers would have no excuse to keep the prices high?

As for quality, I don't think they make poor games on purpose - it's all down to the skill and creativity of the developers, there are good ones and not so good ones. There always will be.

I think firstly developers/publishers need to stop kidding themselves about the amount of money they're going to make from products and actually take into account what they know about piracy when calculating their potential profit/losses. There's no point in deciding your new blockbuster game will sell 40 million copies and make you a billion pounds in revenue when you know that 30% of the market will just pirate your game with no intention of ever buying it (these are fictional figures).

Once they've got that out of the way they can begin to focus on the people who will part with their money and look at what's stopping some of them doing that. And as you say I think the 2 main issues are price and quality. With quality you're always going to have the issue that some developers are not as good as others and they just have to accept they're not going to make as much money, you can't release a crap game and then expect it to sell as well as a critically acclaimed masterpiece. Nor should you be releasing games that, thanks to the "protection" you have put on it, is less user friendly for legit users than it is for pirates. Price is the slightly trickier issue but I think there is an argument for cheaping prices actually ending up bringing in more revenue in the long run.
Bakes 8th June 2010, 17:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Nor should you be releasing games that, thanks to the "protection" you have put on it, is less user friendly for legit users than it is for pirates. Price is the slightly trickier issue but I think there is an argument for cheaping prices actually ending up bringing in more revenue in the long run.

In 2007, Ubisoft basically said 'Ok, you say that if we don't have drm, you'll buy our games'. So, they removed all DRM from one of their releases (I think it was Prince of Persia, can't remember).

What do you think happened? It still got pirated.

DRM is a problem that's caused by pirates. It harms genuine consumers because cheapskates decided that they're going to download a game without paying. Stop trying to blame the studio.
mrbens 8th June 2010, 17:43 Quote
I agree about the pricing. I'd pay for a lot more games if they were a lot cheaper.

Instead of a game being £40 if it was only £10 it'd probably sell more than 4x it would have done at £40 as long as there's incentives that the pirated version doesn't have such as online leaderboards, achievements etc and not have cripling DRM or DVD-checks.

They are better off getting £10 of my money than none at all.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
In 2007, Ubisoft basically said 'Ok, you say that if we don't have drm, you'll buy our games'. So, they removed all DRM from one of their releases (I think it was Prince of Persia, can't remember).

What do you think happened? It still got pirated.

DRM is a problem that's caused by pirates. It harms genuine consumers because cheapskates decided that they're going to download a game without paying. Stop trying to blame the studio.

And the whole experiment was based on the flawed assumption that everyone who pirated their games was doing so because of DRM. Of course that wasn't the case and completely unspurisingly their DRM-free game was pirated.

As for DRM being a problem that's caused by pirates maybe that was the initial justification for it but it's been shown time and time again that it does nothing at all to stop them. It's just as much about curtailing what legitimate owners can do as it is about feigned attempts to stop pirates. Even if piracy had never been an issue companies would still be using DRM because it lets them control what you do with what they consider to be their property; remember that when you buy things like games and music you're buying a license to use that product, you're not buying the product itself.

But none of this alters the fact that by including such mechanisms you're lowering the percieved value of the product in the eyes of legitimate customers. In essence you're not stopping the pirates and you're putting off legitimate buyers.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes


In 2007, Ubisoft basically said 'Ok, you say that if we don't have drm, you'll buy our games'. So, they removed all DRM from one of their releases (I think it was Prince of Persia, can't remember).

What do you think happened? It still got pirated.

The thing is, whether they use DRM or not, the game will still be pirated because there's not yet been DRM invented that someone somewhere can't find a way around. This means DRM is completely pointless and only serves to annoy people who pay for content, which is something the publishers should not be doing.

Personally I'd never touch another pirate copy if I could get demos for all the games I was interested in buying, but I fear the reason so few exist these days is because publishers are aware they can get more sales by not letting the punters try before they buy.

Would you buy a book sealed with cellophane, or a car you couldn't test-drive, or a guitar you couldn't play in the shop? No. So why are gamers expected to buy off the shelf without having played the game a little first? As far as I'm concerned, Ubisoft owes me £40 for tricking me into buying Prince of Persia, which I did because I'd played Sands of Time and loved it, and the new one looked so pretty. They should have written "warning - this game is very dull" on the box.

And yes, as someone above pointed out, I'm NOT promoting piracy, and believe it wrong. I've never kept a game I haven't paid for, and would be stupid to do so.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Would you buy a book sealed with cellophane, or a car you couldn't test-drive, or a guitar you couldn't play in the shop? No. So why are gamers expected to buy off the shelf without having played the game a little first? As far as I'm concerned, Ubisoft owes me £40 for tricking me into buying Prince of Persia, which I did because I'd played Sands of Time and loved it, and the new one looked so pretty. They should have written "warning - this game is very dull" on the box.
I might, depending on thorough reviews and reports on the product in question. If I wasn't fully convinced of it being a good product then I wouldn't get it.

What's that? No demo for your game? You're worried it might not be good? Then leave it on the shelf and don't play it. As said earlier, and directed at everyone:

GAMES ARE A LUXURY

I apologize for the size, but there's really no other way to say it clearer. Believe it or not you will not melt and die like the Wicked Witch of the West if you don't play every game ever. You won't suffer a massive heart attack and die if no good games are ever released again. If you aren't fully convinced by advertisements and reviews, or aren't confident in new games, that just sucks to be you. Might want to consider a new hobby.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I might, depending on thorough reviews and reports on the product in question. If I wasn't fully convinced of it being a good product then I wouldn't get it.

What's that? No demo for your game? You're worried it might not be good? Then leave it on the shelf and don't play it. As said earlier, and directed at everyone:

GAMES ARE A LUXURY

I apologize for the size, but there's really no other way to say it clearer. Believe it or not you will not melt and die like the Wicked Witch of the West if you don't play every game ever. You won't suffer a massive heart attack and die if no good games are ever released again. If you aren't fully convinced by advertisements and reviews, or aren't confident in new games, that just sucks to be you. Might want to consider a new hobby.

There's plenty of things in life that are luxuries but that we still get to try out before we hand over our cash. What makes games special??

And like everyone else with this supposed "argument" you've still neglected to answer how trying a game for a brief period before you decide to either buy it or delete it causes any harm. Are you equally opposed to trying out a game in a store? Or round at a friend's house?
Sloth 8th June 2010, 19:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
There's plenty of things in life that are luxuries but that we still get to try out before we hand over our cash. What makes games special??

And like everyone else with this supposed "argument" you've still neglected to answer how trying a game for a brief period before you decide to either buy it or delete it causes any harm. Are you equally opposed to trying out a game in a store? Or round at a friend's house?
How about kayaking. I've honestly wanted to try kayaking and now that it's getting to be the season it's been on my mind a lot. The problem is, I know no one who kayaks. No way to try, no way to figure out what I'll need. Now, I can get a guide for a little day trip to try it out but that is already pushing $50+. There is no free way for me to try kayaking.

So, applying the basic idea of try-before-you-buy piracy, what should I do? Walk into a sporting goods store and take a kayak on the premise that if I don't enjoy it I'll bring it back and that if I like it I'll come back and buy it? That's all good and well, except for the part where I carry a kayak out of the store with no permission. I don't think the police will be too happy with me when I say that I'm just borrowing it.

Quite frankly, I don't get why you don't see the harm. You're potentially not purchasing an item which you would have otherwise purchased, thereby robbing a company of revenue. It doesn't matter whether that company is 'good' or 'bad', you are actively harming them. Someone out there is possibly getting shorted £40 just because you feel some great requirement in your life to play a game you aren't even sure you want. Of course, this is getting beyond the whole, you know, illegal copyright infringement bit. But of course, everyone is doing it right? That makes it okay, right? Chavs rejoice! Let the vandalism begin! Oh wait. Common does not equal right.

As for trying in store: those are all legitimate copies of the game, and are frequently restricted to only a brief period of use. It's somewhat like radio stations, purchased music for the public to enjoy on limited terms. Borrowing from a friend, since only one person can play at once (unless it is specifically designed for multiplayer) there is still only one user per copy at any given time. Lending to a friend after use ends up being more like second hand, in which case I'm all for EA's method of second hand fees.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 19:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
How about kayaking. I've honestly wanted to try kayaking and now that it's getting to be the season it's been on my mind a lot. The problem is, I know no one who kayaks. No way to try, no way to figure out what I'll need. Now, I can get a guide for a little day trip to try it out but that is already pushing $50+. There is no free way for me to try kayaking.

So, applying the basic idea of try-before-you-buy piracy, what should I do? Walk into a sporting goods store and take a kayak on the premise that if I don't enjoy it I'll bring it back and that if I like it I'll come back and buy it? That's all good and well, except for the part where I carry a kayak out of the store with no permission. I don't think the police will be too happy with me when I say that I'm just borrowing it.

And again we're back to using the completely different concept as an analogy. Taking a physical item out of a shop is not the same thing as obtaining a copy of a game. If you had some magic device that could create an identical copy of a kayak while leaving the original in the store would be similar but seeing they don't exist then it's a completely pointless comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quite frankly, I don't get why you don't see the harm. You're potentially not purchasing an item which you would have otherwise purchased, thereby robbing a company of revenue. It doesn't matter whether that company is 'good' or 'bad', you are actively harming them. Someone out there is possibly getting shorted £40 just because you feel some great requirement in your life to play a game you aren't even sure you want. Of course, this is getting beyond the whole, you know, illegal copyright infringement bit. But of course, everyone is doing it right? That makes it okay, right? Chavs rejoice! Let the vandalism begin! Oh wait. Common does not equal right.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'll either buy it if it's good or not buy it if it's crap, there's no potentially not purchasing something I would have otherwise purchased at all. And are you claiming that me not buying crap games is actively harming a company? As for the "someone out there is possibly getting shorted £40 just because you feel some great requirement in your life to play a game you aren't even sure you want" claim how does that work? The only thing that is happening is that someone is potentially getting £40 quid where I've found a game I wasn't sure about was actually worth the money. I still fail to see how you think that trying something for 30 mins and then not buying it if it's crap is somehow short-changing someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
As for trying in store: those are all legitimate copies of the game, and are frequently restricted to only a brief period of use. It's somewhat like radio stations, purchased music for the public to enjoy on limited terms. Borrowing from a friend, since only one person can play at once (unless it is specifically designed for multiplayer) there is still only one user per copy at any given time. Lending to a friend after use ends up being more like second hand, in which case I'm all for EA's method of second hand fees.

It's still exactly the same thing tho, i'm trying a product that I have not myself paid for. Why is it alright for me to do that in some circumstances but not in others?
smc8788 8th June 2010, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
There's plenty of things in life that are luxuries but that we still get to try out before we hand over our cash. What makes games special??

At the end of the day, you don't have the right to try something out before you buy it, and the developer has no obligation whatsoever to provide you with the means to do so. It is simply their choice.

I could turn that question around and ask you the same thing: what makes games so special that you can think you are able to demand to try them out before you decide whether to buy them, and if they don't provide demos, to circumvent the developer's wishes when they decide not to provide a demo.

Do you download a film and watch the first 10 minutes of it before you decide to buy or rent it? Do you download a music album and listen to the first few tracks before you decide to buy it? No? Then what makes games different for you to think it's OK to do that? And what is wrong with doing the same as you would with those other types of media - watching trailers, seeking a recommendation from a friend (or even trying it out if they have it), reading reviews from a huge number of sites on the web for you to choose from. Many games even have video reviews now (from the likes of GameTrailers etc.), which are often very in-depth and will tell me more about the game and the chances of me liking it than a few minutes playing a pikeyed version of the game.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 20:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I might, depending on thorough reviews and reports on the product in question. If I wasn't fully convinced of it being a good product then I wouldn't get it.

What's that? No demo for your game? You're worried it might not be good? Then leave it on the shelf and don't play it. As said earlier, and directed at everyone:

GAMES ARE A LUXURY

I apologize for the size, but there's really no other way to say it clearer. Believe it or not you will not melt and die like the Wicked Witch of the West if you don't play every game ever. You won't suffer a massive heart attack and die if no good games are ever released again. If you aren't fully convinced by advertisements and reviews, or aren't confident in new games, that just sucks to be you. Might want to consider a new hobby.[/QUOTE]

Surely the better solution would be for companies to become more honest about what they're selling, so that I can keep on giving them my money for the products they make?

I know games are a luxury, but almost everything besides staple foods, basic housing and healthcare fall under that heading. Consumers have rights, and if games publishers don't respect them they shouldn't be surprised that some people exploit the existence of piracy to get all the information they deserve when making purchasing decisions.

As Krazeh says, there's no harm done to the industry by "abusing" piracy in this way. The alternative, which you have neatly summarised for us, is just as bad as piracy itself. If I walk away and stop buying games, the industry doesn't get my money - I'm sure nobody here wants that!

Anyway, this has gone wildly off topic, for which I am partly responsible and I apologise. As for the original article, I imagine the monetary figure is about as accurate as I am in TF2 after three cups of coffee. Finding out actual "lost sales" figures is next to impossible, as is stopping piracy through DRM.

Developers and publishers need to look at what has worked and move in that direction. Steam is a great anti-piracy tool because it gives consumers something they can never get from pirated copies.

When the original Mass Effect was released it was widely pirated, but it was a while before the pirates realised there was a problem with their version - being that illegal copies crashed/froze on viewing the galaxy map, at least an hour into the game, likely prompting many of the now-hooked pirates to buy a legitimate copy rather than wait for a working illegal version to become available.

Recent EA titles have included DLC redeemable only once; though they failed to adequately protect the DLC itself leading to piracy of the content specifically, this strategy would work perfectly in conjunction with a platform such as steam, where the DLC is not delivered to the user as an easily piratable .exe, but directly into the game.

I applaud this sort of thinking from the industry, because it has shown some success at combating piracy without hurting the user. Ubisoft however, already banished from my good books by fleecing me out of £40 for prince of persia, are going completely the wrong way with their "always on" DRM. I haven't bought Assassin's Creed 2 because of it, and probably won't - my internet connection is flaky at best.

Of course, handheld piracy is a different issue and one I know little about, as I don't own a handheld platform. By the sound of it, a little education would go a long way, if many of the pirates are not aware what they are doing is illegal.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 20:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
At the end of the day, you don't have the right to try something out before you buy it, and the developer has no obligation whatsoever to provide you with the means to do so. It is simply their choice.

Actually when it's my money i'm spending I think I do have the right to try something out before I buy it. You may be happy with the situation where your money can be demanded off you without you being able to try out what it is you're getting but I don't agree with your viewpoint. Obviously in cases where trying the product leaves it impossible to sell to anyone else then further consideration does have to be given but when we're talking about copies of games that's not an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
I could turn that question around and ask you the same thing: what makes games so special that you can think you are able to demand to try them out before you decide whether to buy them, and if they don't provide demos, to circumvent the developer's wishes when they decide not to provide a demo.

Nothing makes games so special, I think consumers should be able to try out any product before they buy it. I wholly disagree with the concept that as a consumer I should be forced into handing my money over for something that i'm not even allowed try out beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Do you download a film and watch the first 10 minutes of it before you decide to buy or rent it? Do you download a music album and listen to the first few tracks before you decide to buy it? No? Then what makes games different for you to think it's OK to do that? And what is wrong with doing the same as you would with those other types of media - watching trailers, seeking a recommendation from a friend (or even trying it out if they have it), reading reviews from a huge number of sites on the web for you to choose from. Many games even have video reviews now (from the likes of GameTrailers etc.), which are often very in-depth and will tell me more about the game and the chances of me liking it than a few minutes playing a pikeyed version of the game.

I do watch trailers and read reviews but at the end of the day they only show you what the person who created the trailer wants you to see or tell you what the opinions of the person who wrote the review are. Sometimes that's not enough to make a decision one way or another. As for music I use services like Spotify and Napster now but yeah I have in the past obtained one or two tracks off an album before deciding whether or not to buy the album. With films the only ones I buy are those i've previously seen in the cinema or on TV and have decided that I want to buy a copy, so i've already "tried" out the product before making a decision.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 20:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
And again we're back to using the completely different concept as an analogy. Taking a physical item out of a shop is not the same thing as obtaining a copy of a game. If you had some magic device that could create an identical copy of a kayak while leaving the original in the store would be similar but seeing they don't exist then it's a completely pointless comparison.
It's a perfectly fine example. Theft and piracy are at least similar. Where I take a kayak, you create a copy of a game which is not your and use it. You are still "walking out the door" with property, intellectual or physical, which is not yours.

Quote:

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'll either buy it if it's good or not buy it if it's crap, there's no potentially not purchasing something I would have otherwise purchased at all. And are you claiming that me not buying crap games is actively harming a company? As for the "someone out there is possibly getting shorted £40 just because you feel some great requirement in your life to play a game you aren't even sure you want" claim how does that work? The only thing that is happening is that someone is potentially getting £40 quid where I've found a game I wasn't sure about was actually worth the money. I still fail to see how you think that trying something for 30 mins and then not buying it if it's crap is somehow short-changing someone.
If you want to play a game there is a potential for you to purchase it. You wouldn't pirate a game if you had no desire to play it what-so-ever. You do not get something from nothing in this world. Pirating a game for 30 minutes is 30 minutes of time during which you are illegally using something which you have not payed for. What you need to get through your head is that being a good game or a bad game does not matter, it is copyrighted property which you have no right to use without first paying for it. ANY use of that material legally requires payment, you do not pay by the minute. By making no payment for your use you are taking revenue from others.
Quote:

It's still exactly the same thing tho, i'm trying a product that I have not myself paid for. Why is it alright for me to do that in some circumstances but not in others?
You might actually want to read a EULA on that one. There might just be restrictions on other people playing it, though likely there isn't so it's okay. There quite certainly are various restrictions on piracy of copyrighted materials however. The common reasoning being that there is still one copy of the game, and it was legally purchased. To pirate a game you are copying it without payment.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 20:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
It's a perfectly fine example. Theft and piracy are at least similar. Where I take a kayak, you create a copy of a game which is not your and use it. You are still "walking out the door" with property, intellectual or physical, which is not yours.

Except i'm not preventing anyone from selling the 'property' i've 'walked out the door with' to anyone else. As much as you'd like them to be the same thing theft and copyright infringement aren't and you can't use one as an example about the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
If you want to play a game there is a potential for you to purchase it. You wouldn't pirate a game if you had no desire to play it what-so-ever. You do not get something from nothing in this world. Pirating a game for 30 minutes is 30 minutes of time during which you are illegally using something which you have not payed for. What you need to get through your head is that being a good game or a bad game does not matter, it is copyrighted property which you have no right to use without first paying for it. ANY use of that material legally requires payment, you do not pay by the minute. By making no payment for your use you are taking revenue from others.

Playing a game at a friend's house does exactly the same thing but you're perfectly happy with that aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
You might actually want to read a EULA on that one. There might just be restrictions on other people playing it, though likely there isn't so it's okay. There quite certainly are various restrictions on piracy of copyrighted materials however. The common reasoning being that there is still one copy of the game, and it was legally purchased. To pirate a game you are copying it without payment.

Actually pretty much all EULA's prohibit anyone other than the purchaser of the game playing it. But we're quite happy to ignore those because we think they're silly.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 20:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

Quite frankly, I don't get why you don't see the harm. You're potentially not purchasing an item which you would have otherwise purchased, thereby robbing a company of revenue. It doesn't matter whether that company is 'good' or 'bad', you are actively harming them.

So not buying something because I don't like it is "robbing a company of revenue"? I'm afraid that's a ridiculous argument. Why is the company the victim here? You think they should be allowed to sell products to people who don't actually want to buy them, by convincing them they do? Just because in many cases they legally can do just that doesn't make it morally right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788

Do you download a film and watch the first 10 minutes of it before you decide to buy or rent it? Do you download a music album and listen to the first few tracks before you decide to buy it? No? Then what makes games different for you to think it's OK to do that?

I watch trailers to decide whether or not to see a film, which works well because the trailer is watched in the same way a film will be. I listen to music on the radio, and samples on amazon and itunes before choosing to buy a CD, which is appropriate because I can listen in the same way I will to the product when I buy it.

Games are played, so demos are the logical method by which purchasing decisions should be made.

There seem to be plenty of people willing to stick up for a company and it's right to make a quick buck from unsuspecting punters (apologies for the mid-Atlantic colloquialism) but not so many who will stand up for consumers who feel they have a right to make informed decisions about their purchases. Considering these consumers are supporting the industry, treating them in this way is not just wrong, it's potentially bad for business too.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Actually when it's my money i'm spending I think I do have the right to try something out before I buy it. You may be happy with the situation where your money can be demanded off you without you being able to try out what it is you're getting but I don't agree with your viewpoint. Obviously in cases where trying the product leaves it impossible to sell to anyone else then further consideration does have to be given but when we're talking about copies of games that's not an issue.
Except you don't have that right. It's really quite simple.
Quote:

Nothing makes games so special, I think consumers should be able to try out any product before they buy it. I wholly disagree with the concept that as a consumer I should be forced into handing my money over for something that i'm not even allowed try out beforehand.
Was my large "games are a luxury" thing all for nought? You don't like it? Don't buy it.

Or, novel concept here, send some developers an email stating how you feel.
Quote:
Except i'm not preventing anyone from selling the 'property' i've 'walked out the door with' to anyone else. As much as you'd like them to be the same thing theft and copyright infringement aren't and you can't use one as an example about the other.
Oh but I'm bringing it right back, remember? And besides, this is a magical land of theories. This particular store has infinite kayaks, they will never sell out. Oh hey, problem solved. Now can you please get these police off me, they're pretty upset that I'm walking out the door with one of the infinite kayaks. Don't worry officer, there's infinite kayaks! It doesn't matter if I just use this one for a little bit, even though it's not mine and I've made no payment and haven't even asked permission.
Quote:
Playing a game at a friend's house does exactly the same thing but you're perfectly happy with that aren't you?

Actually pretty much all EULA's prohibit anyone other than the purchaser of the game playing it. But we're quite happy to ignore those because we think they're silly.
Guess I'm not happy with that, then. Except for the various multiplayer games out there, those can obviously be played with friends. Of course, you can still watch the game if you'd like.

Admittedly I don't play many single player based games and the last EULA I read was about not sharing specific user accounts (since that's where the money is) on an online game with no mention of the game itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
So not buying something because I don't like it is "robbing a company of revenue"? I'm afraid that's a ridiculous argument. Why is the company the victim here? You think they should be allowed to sell products to people who don't actually want to buy them, by convincing them they do? Just because in many cases they legally can do just that doesn't make it morally right.
No, pirating and playing a game you have an interest in and then deciding not to buy it based on that experience is robbing a company of revenue. If you have enough interest to pirate you might have bought it.

And I do feel they're the victim. They're providing us with a service which we certainly don't need and aren't required to have. We have the power to shape the market through legal means or flat out leave it. There's a great many developers out there who aren't some evil scheming corporate devil, and yet their games still get pirated and they go out of business or lack the funds to make better games.
smc8788 8th June 2010, 20:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I wholly disagree with the concept that as a consumer I should be forced into handing my money over for something that i'm not even allowed try out beforehand.

Who is forcing you? I have bought a few hundred games in my lifetime with my own money, and I wasn't forced into buying any of them.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 20:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Except you don't have that right. It's really quite simple.

People don't have the right to copy thier own cds. Or to rip them to mp3. Yet they do it all the time and noone bats an eyelid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Was my large "games are a luxury" thing all for nought? You don't like it? Don't buy it.

Everything apart from what you need to stay alive is a "luxury".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Oh but I'm bringing it right back, remember? And besides, this is a magical land of theories. This particular store has infinite kayaks, they will never sell out. Oh hey, problem solved. Now can you please get these police off me, they're pretty upset that I'm walking out the door with one of the infinite kayaks. Don't worry officer, there's infinite kayaks! It doesn't matter if I just use this one for a little bit, even though it's not mine and I've made no payment and haven't even asked permission.

Oh yeah, that's another difference. Theft is a criminal offence, copyright infringement in this respect is a civil matter. It's funny how the law treats 2 apparently identical things in completely different ways, it's almost as if they're completely different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Guess I'm not happy with that, then. Except for the various multiplayer games out there, those can obviously be played with friends. Of course, you can still watch the game if you'd like.

Admittedly I don't play many single player based games and the last EULA I read was about not sharing specific user accounts (since that's where the money is) on an online game with no mention of the game itself.

I would imagine that's because you actually need a user account to play the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
No, pirating and playing a game you have an interest in and then deciding not to buy it based on that experience is robbing a company of revenue. If you have enough interest to pirate you might have bought it.

And I do feel they're the victim. They're providing us with a service which we certainly don't need and aren't required to have. We have the power to shape the market through legal means or flat out leave it. There's a great many developers out there who aren't some evil scheming corporate devil, and yet their games still get pirated and they go out of business or lack the funds to make better games.

But playing it at a friend's house and then deciding not to buy it isn't robbing a company of revenue? After all I had enough interest to play it at a friends so I might have bought it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Who is forcing you? I have bought a few hundred games in my lifetime with my own money, and I wasn't forced into buying any of them.

The point I was making wasn't that you're forced to buy it, it's that if you've decided to buy it you're forced to hand over your money without being able to try out what it is you're buying.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 20:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh

Actually pretty much all EULA's prohibit anyone other than the purchaser of the game playing it. But we're quite happy to ignore those because we think they're silly.

Exactly. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong, and just because something is legal does not make it right.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Exactly. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong, and just because something is legal does not make it right.

EULA's are not laws. It is not illegal to breach an EULA. It is illegal to download software without the permission of the copyright holder.

Its amazing how many times thieving scumbag pirate b******s try to make out that they are only doing the same as law abiding people.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 21:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
EULA's are not laws. It is not illegal to breach an EULA. It is illegal to download software without the permission of the copyright holder.

Its amazing how many times thieving scumbag pirate b******s try to make out that they are only doing the same as law abiding people.

So because a EULA isn't a law it's perfectly ok to breach it? Even tho breaching a EULA and copyright infringement are both civil matters and would be treated in exactly the same way through the court system?

What is amazing is the number of times people who can't come up with a cogent argument to back up their viewpoint resort to insulting the other side.
M7ck 8th June 2010, 21:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
So because a EULA isn't a law it's perfectly ok to breach it? Even tho breaching a EULA and copyright infringement are both civil matters and would be treated in exactly the same way through the court system?

What is amazing is the number of times people who can't come up with a cogent argument to back up their viewpoint resort to insulting the other side.

Thats not quite true, I will give an example.

When I was at the cinema a fortnight ago to see Robin Hood two policemen arrested a thieving git for recording the film on his phone. Surely this proves that it is not a civil manner. However I do not see the police bursting in to game, gamestation, CEX, cash convertors, HMV and arrest them for breaching EULA's.
Krazeh 8th June 2010, 21:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Thats not quite true, I will give an example.

When I was at the cinema a fortnight ago to see Robin Hood two policemen arrested a thieving git for recording the film on his phone. Surely this proves that it is not a civil manner. However I do not see the police bursting in to game, gamestation, CEX, cash convertors, HMV and arrest them for breaching EULA's.

That's because some aspects of copyright infringement, including making copies for the purpose of sale or hire to others, are criminal offences. Downloading a copy of a game, which is what we're discussing here, is a civil matter.
smc8788 8th June 2010, 21:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
The point I was making wasn't that you're forced to buy it, it's that if you've decided to buy it you're forced to hand over your money without being able to try out what it is you're buying.

Yes, well, that's one of the risks you take when buying games I suppose, even if they have demos. I've played plenty of demos which I've enjoyed, yet on buying the full product I found I didn't like the game very much and the game was misrepresented in the demo or it was just repetitive - something you wouldn't know unless you had played the full game for and extensive period of time.

Unfortunately they can't offer you a guarantee that you're going to like a game, as nice as that sounds. It's the same with all entertainment industries. I've lost count of the number of times I've left a cinema disappointed that I'd just spent the best part of £10. Recently it's actually been that way more often than not. But despite all the disappointments I don't go downloading R5 copies of the film beforehand to make sure I'll like it, so I know full well that I take the risk of not liking it before I go in and that it's not the production company's fault, the director's fault, or the actor's fault. It's my fault. Or it's just bad luck.

But it's obvious you don't feel the same way and we have differing opinions, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
mrbens 8th June 2010, 21:36 Quote
ffs you guys talk a lot of crap lol
Yslen 8th June 2010, 21:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Exactly. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong, and just because something is legal does not make it right.

EULA's are not laws. It is not illegal to breach an EULA. It is illegal to download software without the permission of the copyright holder.

Its amazing how many times thieving scumbag pirate b******s try to make out that they are only doing the same as law abiding people.

You're referring to me? I've not stolen anything, every game I have here is bought and paid for, I'm not a pirate.

Have you ever flicked through a magazine in a shop? Watched a movie at someones house? Played a game on someone else's computer? These are all no different to playing a "pirate" copy of a game before you buy it, please consider that before calling me a thief (and some other, less polite things). The pirates are people who just download games without paying for them, spending time consuming content that someone has worked to create without giving the developer their due. That is wrong, and that is what the laws are intended to prevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
it's not the production company's fault, the director's fault, or the actor's fault. It's my fault. Or it's just bad luck.

It's not their fault? Everything you saw about the film before you went to see it was carefully designed to pull in as many people as possible, even those who probably wouldn't like the film when they saw it. Sorry for being so cynical about this, but I can't see why anyone is willing to defend a company for abusing its audiences in this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Unfortunately they can't offer you a guarantee that you're going to like a game

And I wouldn't expect them to either, but deliberately preventing a gamer from actually playing the game before they buy it is a step in the opposite direction, and seems deliberately intended to trick people out of their money. That is what I object to.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 21:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbens
ffs you guys talk a lot of crap lol

It's giving me something interesting to do while I download a demo from steam. Hint hint publishers, more demos please.
smc8788 8th June 2010, 21:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
It's not their fault? Everything you saw about the film before you went to see it was carefully designed to pull in as many people as possible, even those who probably wouldn't like the film when they saw it. Sorry for being so cynical about this, but I can't see why anyone is willing to defend a company for abusing its audiences in this way.

Erm, yes. This is the basis of marketing. They're not going to say: "Don't come and see our film, it's crap." You might want to rephrase the point you are trying to make because as it stands doesn't make a great deal of sense.

And if you do have a low enough IQ to pay to see a film based on nothing more than a short piece of marketing bullcrap, then you deserve to be disappointed and stripped of your hard-earned £10 in the hope that you might actually engage a few brain cells the next time you see a new movie trailer.

I generally only go and see films at the cinema which have received mostly positive reviews (at least 60% on Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes, for instance), or have been recommended to me by friends. But that doesn't mean I will definitely like it, because I almost certainly have slightly different tastes to everyone else.
Bakes 8th June 2010, 22:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
It's giving me something interesting to do while I download a demo from steam. Hint hint publishers, more demos please.

There used to be a lot of demos. Unfortunately, they took a lot of time to make and it was found that for high profile titles they did not change either the number of sales or the number of pirated copies.

Example: Crysis.

Excuse: 'I wanted to see if I could run it.'

Retort: 'We had a demo specifically for that, with an included benchmark.'

Example: CoD4.

Excuse: 'I wanted to try it before I bought it.'

Retort: 'We had a demo for that, with an included benchmark.

Example: CoD5

Excuse: 'I wanted to try it before I bought it.'

Retort: 'We had a long multiplayer beta in which players could see the bulk of the game and two different maps'.

it goes on.

In all of those games, there was a lot of piracy, despite them having extensive demos.

Developers have begun to realise that there's no point in providing a demo unless it positively affects sales.
NuTech 8th June 2010, 22:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
There used to be a lot of demos. Unfortunately, they took a lot of time to make and it was found that for high profile titles they did not change either the number of sales or the number of pirated copies.

Example: Crysis.

Excuse: 'I wanted to see if I could run it.'

Retort: 'We had a demo specifically for that, with an included benchmark.'

Example: CoD4.

Excuse: 'I wanted to try it before I bought it.'

Retort: 'We had a demo for that, with an included benchmark.

Example: CoD5

Excuse: 'I wanted to try it before I bought it.'

Retort: 'We had a long multiplayer beta in which players could see the bulk of the game and two different maps'.

it goes on.

In all of those games, there was a lot of piracy, despite them having extensive demos.

Developers have begun to realise that there's no point in providing a demo unless it positively affects sales.
Yeah, it's slightly odd that PC demos seem to of dropped off the face of the planet.

I think it's mostly because there was no controlled delivery method. Unlike PS3/360, there isn't an official channel to promote or provide them. Often people ended up using third part sites such as Fileplanet or didn't even know they existed.

Also, I think publishers got fed up of demo's not being accurate samples of the full game. There have been many occasions where a demo just wouldn't run on my computer, causing me to avoid the game until I realised it was just a problem with the demo. The full game ran fine.

Ultimately, demo's are expensive to produce and with limited profits in the PC market, I think most publishers just can't be bothered.
Yslen 8th June 2010, 22:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes

Developers have begun to realise that there's no point in providing a demo unless it positively affects sales.

But are these people you refer to ACTUALLY just trying the game, or is it just an excuse to pirate it without ever paying? From what you said, even with demos available people still download the pirate copies, which to me implies they're not trying to decide what to buy, they're just stealing games. I personally play demos wherever I can find them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Erm, yes. This is the basis of marketing. They're not going to say: "Don't come and see our film, it's crap." You might want to rephrase the point you are trying to make because as it stands doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Marketing can be done in two ways, either let people know enough to make their own decision OR only let people know enough that they are tricked into making a decision they wouldn't have otherwise made. The latter of these two methods I consider immoral. By the sound of it you decide to see films in the same way I do. The trouble with games is that there's more riding on each purchase (many more hours of content and much more money) and yet if anything there is even less information available to the consumer.

Any pirate copy I play comes from a friend's machine, I don't download myself for various reasons. Out of interest, would those that object to me playing pirate copies to decide if I want to buy them also object if these games were legitimately bought copies that I borrow from my friends? Do they also object to reading a few pages of a book in a bookshop? Where do you draw the line - is what I do only "piracy" because the source of the game I play is the same source that feeds people who ACTUALLY pirate games?
Bakes 8th June 2010, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
But are these people you refer to ACTUALLY just trying the game, or is it just an excuse to pirate it without ever paying? From what you said, even with demos available people still download the pirate copies, which to me implies they're not trying to decide what to buy, they're just stealing games. I personally play demos wherever I can find them.

The point is that the most frequently used arguments to legitimize piracy are no demo/try before buy, delete if don't like, no drm, wouldn't have bought the game anyway.

Now, in terms of no demo, it's shown that even when games do have demos, they still get pirated heavily.

In terms of drm hate, it's been proven that piracy still happens on a massive scale when there's no DRM, and that DRM increases sales as long as it isn't immediately cracked. Furthermore, most DRM isn't anywhere near as obtrusive as a small-yet-vocal minority claim it is.
Wolfire showed that even when they offered their bundle for as little as $0.01 (yes, $0.01) many people still pirated it.

Lastly, in terms of not going to buy it, that's just no excuse, if you weren't going to buy it, don't download it.
Quote:
Marketing can be done in two ways, either let people know enough to make their own decision OR only let people know enough that they are tricked into making a decision they wouldn't have otherwise made. The latter of these two methods I consider immoral. By the sound of it you decide to see films in the same way I do. The trouble with games is that there's more riding on each purchase (many more hours of content and much more money) and yet if anything there is even less information available to the consumer.

Anyone who simply laps up the publisher's crap and gets or sees something without so much as looking for a third party opinion deserves to be conned.

Furthermore, what may be movie magic for one person might be garbage to another. Half Life 2 is widely regarded to be one of the greatest games for pc of all time (maybe the greatest game of all time), but quite honestly it gives me a headache and in my opinion it's all the same stuff over and over again, except with monsters that progressively grow more irritating. The physics puzzles are boring and are repetitive, usually involving either a weight or float to move something that moves something else. I don't like HL2, but does that mean it's a bad game? NO! It's a very good game, it's just not for my liking.

With games, we have: Trailers, gameplay footage, full length reviews, usually at least five pages long, wikipedia articles, aggregates of reviews, opinions of others on forums such as this, and in many cases a demo of some kind. I don't think that counts as not a lot, personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Yeah, it's slightly odd that PC demos seem to of dropped off the face of the planet.

I think it's mostly because there was no controlled delivery method. Unlike PS3/360, there isn't an official channel to promote or provide them. Often people ended up using third part sites such as Fileplanet or didn't even know they existed.

Also, I think publishers got fed up of demo's not being accurate samples of the full game. There have been many occasions where a demo just wouldn't run on my computer, causing me to avoid the game until I realised it was just a problem with the demo. The full game ran fine.

Ultimately, demo's are expensive to produce and with limited profits in the PC market, I think most publishers just can't be bothered.

The difficulty is large - whilst the rest of the game is often nowhere near finished, they have to make a small part of the game perfect and ready to be played as an accurate representation of a game. That's why demos are often buggier - it's also why many demos are described as 'betas' even though the beta stage is long gone and the developers are near gold code. It's so that developers aren't in too much trouble if the demo doesn't work originally, because it's marketed as an unfinished game.
Sloth 8th June 2010, 22:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
It's giving me something interesting to do while I download a demo from steam. Hint hint publishers, more demos please.
And hint publishers, non-intrusive methods of DRM such as Steam will boost sales and happiness for customers. If this were magical Sloth land where all my dreams come true not only would stores have infinite kayaks, but every game would be controlled by a method such as Steam. It's an extremely effective method of keeping games secure (piracy is noticably less common for Valve games, I blame Steam) without making consumers want to shoot themselves every time they play since it's so intrusive (cough, Ubisoft). Steam/Digital distribution is also a great way to get the word out to gamers about demos, helping solve the problem NuTech highlights, as proven by Yslen.

Of course, even digital distribution cannot fully restrict the games to one individual player. Only one may be logged on at once, but it is possible to let a friend log onto your account and play your games when you aren't. It is something which will never be entirely possible to restrict in any reasonable way.


To respond to the mention of reading a few pages of a book in a bookstore, it's honestly got me wondering if publishers purposefully sell books that way because they know potential readers can flip through, or if they simply don't think about it. There's obviously text on the back to explain the book, just as games have text on the back to explain the game, yet the book is open. Is that for readers to get a taste? To save on packaging? Tradition? Who knows. Though I'm not sure I've ever made a decision on a book based on flipping through, it's just simply not enough data to judge and entire book, but as always others mileage may vary.

Music, however, is an industry which follows the same general idea as books and games, yet is even more flustered. It's strikingly easy to legally listen to almost every song available in stores. It is almost impossible to claim that listeners are not given a chance to sample music before buying. So why is there piracy in the music industry? If so many people pirate just to try before they buy then why is it so prevalent even when demos are perfectly free and accessible? Is this what the gaming industry would be like if we were trusted with demos everywhere and no DRM?
Yslen 8th June 2010, 23:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
If so many people pirate just to try before they buy then why is it so prevalent even when demos are perfectly free and accessible? Is this what the gaming industry would be like if we were trusted with demos everywhere and no DRM?

Because the majority of people who pirate do so for other reasons, I was just highlighting the fact that some people which this "29 billion" includes might actually have gone on to buy the game they pirated anyway.

I think bit-tech should pass a hat around and buy you a kayak, I'm starting to feel genuinely sorry for you. Is there not a local club that will let you have a go? They'll probably let you if there's a chance you'll join them.

As for the book thing, I think it's entirely intentional. Plenty of people, myself included, read a page or so in the store, chosen at random. This ensures you're not only seeing the best bits that they've put on the back cover, and it also lets you get an idea of the author's writing style. If they began shrink-wrapping all the books, sales would drop I'm pretty certain, because the only advantage a bookshop has over internet sales is that the consumer can get a look in before they buy.

Music piracy is rather complex. There's no reason (what with the radio and legal internet streaming) to pirate music unless you are actually just being a git who doesn't pay for stuff. As someone who makes music, I'd be extremely annoyed at anyone who downloaded my songs and kept them without paying me for them. If they just wanted to listen to them before buying the CD though, that's fine by me, and there are several legal ways they can do it.

So why is it so very hard to do this legally with games?

Right, I'm off to play Hitman: blood money. The demo, I mean.

ps. sorry for the major thread hijack, this has gone way beyond the original article.
Sloth 9th June 2010, 01:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Because the majority of people who pirate do so for other reasons, I was just highlighting the fact that some people which this "29 billion" includes might actually have gone on to buy the game they pirated anyway.

I think bit-tech should pass a hat around and buy you a kayak, I'm starting to feel genuinely sorry for you. Is there not a local club that will let you have a go? They'll probably let you if there's a chance you'll join them.

As for the book thing, I think it's entirely intentional. Plenty of people, myself included, read a page or so in the store, chosen at random. This ensures you're not only seeing the best bits that they've put on the back cover, and it also lets you get an idea of the author's writing style. If they began shrink-wrapping all the books, sales would drop I'm pretty certain, because the only advantage a bookshop has over internet sales is that the consumer can get a look in before they buy.

Music piracy is rather complex. There's no reason (what with the radio and legal internet streaming) to pirate music unless you are actually just being a git who doesn't pay for stuff. As someone who makes music, I'd be extremely annoyed at anyone who downloaded my songs and kept them without paying me for them. If they just wanted to listen to them before buying the CD though, that's fine by me, and there are several legal ways they can do it.

So why is it so very hard to do this legally with games?

Right, I'm off to play Hitman: blood money. The demo, I mean.

ps. sorry for the major thread hijack, this has gone way beyond the original article.
Bit-Techers don't buy kayaks for each other, silly! They buy up some plexiglass, mold it to a kayak, engrave it, add some LEDs and slap a mini-ITX system with a battery inside!

I'm tempted to agree with Bakes on why we don't get many games with demos and more open publicity of their gameplay (though tbh, nothing forces a demo to be a real example, it could just as easily be made into overhyped propaganda, sadly). Those gits who just don't want to pay for anything will still pirate games, and not to call you (or Krazeh) liars, but it's not exactly possible to prove try-before-you-buy pirates aren't just cheap gits in disguise who will pirate even a game with a demo.

Going on a bit of a tangent here, obviously developers/publishers have found it to be far more profitable to simply skip demos, theorycrafting about the correlation piracy and exact numbers lost sales aside, various guys in suits have determined that the reduction in piracy is not enough to outweigh the cost of developing the demo at all. After all, you can still decide not to buy based on a demo. It doesn't actually get them anything at all compared to try-before-you-buy piracy, numbers of piracy are lower but revenue stays the same, and profit drops due to increased production costs. In this situation the one suffering is honest people who don't pirate at all because they no longer get demos, meanwhile hardcore pirates carry on. Following that train of thought, piracy is both the reason and the result of games no having demos. That's no good.

And enjoy your Hitman! Fun game.
Elton 9th June 2010, 01:38 Quote
Piracy is simply something that is illegal, I will admit I have done it before, if not many times, but I don't approve of it, some games which are hard to get, I'll download(for example, NOLF..) but even then it's a hit miss.

Of course, I don't find downloading already purchased games too bad since the purchase was already made, nor do I find making a copy of the disc of an already purchased game a crime, but distributing it is indeed illegal, even if no one profits from it, someone paid to make it.

The honest people suffer, which is exactly why I stopped pirating, not only that but I found that many games can be had for cheap anyways, just look around, new or 2nd hand. Sure it's convenient to pirate, and sure you'll have more games, but it's more about the right thing.

Instead of saying that the producer doesn't deserve the money because they're greedy, or that you're downloading a game because it sucks or that you want to stick it to the man, think about it this way, in the future when you will buy PC games or any game legitmately, you'll eat your words about pirating being right, because in the future, they'll cost more, and be much more painful to install.

So for the sake of the future, how about stop pirating so the legitimate users don't get shafted?

Plus as so many have said before, Games are a luxury, if you can't afford them don't get them, because you're probably hungry, and I'm pretty sure plastic isn't very appetizing(Unless you have dremel).
megadriveguy 9th June 2010, 06:15 Quote
29 billion is a load of crap you can never put a number on piracy because you have no idea who would have actually bought the games or not, and in some cases someone who downloads a game could be made aware of that game franchise enjoy it and buy the sequels

No company will ever be able to measure the cost of piracy and will only waste their money trying to do so
Glix 9th June 2010, 11:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Piracy is simply something that is illegal, I will admit I have done it before, if not many times, but I don't approve of it, some games which are hard to get, I'll download(for example, NOLF..) but even then it's a hit miss.

Of course, I don't find downloading already purchased games too bad since the purchase was already made, nor do I find making a copy of the disc of an already purchased game a crime, but distributing it is indeed illegal, even if no one profits from it, someone paid to make it.

The honest people suffer, which is exactly why I stopped pirating, not only that but I found that many games can be had for cheap anyways, just look around, new or 2nd hand. Sure it's convenient to pirate, and sure you'll have more games, but it's more about the right thing.

Instead of saying that the producer doesn't deserve the money because they're greedy, or that you're downloading a game because it sucks or that you want to stick it to the man, think about it this way, in the future when you will buy PC games or any game legitmately, you'll eat your words about pirating being right, because in the future, they'll cost more, and be much more painful to install.

So for the sake of the future, how about stop pirating so the legitimate users don't get shafted?

Plus as so many have said before, Games are a luxury, if you can't afford them don't get them, because you're probably hungry, and I'm pretty sure plastic isn't very appetizing(Unless you have dremel).

Sorry I believe it started the other way round first... and probably one of the major reasons why MS are as big as they are now.
mrbens 9th June 2010, 13:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
The point is that the most frequently used arguments to legitimize piracy are no demo/try before buy, delete if don't like, no drm, wouldn't have bought the game anyway.

Now, in terms of no demo, it's shown that even when games do have demos, they still get pirated heavily.

In terms of drm hate, it's been proven that piracy still happens on a massive scale when there's no DRM, and that DRM increases sales as long as it isn't immediately cracked. Furthermore, most DRM isn't anywhere near as obtrusive as a small-yet-vocal minority claim it is.
Wolfire showed that even when they offered their bundle for as little as $0.01 (yes, $0.01) many people still pirated it.

Lastly, in terms of not going to buy it, that's just no excuse, if you weren't going to buy it, don't download it.

Yes, there will always be piracy, even if a game has a demo, zero DRM & was very cheap. That's not an excuse to not provide a demo and include annoying DRM that only acts to piss off the good people that have actually paid for the game.

Remove the DRM, give people the chance to try before they buy with demos and drastically reduce the price of games, and include features that the pirated copies don't allow such as online leaderboards/modes, achievements etc and you'll find that more people will be willing to part with their cash. Obviously many people will still pirate it but at least not as many and the games companies will be getting more money. Selling more for cheaper is still more profitable than selling a few at higher price and having more people turn to piracy.
Sloth 9th June 2010, 23:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
Sorry I believe it started the other way round first... and probably one of the major reasons why MS are as big as they are now.
According to the often linked and cited Wolfire blog post, people will pirate things which cost as little as one cent!

There may be a good number of pirates who are trying to stick it to the man by pirating games they deemed overpriced (hey wait, why not be a decent person and just not buy it and employ the powers of capitalism until prices drop to meet your demand?) but there are obviously some out there who just don't care at all about paying for games, for whatever reason. Why pay anything, even a reasonable price, when you can have it for free?
Glix 10th June 2010, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
According to the often linked and cited Wolfire blog post, people will pirate things which cost as little as one cent!

There may be a good number of pirates who are trying to stick it to the man by pirating games they deemed overpriced (hey wait, why not be a decent person and just not buy it and employ the powers of capitalism until prices drop to meet your demand?) but there are obviously some out there who just don't care at all about paying for games, for whatever reason. Why pay anything, even a reasonable price, when you can have it for free?

I may have had my hands on the ol' Windows disc back in the day. But believe or not I did pay for the indie pack that included world of goo (which is the only game I have tried from the pack) were I put in what I thought was a reasonable $10, with $7 doing to the devs.

See you can try and stereotype people, but your just assuming and you know what happens when you do that ;).
flapjackboy 11th June 2010, 13:31 Quote
Just thought I'd leave this here...

GU7axyrHWDQ
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums